Communication across territory boundaries: Distance-dependent responses in nightingales

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 21, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 1011-1017

  Sprau, Philipp ^a,b   Roth, Tobias ^b,c   Schmidt, Rouven ^d   Amrhein, Valentin ^b,c   Naguib, Marc ^a  

^a NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE OF ECOLOGY NIOO KNAW   (Netherlands)

^b Research Station Petite Camargue Alsacienne   (France)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

^d MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR ORNITHOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

bird song; distance effects; interactive playback; song overlapping; trill; vocal interactions

Indexed keywords

AGONISTIC BEHAVIOR; AUDITORY CUE; BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; SIGNALING; SONGBIRD; TERRITORIALITY; VOCALIZATION;

AVES; LUSCINIA MEGARHYNCHOS; PASSERI;

EID: 77955876052     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arq097     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Amrhein V, Lerch S. 2010. Differential effects of moving versus stationary territorial intruders on territory defence in a songbird. J Anim Ecol. 79:82-87.
2. Amrhein V, Korner P, Naguib M. 2002. Nocturnal and diurnal singing activity in the nightingale: correlations with mating status and breeding cycle. Anim Behav. 64:939-944.
3. Amrhein V, Kunc HP, Naguib M. 2004. Seasonal patterns of singing activity vary with time of day in the Nightingale (Luscinia megarhyn-chos). The Auk. 121:110-117.
4. Amrhein V, Kunc HP, Schmidt R, Naguib M. 2007. Temporal patterns of territory settlement and detectability in mated and unmated Nightingales Luscinia megarhynchos. Ibis. 149:237-244.
5. Amy M, Sprau P, de Goede P, Naguib M. Forthcoming 2010. Effects of personality on territory defence in communication networks: a playback experiment with radio-tagged great tits. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci.
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.
7. Bee MA. 2008. Finding a mate at a cocktail party: spatial release from masking improves acoustic mate recognition in grey treefrogs. Anim Behav. 75:1781-1791.
8. Brindley EL. 1991. Responses of European robins to playback of song\neighbor recognition and overlapping. Anim Behav. 41:503-512.
9. Brumm H. 2004. The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird. J Anim Ecol. 73:434-440.
10. Brumm H, Naguib M. 2009. Environmental acoustics and the evolution of birdsong. Adv Study Behav. 40:1-33.
11. Catchpole CK, Slater PJB. 2008. Bird song: biological themes and variation. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge Universtity Press.
12. Cramer ERA, Price JJ. 2007. Red-winged blackbirds Agelaius phoeniceus respond differently to song types with different performance levels. J Avian Biol. 38:122-127.
13. Crawley MJ. 2007. The R book. Chichester (UK): Wiley.
14. Dabelsteen T, McGregor PK, Shepherd M, Whittaker X, Pedersen SB. 1996. Is the signal value of overlapping different from that of alternating during matched singing in Great tits? J Avian Biol. 27: 189-194.
15. 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.
16. DuBois AL, Nowicki S, Searcy WA. 2009. Swamp sparrows modulate performance in an aggressive context. Biol Lett. 5:163-165.
17. Fitzsimmons LP, Foote JR, Ratcliffe LM, Mennill DJ. 2008. Eavesdropping and communication networks revealed through playback and an acoustic location system. Behav Ecol. 19:824-829.
18. Forrest TG. 1994. From sender to receiver\propagation and environmental effects on acoustic signals. Am Zool. 34:644-654.
19. Gerhardt HC. 1994. Selective responsiveness to long-range acoustic signals in insects and anurans. Am Zool. 34:706-714.
20. Godard R. 1991. Long-term-memory of individual neighbors in a migratory songbird. Nature. 350:228-229.
21. Greenfield MD. 1994. Cooperation and conflict in the evolution of signal interactions. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 25:97-126.
22. Hall ML, Illes A, Vehrencamp SL. 2006. Overlapping signals in banded wrens: long-term effects of prior experience on males and females. Behav Ecol. 17:260-269.
23. Illes AE, Hall ML, Vehrencamp SL. 2006. Vocal performance influences male receiver response in the banded wren. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 273:1907-1912.
24. Janik VM. 2000. Source levels and the estimated active space of bot-tlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) whistles in the Moray Firth, Scotland. J Comp Physiol A. 186:673-680.
25. Krebs JR. 1977. The significance of song repertoires: the Beau Geste hypothesis. Anim Behav. 25:475-478.
26. Kunc HP, Amrhein V, Naguib M. 2006. Vocal interactions in nightingales, Luscinia megarhynchos: more aggressive males have higher pairing success. Anim Behav. 72:25-30.
27. Kunc HP, Amrhein V, Naguib M. 2007. Vocal interactions in common nightingales (Luscinia megarhynchos): males take it easy after pairing. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 61:557-563.
28. McGregor PK. 1991. The singer and the song: on the receiving end of bird song. Biol Rev. 66:57-81.
29. Mennill DJ, Ratcliffe LM. 2004. Overlapping and matching in the song contests of black-capped chickadees. Anim Behav. 67:441-450.
30. Naguib M. 1999. Effects of song overlapping and alternating on noc-turnally singing nightingales. Anim Behav. 58:1061-1067.
31. Naguib M. 2003. Reverberation of rapid and slow trills: implications for signal adaptations to long range communication. J Acoust Soc Am. 133:1749-1756.
32. Naguib M, Amrhein V, Kunc HP. 2004. Effects of territorial intrusions on eavesdropping neighbors: communication networks in nightingales. Behav Ecol. 15:1011-1015.
33. Naguib M, Kipper S. 2006. Effects of different levels of song overlapping on singing behaviour in male territorial nightingales (Luscinia megarhynchos). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 59:419-426.
34. Naguib M, Mennill DJ. Forthcoming. 2010. The signal value of bird song: behavioural evidence suggests song overlapping is a signal. Anim Behav.
35. Naguib M, Schmidt R, Sprau P, Roth T, Flörcke C, Amrhein V. 2008. The ecology of vocal signaling: male spacing and communication dis-tanceofdifferentsong traitsinnightingales.Behav Ecol.19:1034-1040.
36. Naguib M, Wiley RH. 2001. Estimating the distance to a source of sound: mechanisms and adaptations for long-range communication. Anim Behav. 62:825-837.
37. Nowicki S, Searcy WA, Hughes M. 1998. The territory defense function of song in song sparrows: a test with the speaker occupation design. Behaviour. 135:615-628.
38. Parris KM. 2002. More bang for your buck: the effect of caller position, habitat and chorus noise on the efficiency of calling in the spring peeper. Ecol Model. 156:213-224.
39. Podos J. 1997. A performance constraint on the evolution of trilled vocalizations in a songbird family (Passeriformes: Emberizidae). Evolution. 51:537-551.
40. Poesel A, Dabelsteen T. 2005. Territorial responses of male blue tits to simulated dynamic intrusions: effects of song overlap and intruder location. Anim Behav. 70:1419-1427.
41. R Development Core Team. 2009. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from: http://www.R-project. org.
42. Römer H. 1993. Environmental and biological constraints for the evolution of long-range signalling and hearing in acoustic insects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 340:179-185.
43. Ryan MJ. 2001. Anuran communication. Washington (DC): Smitho-nian Institution Press.
44. Schmidt R, Amrhein V, Kunc HP, Naguib M. 2007. The day after: effects of vocal interactions on territory defence in nightingales. J Anim Ecol. 76:168-173.
45. Schmidt R, Kunc HP, Amrhein V, Naguib M. 2006. Responses to interactive playback predict future pairing success in nightingales. Anim Behav. 72:1355-1362.
46. 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.
47. Schwartz JJ, Buchanan BW, Gerhardt HC. 2002. Acoustic interactions among male gray treefrogs, Hyla versicolor, in a chorus setting. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 53:9-19.
48. Searcy WA, Beecher MD. 2009. Song as an aggressive signal in songbirds. Anim Behav. 78:1281-1292.
49. Searcy WA, Nowicki S. 2005. The evolution of animal communication: reliability and deception in signalling systems. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
50. Simpson BS. 1985. Effects of location in territory and distance from neighbours on the use of song repertoires in Carolina wrens. Anim Behav. 33:793-804.
51. Sprau P, Schmidt R, Roth T, Amrhein V, Naguib M. 2010. Effects of rapid broadband trills on responses to song overlapping in nightingales. Ethology. 116:300-309.
52. Todt D, Naguib M. 2000. Vocal interactions in birds: the use of song as a model in communication. Adv Study Behav. 29: 247-296.
53. Wich SA, Nunn CL. 2002. Do male "long-distance calls" function in primate defense? A comparative study of long distance calls in primates. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 52:474-484.
54. Wiley RH, Richards DG. 1978. Physical constraints on acoustic communication in atmosphere: implications for the evolution of animal vocalizations. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 3:69-94.