Female Lincoln's sparrows modulate their behavior in response to variation in male song quality

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 562-569

  Caro, Samuel P ^a   Sewall, Kendra B ^a   Salvante, Katrina G ^a   Sockman, Keith W ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Bird song; Mate choice; Melospiza lincolnii; Phonotaxis; Sexual selection; Song playback; Trill performance; Vocal performance

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; ESTROGENIC COMPOUND; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; MATE CHOICE; PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE; RESOURCE AVAILABILITY; SEXUAL REPRODUCTION; SEXUAL SELECTION; SONG; SONGBIRD; TAXIS;

AVES; MELOSPIZA LINCOLNII; PASSERI; PASSERIDAE;

EID: 77951103955     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arq022     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Alatalo RV, Glynn C, Lundberg A. 1990. Singing rate and female attraction in the pied flycatcher\an experiment. Anim Behav. 39:601-603.
2. Anderson RC. 2009. Operant conditioning and copulation solicitation display assays reveal a stable preference for local song by female swamp sparrows Melospiza georgiana. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 64:215-223.
3. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton (NJ): University Press.
4. Badyaev AV. 2009. Evolutionary significance of phenotypic accommodation in novel environments: an empirical test of the Baldwin effect. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 364:1125-1141.
5. Ballentine B. 2009. The ability to perform physically challenging songs predicts age and size in male swamp sparrows, Melospiza georgiana. Anim Behav. 77:973-978.
6. Ballentine B, Hyman J, Nowicki S. 2004. Vocal performance influences female response to male bird song: an experimental test. Behav Ecol. 15:163-168. (Pubitemid 38334973)
7. Baptista LF, Petrinovich L. 1986. Egg production in hand-raised white-crowned sparrows. Condor. 88:379-380.
8. Botero CA, Rossman RJ, Caro LM, Stenzler LM, Lovette IJ, de Kort SR, Vehrencamp SL. 2009. Syllable type consistency is related to age, social status and reproductive success in the tropical mockingbird. Anim Behav. 77:701-706.
9. Burton P, Gurrin L, Sly P. 1998. Extending the simple linear regression model to account for correlated responses: an introduction to generalized estimating equations and multi-level mixed modelling. Stat Med. 17:1261-1291. (Pubitemid 28274209)
10. Byers BE, Kroodsma DE. 2009. Female mate choice and songbird song repertoires. Anim Behav. 77:13-22.
11. Campbell DLM, Hauber ME. 2010. Conspecific-only experience during development reduces the strength of heterospecific song discrimination in zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata): a test of the optimal acceptance threshold hypothesis. J Ornithol doi: 10.1007/s10336-009-0466-3.
12. Campbell DLM, Weiner SA, Starks PT, Hauber ME. 2009. Context and control: behavioural ecology experiments in the laboratory. Ann Zool Fenn. 46:112-123.
13. Catchpole CK, Dittami J, Leisler B. 1984. Differential responses to male song repertoires in female songbirds implanted with estradiol. Nature. 312:563-564. (Pubitemid 15182289)
14. Catchpole CK, Slater PJB. 2008. Bird song: biological themes and variations. 2nd ed. Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press.
15. Christensen R, Kleindorfer S, Robertson J. 2006. Song is a reliable signal of bill morphology in Darwin's small tree finch Camarhynchus parvulus, and vocal performance predicts male pairing success. J Avian Biol. 37:617-624. (Pubitemid 44673248)
16. Cramer ERA, Price JJ. 2007. Red-winged blackbirds Ageliaus phoeniceus respond differently to song types with different performance levels. J Avian Biol. 38:122-127.
17. Dalziell AH, Cockburn A. 2008. Dawn song in superb fairy-wrens: a bird that seeks extrapair copulations during the dawn chorus. Anim Behav. 75:489-500. (Pubitemid 351174091)
18. Draganoiu TI, Nagle L, Kreutzer M. 2002. Directional female preference for an exaggerated male trait in canary (Serinus canaria) song. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 269:2525-2531. (Pubitemid 36071832)
19. DuBois AL, Nowicki S, Searcy WA. 2009. Swamp sparrows modulate vocal performance in an aggressive context. Biol Lett. 5:163-165.
20. Eens M. 1997. Understanding the complex song of the European starling: an integrated ethological approach. Adv Stud Behav. 26:355-434. (Pubitemid 127054192)
21. Forstmeier W, Hasselquist D, Bensch S, Leisler B. 2006. Does song reflect age and viability? A comparison between two populations of the great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 59:634-643.
22. Freeberg TM, Duncan SD, Kast TL, Enstrom DA. 1999. Cultural influences on female mate choice: an experimental test in cowbirds, Molothrus ater. Anim Behav. 57:421-426.
23. Freed-Brown G, White DJ. 2009. Acoustic mate copying: female cow-birds attend to other females' vocalizations to modify their song preferences. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 276:3319-3325.
24. Gentner TQ, Hulse SH. 2000. Female European starling preference and choice for variation in conspecific male song. Anim Behav. 59:443-458.
25. Gil D, Gahr M. 2002. The honesty of bird song: multiple constraints for multiple traits. Trends Ecol Evol. 17:133-141.
26. Goldschmidt L, Timm NH. 2003. A comparison of noniterative generalized least squares and iterative maximum likelihood estimators when testing hypotheses in random coefficient growth curve models. Commun Stat Simulat. 32:297-318.
27. Goldstein H, Browne W, Rasbash J. 2002. Partitioning variation in multilevel models. Underst Stat. 1:223-231.
28. Grafen A. 1990. Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J Theor Biol. 144:473-516.
29. Hauber ME, Pearson HE, Reh A, Merges A. 2002. Discrimination between host songs by brood parasitic brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater). Anim Cogn. 5:129-137.
30. Holveck M-J, Riebel K. 2007. Preferred songs predict preferred males: consistency and repeatability of zebra finch females across three test contexts. Anim Behav. 74:297-309.
31. Illes AE, Hall ML, Vehrencamp SL. 2006. Vocal performance influences male receiver response in the banded wren. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 273:1907-1912.
32. Jones AG, Ratterman NL. 2009. Mate choice and sexual selection: what have we learned since Darwin? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 106:10001-10008.
33. King AP, West MJ. 1977. Species identification in North-American cowbird\appropriate responses to abnormal song. Science. 195: 1002-1004.
34. de Kort SR, Eldermire ERB, Cramer ERA, Vehrencamp SL. 2009. The deterrent effect of bird song in territory defense. Behav Ecol. 20:200-206.
35. de Kort SR, Eldermire ERB, Valderrama S, Botero CA, Vehrencamp SL. 2009. Trill consistency is an age-related assessment signal in banded wrens. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 276:2315-2321.
36. Kroodsma DE. 1976. Reproductive development in a female songbird: differential stimulation by quality of male song. Science. 192: 574-575.
37. Lambrechts MM. 1996. Organization of birdsong and constraints on performance. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH, editors. Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press. p. 305-320.
38. Leitner S, Marshall RC, Leisler B, Catchpole CK. 2006. Male song quality, egg size and offspring sex in captive canaries (Serinus cana-ria). Ethology. 112:554-563.
39. MacDougall-Shackleton SA, MacDougall-Shackleton EA, Hahn TP. 2001. Physiological and behavioural responses of female mountain white-crowned sparrows to natal-and foreign-dialect songs. Can J Zool. 79:325-333.
40. Maney DL, Goode CT, Lange HS, Sanford SE, Solomon BL. 2008. Estradiol modulates neural responses to song in a seasonal songbird. J Comp Neurol. 511:173-186.
41. Maney DL, MacDougall-Shackleton EA, MacDougall-Shackleton SA, Ball GF, Hahn TP. 2003. Immediate early gene response to hearing song correlates with receptive behavior and depends on dialect in a female songbird. J Comp Physiol A. 189:667-674.
42. Maney DL, Richardson RD, Wingfield JC. 1997. Central administration of chicken gonadotropin-releasing hormone-II enhances courtship behavior in a female sparrow. Horm Behav. 32:11-18.
43. Moore MC. 1983. Effect of female displays on the endocrine physiology and behaviour of male White-crowned sparrows, Zonotrichia leu-cophrys. J Zool Lond A. 199:137-148.
44. Nagle L, Kreutzer ML. 1997. Adult female domesticated canaries can modify their song preferences. Can J Zool. 75:1346-1350. (Pubitemid 27378279)
45. Naguib M, Heim C, Gil D. 2008. Early developmental conditions and male attractiveness in zebra finches. Ethology. 114:255-261.
46. Nowicki S. 1987. Vocal-tract resonances in oscine bird sound production\evidence from birdsongs in a helium atmosphere. Nature. 325:53-55.
47. Nowicki S, Searcy WA. 2005. Song and mate choice in birds: how the development of behavior helps us understand function. Auk. 122: 1-14.
48. Nowicki S, Searcy WA, Peters S. 2002. Brain development, song learning and mate choice in birds: a review and experimental test of the "nutritional stress hypothesis. J Comp Physiol A. 188:1003-1014.
49. Orton TG, Lark RM. 2007. Estimating the local mean for Bayesian maximum entropy by generalized least squares and maximum likelihood, and an application to the spatial analysis of a censored soil variable. Eur J Soil Sci. 58:60-73.
50. Podos J. 1996. Motor constraints on vocal development in a songbird. Anim Behav. 51:1061-1070.
51. Podos J. 1997. A performance constraint on the evolution of trilled vocalizations in a songbird family (Passeriformes: Emberizidae). Evolution. 51:537-551.
52. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A. 2005. Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata. College Station (TX): Stata Press.
53. Riebel K, Naguib M, Gil D. 2009. Experimental manipulation of the rearing environment influences adult female zebra finch song preferences. Anim Behav. 78:1397-1404.
54. Riede T, Suthers RA, Fletcher NH, Blevins WE. 2006. Songbirds tune their vocal tract to the fundamental frequency of their song. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 103:5543-5548.
55. Schmidt R, Kunc HP, Amrhein V, Naguib M. 2008. Aggressive responses to broadband trills are related to subsequent pairing success in nightingales. Behav Ecol. 19:635-641.
56. Searcy WA. 1992. Measuring responses of female birds to male song. In: McGregor PK, editor. Playback and studies of animal communication. New York: Plenum Press. p. 175-189.
57. Searcy WA, Andersson M. 1986. Sexual selection and the evolution of song. Ann Rev Ecol System. 17:507-533.
58. Sewall KB, Hahn TP. 2009. Social experience modifies behavioural responsiveness to a preferred vocal signal in red crossbills, Loxia curvirostra. Anim Behav. 77:123-128.
59. Sockman KW. 2007. Neural orchestration of mate-choice plasticity in songbirds. J Ornithol. 148:S225-S230.
60. Sockman KW. 2008. Ovulation order mediates a trade-off between pre-hatching and post-hatching viability in an altricial bird. PLoS ONE. 3:e1785.
61. Sockman KW. 2009. Annual variation in vocal performance and its relationship with bill morphology in Lincoln's sparrows, Melospiza lincolnii. Anim Behav. 77:663-671.
62. Sockman KW, Gentner TQ, Ball GF. 2002. Recent experience modulates forebrain gene-expression in response to mate-choice cues in European starlings. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 269:2479-2485.
63. Sockman KW, Weiss J, Webster MS, Talbott V, Schwabl H. 2008. Sex-specific effects of yolk-androgens on growth of nestling American kestrels. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 62:617-625.
64. Vallet E, Kreutzer M. 1995. Female canaries are sexually responsive to special song phrases. Anim Behav. 49:1603-1610.
65. Wasserman FE, Cigliano JA. 1991. Song output and stimulation of the female in white-throated sparrows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 29: 55-59.
66. Westneat MW, Long JH, Hoese W, Nowicki S. 1993. Kinematics of birdsong: functional correlation of cranial movements and acoustic features in sparrows. J Exp Biol. 182:147-171.
67. Whitman CS. 2003. Accelerated life test calculations using the method of maximum likelihood: an improvement over least squares. Micro-electron Reliab. 43:859-864.
68. Woolley SC, Doupe AJ. 2008. Social context\induced song variation affects female behavior and gene expression. PLoS Biol. 6: 525-537.