Neighbour-stranger discrimination by Yellow-bellied Tit Parus venustulus: Evidence for the "dear-enemy" effect

Journal of Ornithology

Volumn 152, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 431-438

  Wei, Min ^a   Lloyd, Huw ^b   Zhang, Yanyun ^a  

^a BEIJING NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b World Pheasant Association   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

China; Dear enemy effect; Neighbour stranger discrimination; Parus; Vocalizations

Indexed keywords

AGGREGATION BEHAVIOR; COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR; DEAR ENEMY PHENOMENON; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; PASSERINE; TERRITORIALITY; VOCALIZATION;

CHINA;

AVES; PARUS; PASSERI;

EID: 79952706137     PISSN: 21937192     EISSN: 21937206     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10336-010-0609-6     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Bailey SA, Haines-Young RH, Watkins C (2002) Species presence in fragmented landscapes: modelling of species requirements at the national level. Biol Conserv 108: 307-316.
2. Beecher MD, Brenowitz EA (2005) Functional aspects of song learning in songbirds. Trends Ecol Evol 20: 143-149.
3. Beecher MD, Campbell SE, Burt JM, Hill CE, Nordby JC (2000) Song-type matching between neighbouring song sparrows. Anim Behav 59: 21-27.
4. Botero C, Riveros J, Vehrencamp SL (2007) Relative threat and recognition ability in the responses of tropical mockingbirds to song playback. Anim Behav 73: 661-669.
5. Botero C, Rossman R, 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.
6. Briefer E, Aubin T, Lehongre K, Rybak F (2008) How to identify dear enemies: the group signature in the complex song of the skylark Alauda arvensis. J Exp Biol 211: 317-326.
7. Cheney D, Seyfarth R (1982) Recognition of individuals within and between groups of Free-Ranging Vervet Monkeys. Am Zool 22: 519-530.
8. Davis M (1987) Acoustically mediated neighbor recognition in the North American bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21: 185-190.
9. Dooling R, Lohr B, Dent ML (2000) Hearing in birds and reptiles. In: Dooling R, Popper A, Fay R (eds) Comparative hearing: birds and reptiles. Springer, New York, pp 308-359.
10. Dunn R, Messier S (1999) Evidence for the opposite of the dear enemy phenomenon in termites. J Insect Behav 12: 461-464.
11. Falls JB, Krebs JR, McGregor PK (1982) Song matching in the great tit (Parus major): the effect of similarity and familiarity. Anim Behav 30: 997-1009.
12. Fisher J (1954) Evolution and bird sociality. In: Huxley J, Hardy A, Ford B (eds) Evolution as a process. Allen & Unwin, London, pp 71-83.
13. Fox S, Baird T (1992) The dear enemy phenomenon in the collard lizard, Crotaphytus collaris, with a cautionary note on experimental methodology. Anim Behav 44: 780-782.
14. Green AK, Ward D, Griffiths ME (2009) Directed dispersal of mistletoe (Plicosepalus acaciae) by Yellow-vented Bulbuls (Pycnonotus xanthopygos). J Ornithol 150: 167-173.
15. Hames RS, Rosenberg KV, Lowe JD, Dhondt AA (2001) Site reoccupation in fragmented landscapes: testing predictions of metapopulation theory. J Anim Ecol 70: 182-190.
16. Krebs JR (1982) Territorial defence in the great tit (Parus major): do residents always win? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11: 185-194.
17. Kroodsma D (1986) Design of song playback experiments. Auk 103: 640-642.
18. Lambrechts M, Dhondt A (1995) Individual voice discrimination in birds. Curr Ornithol 12: 115-139.
19. Lampe HM, Espmark YO (1994) Song structure reflects male quality in pied flycatchers, Ficedula hypoleuca. Anim Behav 47: 869-876.
20. Lohr B (2008) Pitch-related cues in the songs of sympatric mountain and black-capped chickadees. Behav Process 77: 156-165.
21. Mackin W (2005) Neighbour-stranger discrimination in Audubon's shearwater (Puffinus llherminieri) explained by a real enemy effect. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59: 326-332.
22. MacKinnon JR, Phillipps K, He F (2000) A field guide to the birds of China. 860. Oxford University Press, USA.
23. Müller C, Manser M (2007) "Nasty neighbours" rather than "dear enemies" in a social carnivore. Proc R Soc B 274: 959-965.
24. Naguib M (2005) Singing interactions in songbirds: implications for social relations and territorial settlement. In: McGregor PK (ed) Animal communication networks. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, pp 300-319.
25. Norusis M (1993) SPSS for Windows: base system user's guide, release 6. 0. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
26. Nowicki S (1994) The role of pitch cues in song recognition by Carolina chickadees (Parus carolinensis). Behaviour 130: 1-15.
27. Parker T III (1991) On the use of tape recorders in avifaunal surveys. Auk 108: 443-444.
28. Schroeder D, Wiley R (1983) Communication with shared song themes in tufted titmice. Auk 100: 414-424.
29. Stoddard PK (1996) Vocal recognition in territorial passerines. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH (eds) Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds. Cornell Univ Press, Ithaca, pp 356-374.
30. Temeles E (1989) The effect of prey consumption on territorial defense by harriers: differential responses to neighbours versus floaters. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24: 239-243.
31. Temeles E (1990) Northern harriers on feeding territories respond more aggressively to neighbours than to floaters. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26: 57-63.
32. Temeles E (1994) The role of neighbours in territorial systems: when are they "dear enemies"? Anim Behav 47: 339-350.
33. Trivers R (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q Rev Biol 46: 35-57.
34. Weary D (1991) How great tits use song-note and whole-song features to categorize their songs. Auk 108: 187-190.
35. Whiting M (1999) When to be neighbourly: differential agonistic responses in the lizard Platysaurus broadleyi. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46: 210-214.
36. Xiao H, Zhou ZX, Wang N, Zhang YY (2008) Analyzing song characteristics of Yellow-bellied Tits (Parus venustulus). Zool Res 29: 277-284.
37. Ydenberg R, Giraldeau L, Falls JB (1988) Neighbours, strangers, and the asymmetric war of attrition. Anim Behav 36: 343-347.