The effect of hunger on the acoustic individuality in begging calls of a colonially breeding weaver bird

BMC Ecology

Volumn 11, Issue , 2011, Pages

  Reers, Hendrik ^a   Jacot, Alain ^a,b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR ORNITHOLOGY   (Germany)

^b SWISS ORNITHOLOGICAL INSTITUTE   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AVES; PLOCEUS JACKSONI;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; PHYSIOLOGY; SPARROW; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; VOCALIZATION;

ANIMALS; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; SPARROWS; SPECIES SPECIFICITY; VOCALIZATION, ANIMAL;

EID: 79251591017     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726785     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6785-11-3     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Tibbetts EA, Dale J. Individual recognition: it is good to be different. Trends Ecol Evol 2007, 22(10):529-537. 10.1016/j.tree.2007.09.001, 17904686.
2. Iacovides S, Evans RM. Begging as graded signals of need for food in young ring-billed gulls. Anim Behav 1998, 56(1):79-85. 10.1006/anbe.1998.0742, 9710464.
3. Leonard ML, Horn AG. Acoustic signalling of hunger and thermal state by nestling tree swallows. Anim Behav 2001, 61(1):87-93. 10.1006/anbe.2000.1575, 11170699.
4. Beecher MD. Signaling systems for individual recognition - an information-theory approach. Anim Behav 1989, 38:248-261.
5. Insley SJ, Paredes R, Jones IL. Sex differences in razorbill Alca torda parent-offspring vocal recognition. J Exp Biol 2003, 206(1):25-31. 10.1242/jeb.00072, 12456694.
6. Tschanz B. Zur Brutbiologie der Trottellumme (Uria aalge aalge Pont.). Behaviour 1959, 1-100.
7. Lefevre K, Montgomerie R, Gaston AJ. Parent-offspring recognition in thick-billed murres (Aves: Alcidae). Anim Behav 1998, 55(4):925-938. 10.1006/anbe.1997.0626, 9632479.
8. Charrier I, Mathevon N, Jouventin P, Aubin T. Acoustic communication in a black-headed gull colony: How do chicks identify their parents?. Ethology 2001, 107(11):961-974.
9. Aubin T, Jouventin P. How to vocally identify kin in a crowd: The penguin model. Adv Study Behav 2002, 31:243-278.
10. Jacot A, Reers H, Forstmeier W. Individual recognition and potential recognition errors in parent-offspring communication. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2010, 64:1515-1525.
11. Draganoiu TI, Nagle L, Musseau R, Kreutzer M. In a songbird, the black redstart, parents use acoustic cues to discriminate between their different fledglings. Anim Behav 2006, 71:1039-1046.
12. Jouventin P, Aubin T, Lengagne T. Finding a parent in a king penguin colony: the acoustic system of individual recognition. Anim Behav 1999, 57(6):1175-1183. 10.1006/anbe.1999.1086, 10373249.
13. Vignal C, Mathevon N, Mottin S. Mate recognition by female zebra finch: Analysis of individuality in male call and first investigations on female decoding process. Behav Process 2008, 77(2):191-198.
14. Candolin U. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biological Reviews 2003, 78(04):575-595. 10.1017/S1464793103006158, 14700392.
15. Wright J, Leonard ML. The Evolution of Begging: Competition, Cooperation and Communication. 2002, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
16. Godfray HCJ. Signalling of need by offspring to their parents. Nature 1991, 352(6333):328-330.
17. Redondo T, Castro F. Signaling of nutritional need by magpie nestlings. Ethology 1992, 92(3):193-204.
18. Kilner R, Drummond H. Parent-offspring conflict in avian families. Journal of Ornithology 2007, 148(0):241-246.
19. Kilner R, Johnstone RA. Begging the question: Are offspring solicitation behaviours signals of needs. Trends Ecol Evol 1997, 12(1):11-15. 10.1016/S0169-5347(96)10061-6, 21237955.
20. Kilner RM, Noble DG, Davies NB. Signals of need in parent-offspring communication and their exploitation by the common cuckoo. Nature 1999, 397(6721):667-672.
21. Marques PA, Vicente L, Márquez R. Nestling begging call structure and bout variation honestly signal need but not condition in Spanish sparrows. Zool Stud 2009, 48(5):587-595.
22. Anderson MG, Brunton DH, Hauber ME. Reliable information content and ontogenetic shift in begging calls of grey warbler nestlings. Ethology 2010, 116(4):357-365.
23. Gladbach A, Büßer C, Mundry R, Quillfeldt P. Acoustic parameters of begging calls indicate chick body condition in Wilson's storm-petrels Oceanites oceanicus. J Ethol 2009, 27:267-274.
24. Sacchi R, Saino N, Galeotti P. Features of begging calls reveal general condition and need of food of barn swallow Hirundo rustica nestlings. Behav Ecol 2002, 13(2):268-273.
25. Fry CH, Keith S. Birds of Africa. 2004, London: Christopher Helm.
26. Wilkinson R. Calls of nestling chaffinches Fringilla coelebs: The use of two sound sources. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 1980, 54:346-356.
27. Beecher MD, Beecher IM, Lumpkin S. Parent-offspring recognition in bank swallows Riparia riparia .1. Natural-History. Anim Behav 1981, 29(FEB):86-94.
28. Beecher MD, Beecher IM, Hahn S. Parent-offspring recognition in bank swallows Riparia riparia .2. Development and acoustic basis. Anim Behav 1981, 29(FEB):95-101.
29. Rowe C. Receiver psychology and the evolution of multicomponent signals. Anim Behav 1999, 58(5):921-931. 10.1006/anbe.1999.1242, 10564594.
30. Møller AP, Pomiankowski A. Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1993, 32(3):167-176.
31. McGregor PK, Krebs JR. Sound degradation as a distance cue in great tit (Parus major) song. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1984, 16:49-56.
32. McGregor PK, Krebs JR, Ratcliffe LM. The reaction of great tits (Parus major) to playback of degraded and undegraded songs: The effect of familiarity with the stimulus song type. The Auk 1983, 100(4):898-906.
33. McGregor PK, Falls JB. The response of western meadowlarks (Sturnella neglecta) to the playback of undegraded and degraded songs. Can J Zool 1984, 62(11):2125-2128.
34. McGregor P, Horn AG, Todd MA. Are familiar sounds ranged more accurately?. Perceptual and motor skills 1985, 61(3 Pt 2):1082.
35. Burk MH, Humes LE, Amos NE, Strauser LE. Effect of training on word-recognition performance in noise for young normal-hearing and older hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear 2006, 27(3):263. 10.1097/01.aud.0000215980.21158.a2, 16672795.
36. Nygaard LC, Pisoni DB. Talker-specific learning in speech perception. Percept Psychophys 1998, 60(3):355. 10.3758/BF03206860, 9599989.
37. Nygaard LC, Sommers MS, Pisoni DB. Speech perception as a talker-contingent process. Psychological Science 1994, 5(1):42-46.
38. Griffiths R, Double MC, Orr K, Dawson RJG. A DNA test to sex most birds. Mol Ecol 1998, 7(8):1071-1075. 10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00389.x, 9711866.
39. Kacelnik A, Cotton PA, Stirling L, Wright J. Food allocation among nestling starlings: Sibling competition and the scope of parental choice. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences 1995, 259(1356):259.
40. Kilner R. When do canary parents respond to nestling signals of need?. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 1995, 260:343-348.
41. Tchernichovski O, Mitra PP. Sound analysis pro user manual. 2004,
42. R Development Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2007, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, R Development Core Team.
43. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. 2000, New York: Springer.
44. Robisson P, Aubin T, Bremond JC. Individuality in the voice of the emperor penguin Aptenodytes forsteri: Adapation to a noisy environment. Ethology 1993, 94:279-279.
45. Venables WN, Ripley BD. Modern applied statistics with S. 2002, New York: Springer.
46. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. Biometry: The principles and practice of statistics in biological research. 1995, New York: WH Freeman.
47. Fox J. An R and S-Plus companion to applied regression. 2002, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.