Preferences and predispositions of female canaries (Serinus canaria) for loud intensity of male sexy phrases

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Volumn 96, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 808-814

  Pasteau, Magali ^a   Nagle, Laurent ^a   Kreutzer, Michel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS OUEST NANTERRE LA DÉFENSE   (France)

Author keywords

Intensity level; Learning; Male song

Indexed keywords

FEMALE BEHAVIOR; LEARNING; MALE BEHAVIOR; MATE CHOICE; PASSERINE; SEXUAL SELECTION; SONG;

SERINUS CANARIA;

EID: 63849201567     PISSN: 00244066     EISSN: 10958312     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2008.01136.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Brackenbury J. 1979. Power capabilities of the avian sound-producing system. Journal of Experimental Biology 78 : 163 166.
2. Brumm H, Slater PJB. 2006. Animals can vary signal amplitude with receiver distance: evidence from zebra finch song. Animal Behaviour 72 : 699 705.
3. Brumm H, Todt D. 2004. Male-male interactions and adjustment of song amplitude in a territorial bird. Animal Behaviour 67 : 419 426.
4. Castellano S, Rosso A, Giacoma C. 2004. Active choice, passive attraction and the cognition machinery of acoustic preferences. Animal Behaviour 68 : 323 329.
5. Christie P, Mennill D, Ratcliffe L. 2004. Chickadee song structure is individually distinctive over long broadcast distances. Behaviour 141 : 101 124.
6. Cooper W, Vitt J, Vitt L. 1993. Female mate choice of large male broad-headed shinks. Animal Behaviour 45 : 683 693.
7. Cynx J, Lewis R, Tavel B, Tse H. 1998. Amplitude regulation of vocalizations in noise by a songbird, Taeniopygia guttata. Animal Behaviour 56 : 107 113.
8. Drãgãnoiu T, Nagle L, Kreutzer M. 2002. Directional female preference for an exaggerated male trait in canary (Serinus canaria) song. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 269 : 2525 2531.
9. Forstmeier W, Kempenaers B, Meyer A, Leisler B. 2002. A novel song parameter correlates with extra-pair paternity and reflects male longevity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 269 : 1479 1485.
10. Gardner T, Naef F, Nottebohm F. 2005. Freedom and rules: the acquisition and reprogramming of a bird's learned song. Science 308 : 1046 1049.
11. Gerhardt N, Huber F. 2002. Acoustic communication in insects an Anurans. Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press.
12. Hamilton WD, Zuk M. 1982. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218 : 384 387.
13. King AP, West MJ. 1977. Species identification in the North American cowbird: appropriate responses to abnormal song. Science 195 : 1002 1004.
14. King AP, West MJ, White DJ. 2003. Female cowbird song perception: evidence for plasticity of preference. Ethology 109 : 865 877.
15. Kreutzer M, Vallet E. 1991. Differences in the response of captive female canaries to variation in conspecific and heterospecific songs. Behaviour 117 : 106 116.
16. Kroodsma DE. 1979. Vocal dueling among male marsh wrens: evidence for ritualized expressions of dominance/sudordinance. Auk 96 : 506 515.
17. Kroodsma DE. 1989. Suggested experimental designs for song playbacks. Animal Behaviour 37 : 600 609.
18. Nagle L, Kreutzer M. 1997a. Adult female domesticated canaries can modify their song preferences. Canadian Journal of Zoology 75 : 1346 1350.
19. Nagle L, Kreutzer M. 1997b. Song tutoring influences female song preferences in domesticated canaries. Behaviour 134 : 89 104.
20. Pasteau M, Nagle L, Kreutzer M. 2004. Preferences and predispositions for intra-syllabic diversity in female canaries (Serinus canaria). Behaviour 141 : 571 583.
21. Pasteau M, Nagle L, Kreutzer M. 2007. Influences of learning and predispositions on frequency level preferences on female canaries (Serinus canaria). Behaviour 144 : 1103 1118.
22. Ryan MJ. 1990. Sexual selection, sensory systems, and sensory exploitation. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology 7 : 157 195.
23. Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A. 1992. Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. American Naturalist 139 : s4 s35.
24. Searcy M. 1996. Sound-pressure levels and song preferences in female red-winged blackbirds (Aegelaius phoeniceus). Ethology 102 : 187 196.
25. Searcy WA. 1992. Measuring responses of female birds to male song. In : McGregor PK, ed. Playback and studies of animal communication. New York, NY : Plenum Press, 175 189.
26. Searcy WA, Marler P. 1981. A test for responsiveness to song structure and programming in female sparrows. Science 213 : 926 928.
27. Stranddorf M, Svenné S, Ottesen N, Matessi G, Dabelsteen T, Brumm H. 2006. Do rock sparrow males adjust the acoustic properties of their song to changing potential receivers during the breeding season? Eleventh International Behavioral Ecology Congress, Tours, France.
28. Suthers RA, Goller F. 1997. Motor correlates of vocal diversity in songbirds. Current Ornithology 14 : 235 288.
29. Vallet E, Kreutzer M. 1995. Female canaries are sexually responsive to special song phrases. Animal Behaviour 49 : 1603 1610.
30. Vallet E, Beme I, Kreutzer M. 1998. Two-note syllables in canary songs elicit high levels of sexual display. Animal Behaviour 55 : 291 297.
31. Weatherhead PJ, Boag P. 1995. Pair and extra-pair mating success relative to male quality in red-winged blackbirds. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 37 : 81 91.
32. West MJ, King AP, White DJ. 2003. The case for developmental ecology. Animal Behaviour 66 : 617 622.
33. Zahavi A. 1975. Mate selection: a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theorical Biology 53 : 205 214.
34. Zahavi A. 1977. The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principal). Journal of Theorical Biology 67 : 603 605.