Bird song: The interplay between urban noise and sexual selection;Canto de aves: Interacão entre a poluição sonora urbana e seleção sexual

Oecologia Brasiliensis

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 153-164

  Ríos Chelén, Alejandro Ariel ^a  

^a INSTITUTO DE ECOLOGÍA   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Anthropogenic; Bird song; Noise; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA; AVES; PASSERI;

EID: 73549110050     PISSN: 19806442     EISSN: 19819366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4257/oeco.2009.1301.12     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. ADHIKERANA, A.S. & SLATER, P.J.B. 1993. Singing interactions in coal tits, Parus ater: an experimental approach. Animal Behaviour, 46: 1205-1211.
2. BALSBY, T.J.S. & DABELSTEEN, T. 2001. The meaning of song repertoire size and song length to male whitethroats Sylvia communis. Behavioural Processes, 56: 75-84.
3. BRUMM, H. 2004. The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird. Journal of Animal Ecology, 73: 434-440.
4. BRUMM, H. 2006. Signalling through acoustic windows: nightingales avoid interspecific competition by short-term adjustment of song timing. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 192: 1279-1285.
5. BRUMM, H. & SLABBEKOORN, H. 2005. Acoustic communication in noise. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 35: 151-209.
6. BRUMM, H. & SLATER, P.J.B. 2006. Ambient noise, motor fatigue, and serial redundancy in chaffinch song. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 60: 475-481.
7. BRUMM, H. & TODT, D. 2002. Noise-dependent song amplitude regulation in a territorial songbird. Animal Behaviour, 63: 891-897.
8. BRUMM, H.; VOSS, K.; KÖLLMER I. & TODT, D. 2004. Acoustic communication in noise: regulation of call characteristics in a New World monkey. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 207: 443-448.
9. CARDOSO, G.; GAMA, M.P. & DEPRAZ, V. 2007. Female and male serins (Serinus serinus) respond differently to derived song traits. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 61: 1425-1436.
10. CATCHPOLE, C.K. 1982. The evolution of bird sounds in relation to mating and spacing behavior Pp. 297-319 In: D.E. Kroodsma, E.H. Miller & H. Ouellet (eds.). Acoustic communication in birds (v.1). Academic Press. 371p.
11. CATCHPOLE, C.K. & SLATER P.J.B. 2008. Bird song: biological themes and variations. Cambridge University Press. 348p.
12. CODY, M.L. & BROWN, J.H. 1969. Song asynchrony in neighbouring bird species. Nature, 222: 778-780.
13. 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.
14. DABELSTEEN, T. & PEDERSEN, S.B. 1993. Song-based species discrimination and behavior assessment by female blackbirds, Turdus merula. Animal Behaviour, 45: 759-771
15. EENS, M.; PINXTEN, R. & VERHEYEN, R.F. 1991. Male song as a cue for mate choice in the European starling. Behaviour, 116: 210-238.
16. EVANS, G.W.; LERCHER, P.; MEIS, M.; ISING, H. & KOFLER, W.W. 2001. Community noise exposure and stress in children. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109: 1023-1027.
17. FENG, A.S. & NARINS, P.M. 2008. Ultrasonic communication in concave-eared torrent frogs (Amolops tormotus). Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 194: 159-167.
18. FENG, A.S.; NARINS, P.M.; XU, C.-H.; LIN, W.-Y.; YU, Z.-L.; QIU, Q.; XU, Z.-M. & SHEN, J.-X. 2006. Ultrasonic communication in frogs. Nature, 440: 333-336.
19. FERNÁNDEZ-JURICIC, E.; POSTON, R.; DE COLLIBUS, K.; MORGAN, T.; BASTAIN, B.; ARTIN C.; JONES, K. & TREMINIO, T. 2005. Microhabitat selection and singing behavior patterns of male house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus) in urban parks in a heavily urbanized landscape in the western U.S. Urban Habitats, 3: 49-69.
20. FICKEN, R.W.; FICKEN, M.S. & HAILMAN, J.P. 1974. Temporal pattern shifts to avoid acoustic interference in singing birds. Science, 183: 762-763.
21. FULLER, R.A.; WARREN, P.H. & GASTON, K.J. 2007. Daytime noise predicts nocturnal singing in urban robins. Biology Letters, 3: 368-370.
22. GALEOTTI, P.; SAINO, N.; SACCHI, R. & MØLLER, A.P. 1997. Song correlates with social context, testosterone and body condition in male barn swallows. Animal Behaviour, 53: 687-700.
23. HERBERT, L.P.Jr.; SIEGEL, G.M. & FOX, P.W. 1989. Inhibiting the Lombard effect. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85: 894-900.
24. HOCKEY, G.R.J. 1970. Effect of loud noise on attentional selectivity. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22: 28-36.
25. HOELZEL, A.R. 1986. Song characteristics and responses to playback of male and female robins Erithacus rubecula. Ibis, 128: 113-127.
26. JUNQUA, J.C. 1993. The Lombard reflex and its role on human listeners and automatic speech recognizers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93: 510-524.
27. KILNER, R. & JOHNSTON, R.A. 1997. Begging the question: are offspring solicitation behaviours signals of need? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12: 11-15.
28. KREBS, J.R.; ASHCROFT, R. & WEBBER, M. 1978. Song repertoires and territory defense on the great tit. Nature, 271: 539-542.
29. KROODSMA, D.E. 1976. Reproductive development in a female songbird: differential stimulation by quality of male songs. Science, 192: 574-575.
30. KROODSMA, D.E. 1982. Learning and the ontogeny of sound signals in birds. Pp. 1-23. In: D.E. Kroodsma, E.H. Miller & H. Ouellet (eds.). Acoustic communication in birds (v.2). Academic Press. 389p.
31. KROODSMA, D.E. 2004. The diversity and plasticity of birdsong. Pp. 108-131. In: P. Marler & H. Slabbekoorn (eds), Nature's music. The science of birdsong. Elsevier Academic Press. 513p.
32. LEITÃO, A. & RIEBEL, K. 2003. Are good ornaments bad armaments? Animal Behaviour, 66: 161-167.
33. LOHR, B.; WRIGHT, T.F. & DOOLING, R.J. 2003. Detection and discrimination of natural calls in masking noise by birds: Estimating the active space of a signal. Animal Behaviour, 65: 763-777.
34. MACE, R. 1987. The dawn chorus in the great tit Parus major is directly related to female fertility. Nature, 330: 745-746.
35. MCGREGOR, P.K. & HORN, A.G. 1992. Strophe length and response to playback in great tits. Animal Behaviour, 43: 667-676.
36. MANABE, K; SADR, E.I. & DOOLING, RJ. 1998. Control of vocal intensity in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): Differential reinforcement of vocal intensity and the Lombard effect. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103: 1190-1198.
37. MARTEN, K. & MARLER, P. 1977. Sound transmission and its significance for animal vocalization. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 2: 271-290.
38. MELAMED, S. & BRUHIS, S. 1996. The effects of chronic industrial noise exposure on urinary cortisol, fatigue, and irritability: a controlled field experiment. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 38: 252-256.
39. MENNILL, D.J.; BADYAEV, A.V.; JONART, L.M. & HILL, G.E. 2006. Male house finches with elaborate songs have higher reproductive performance. Ethology, 112: 174-180.
40. MUZET, A. 2007. Environmental noise, sleep and health. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 11: 135-142.
41. NARINS, P.M.; FENG, A.S.; LIN, W.; SCHNITZLER, H-U; DENZINGER, A.; SUTHERS, R.A. & XU, C. 2004. Old World frog and bird vocalizations contain prominent ultrasonic harmonics. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115: 910-913.
42. NOLAN, P.M. & HILL, G.E. 2004. Female choice for song characteristics in the house finch. Animal Behaviour, 67: 403-410.
43. NOWICKI, S.; SEARCY, W.A.; KRUEGER, T. & HUGHES, M. 2002. Individual variation in response to simulated territorial challenge among territory-holding song sparrows. Journal of Avian Biology, 33: 253-259.
44. 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.
45. PATEL, R. & SCHELL K.W. 2008. The Influence of Linguistic Content on the Lombard Effect. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51: 209-220.
46. PATRICELLI, G.L. & BLICKLEY, J.L. 2006. Avian communication in urban noise: cases and consequences of vocal adjustment. Auk, 123: 639-649.
47. PLANQUÉ, R. & SLABBEKOORN, H. 2008. Spectral Overlap in Songs and Temporal Avoidance in a Peruvian Bird Assemblage. Ethology, 114: 262-271.
48. POPP, J.W.; FICKEN, R.W. & REINARTZ, J.A. 1985: Shortterm temporal avoidance of interspecific acoustic interference among forest birds. Auk, 102: 744-748.
49. REIJNEN, R. & FOPPEN, R. 1994. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. I. Evidence of reduced habitat quality for willow warblers (Phylloscopus trochilus) breeding close to a highway. Journal of Applied Ecology, 31: 85-94.
50. REIJNEN, R.; FOPPEN, R.; TER BRAAK, C. & THISSEN, J. 1995. The Effects of Car Traffic on Breeding Bird Populations in Woodland. III. Reduction of Density in Relation to the Proximity of Main Roads. Journal of Applied Ecology, 32: 187-202.
51. RIEBEL, K. & SLATER, P.J.B. 1998. Testing female chaffinch song preferences by operant conditioning. Animal Behaviour, 56: 1443-1453.
52. RÍOS-CHELÉN, A.A. & MACÍAS GARCIA, C. 2007. Responses of a sub-oscine bird during playback: Effects of different song variants and breeding period. Behavioural Processes, 74: 319-325.
53. RITCHISON G. 1983. The function of singing in female blackheaded grosbeaks (Pheucticus melanocephalus): family-group maintenance, Auk, 100: 105-116.
54. SEARCY, W.A. 1984. Song repertoire size and female preferences in song sparrows. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 14: 281-286.
55. SCHOLIK, A.R. & YAN H.Y. 2001. Effects of underwater noise on auditory sensitivity of a cyprinid fish. Hearing Research, 152: 17-24.
56. SCOTT, G.A. & LANG A.E. 1992. Can the Lombard effect be used to improve low voice intensity in Parkinson's disease? International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 27: 121-127.
57. SLABBEKOORN, H. & den BOER-VISSER, A. 2006. Cities change the songs of birds. Current Biology, 16: 2326-2331.
58. SLABBEKOORN, H. & PEET, M. 2003. Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise. Nature, 424: 267-267.
59. SLABBEKOORN, H.; YEH, P. & HUNT, K. 2007. Sound transmission and song divergence: a comparison of urban and forest acoustics. Condor, 109: 67-78.
60. STANSFELD, S.A.; BERGLUND, B.; CLARK, C.; LOPEZBARRIO, I.; FISCHER, P.; ÖHRSTRÖM, E.; HAINES, M.M.; HEAD, J.; HYGGE, S.; van KAMP, I. & BERRY, B.F. 2005. Aircraft and road traffic noise and children's cognition and health: a cross-national study. The Lancet, 365: 1942-1949.
61. SWADDLE, J.P. & PAGE L.C. 2007. High levels of environmental noise erode pair preferences in zebra finches: implications for noise pollution. Animal Behaviour, 74: 363-368.
62. TEN CATE, C.; SLABBEKOORN, H. & BALLINTIJN, M.R. 2002. Birdsong and male-male competition: causes and consequences of vocal variability in the collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto). Advances in the Study of Behavior, 31: 31-75.
63. TUMER, E.C. & BRAINARD, M.S. 2007. Performance variability enables adaptive plasticity of 'crystallized' adult birdsong. Nature, 450: 1240-1244
64. WALLSCHLÄGER, D. 1980. Correlation of song frequency and body weight in passerine birds. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, 36: 412-412.
65. WASSERMAN, F.E. 1977. Intraspecific acoustical interference in the white-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis. Animal Behaviour, 25: 949-952.
66. WASSERMAN, F.E. & CIGLIANO, J.A. 1991. Song output and stimulation of the female in white-throated sparrows. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 29: 55-59.
67. WITTE, K.; FARRIS, H.E.; RYAN, M.J. & WILCZYNSKI, W. 2005. How cricket frog females deal with a noisy world: habitatrelated differences in auditory tuning. Behavioral Ecology, 16: 571-579.
68. WOOD, W.E. & YEZERINAC, S.M. 2006. Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) song varies with urban noise. Auk, 123: 650-659.