Song amplitude affects territorial aggression of male receivers in chaffinches

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 310-316

  Brumm, H ^a   Ritschard, M ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR ORNITHOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

bird song; communication; Fringilla coelebs; sexual selection; simulated intruder; song amplitude; song playback; vocal performance

Indexed keywords

AGGRESSION; COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR; INTRASPECIFIC INTERACTION; MALE BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL SELECTION; SONG; SONGBIRD; VOCALIZATION;

AVES; FRINGILLA; FRINGILLA COELEBS;

EID: 79953861646     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arq205     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Arak A. 1983. Vocal interactions, call matching and territoriality in a Sri Lankan treefrog, Philautus leucorhinus (Rhacophoridae). Anim Behav. 31:292-302.
2. Bauer H-G, Bezzel E, Fiedler W. 2005. Das Kompendium der Vögel Mitteleuropas, Volume 2: Passeriformes-Sperlingsvögel. 2nd ed. Wiebelsheim (Germany): AULA-Verlag.
3. Blumenrath SH, Dabelsteen T. 2004. Degradation of great tit (Parus major) song before and after foliation: implications for vocal communication in a deciduous forest. Behaviour. 141:935-958. (Pubitemid 39568320)
4. Boncoraglio G, Martinelli R, Saino N. 2008. Sex-related asymmetry in competitive ability of sexually monomorphic barn swallow nestlings. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 62:729-738. (Pubitemid 351199149)
5. Brackenbury JH. 1979. Power capabilities of the avian sound-producing system. J Exp Biol. 78:163-166.
6. Brenowitz EA. 1989. Neighbor call amplitude influences aggressive behaviour and intermale spacing in choruses of the Pacific tree frog (Hyla regilla). Ethology. 83:69-79.
7. Brumm H. 2004. The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird. J Anim Ecol. 73:434-440. (Pubitemid 38583739)
8. Brumm H. 2009. Song amplitude and body size in birds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 63:1157-1165.
9. Brumm H, Lachlan RF, Riebel K, Slater PJB. 2009. On the function of song type repertoires: testing the 'anti-exhaustion hypothesis' in chaffinches. Anim Behav. 77:37-42.
10. Brumm H, Naguib M. 2009. Environmental acoustics and the evolution of bird song. Adv Study Behav. 40:1-33.
11. Brumm H, Schmidt R, Schrader L. 2009. Noise-dependent vocal plasticity in domestic fowl. Anim Behav. 78:741-746.
12. Brumm H, Slabbekoorn H. 2005. Acoustic communication in noise. Adv Study Behav. 35:151-209. (Pubitemid 43574773)
13. Brumm H, Slater PJB. 2006a. Ambient noise, motor fatigue and serial redundancy in chaffinch song. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 60:475-481.
14. Brumm H, Slater PJB. 2006b. Animals can vary signal amplitude with receiver distance: evidence from zebra finch song. Anim Behav. 71:699-705. (Pubitemid 44311119)
15. Brumm H, Todt D. 2004. Male-male vocal interactions and the adjustment of song amplitude in a territorial bird. Anim Behav. 67:281-286. (Pubitemid 38272185)
16. Brzoska J. 1982. Vocal response of male European water frogs (Rana esculenta complex) to mating and territorial calls. Behav Process. 7:37-47.
17. Burmeister S, Konieczka J, Wilczynski W. 1999. Agonistic encounters in a cricket frog (Acris crepitans) chorus: Behavioral outcomes vary with local competition and within the breeding season. Ethology. 105:335-347. (Pubitemid 29194413)
18. Catchpole CK, Slater PJB. 2008. Bird song. Biological themes and variations. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Ten Cate C. 2004. Birdsong and evolution. In: Marler P, Slabbekoorn H, editors. Nature's music: the science of birdsong. San Diego (CA): Academic Press. p. 300-321.
20. Cynx J, Gell C. 2004. Social mediation of vocal amplitude in a songbird, Taeniopygia guttata. Anim Behav. 67:451-455. (Pubitemid 38319274)
21. Dabelsteen T. 1981. The sound pressure level in the dawn song of the blackbird Turdus merula and a method for adjusting the level in experimental song to the level in natural song. Z Tierpsychol. 56:137-149.
22. Dabelsteen T, McGregor P, Lampe HM, Langmore N, Holland J. 1998. Quiet song in song birds: an overlooked phenomenon. Bioacous-tics. 9:89-105. (Pubitemid 128700380)
23. Davies NB. 1980. The economics of territorial behavior in birds. Ardea. 68:63-74.
24. Dooling R. 2004. Audition: can birds hear everything they sing? In: Marler P, Slabbekoorn H, editors. Nature's music: the science of birdsong. San Diego (CA): Academic Press. p. 206-225.
25. Franz M, Goller F. 2003. Respiratory patterns and oxygen consumption in singing zebra finches. J Exp Biol. 206:967-978. (Pubitemid 36386395)
26. Gerhardt H, Huber F. 2002. Acoustic communication in insects and anurans. Chicago (IL): The University of Chicago Press.
27. Gil D, Gahr M. 2002. The honesty of bird song: multiple constraints for multiple traits. Trends Ecol Evol. 17:133-141. (Pubitemid 34162538)
28. Heuwinkel H. 1978. The song of the reed warbler (Acrocephalus scirpa-ceus) with special reference to the sound pressure level. Journal für Ornithologie. 119:450-461.
29. Hinde RA. 1958. Alternative motor patterns in chaffinch song. Anim Behav. 6:211-218.
30. Hultsch H, Todt D. 1982. Temporal performance roles during vocal interactions in nightingales. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 11:253-260.
31. Huntingford F, Turner A. 1987. Animal conflict. New York: Chapman & Hall.
32. Illes AE, Hall ML, Vehrencamp SL. 2006. Vocal performance influences male receiver response in the banded wren. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 273:1907-1912. (Pubitemid 46939928)
33. de Kort SR, Eldermire ERB, Cramer ERA, Vehrencamp SL. 2009. The deterrent effect of bird song in territory defense. Behav Ecol. 20:200-206.
34. 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 Biol Sci. 276:2315-2321.
35. Krams I. 2001. Perch selection by singing chaffinches: a better view of surroundings and the risk of predation. Behav Ecol. 12:295-300. (Pubitemid 32897103)
36. Kroodsma DE. 1979. Vocal dueling among male marsh wrens: evidence for ritualized expressions of dominance/subordinance. Auk. 96:506-515.
37. Lampe HM, Balsby TJS, Espmark YO, Dabelsteen T. 2010. Does twitter song amplitude signal male arousal in redwings (Turdus iliacus)? Behaviour. 147:353-365.
38. Leitao A, Cate Ct, Riebel K. 2006. Within-song complexity in a songbird is meaningful to both male and female receivers. Anim Behav. 71:1289-1296. (Pubitemid 43867476)
39. Leitao A, Riebel K. 2003. Are good ornaments bad armaments? Male chaffinch perception of songs with varying flourish length. Anim Behav. 66:161-167. (Pubitemid 36893191)
40. Leonard ML, Horn AG. 2001. Dynamics of calling by tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) nestmates. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 50:430-435. (Pubitemid 32972726)
41. Marshall VT, Humfeld SC, Bee MA. 2003. Plasticity of aggressive signalling and its evolution in male spring peepers, Pseudacris crucifer. Anim Behav. 65:1223-1234. (Pubitemid 36914336)
42. Naguib M. 1999. Effects of song overlapping and alternating on noc-turnally singing nightingales. Anim Behav. 58:1061-1067.
43. Naguib M, Klump GM, Hillmann E, Griessman B, Teige T. 2000. Assessment of auditory distance in a territorial songbird: accurate feat or rule of thumb? Anim Behav. 59:715-721.
44. Oberweger K, Goller F. 2001. The metabolic cost of birdsong production. J Exp Biol. 204:3379-3385.
45. R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
46. Riebel K, Slater PJB. 1999a. Song type switching in the chaffinch, Fringilla coelebs: timing or counting? Anim Behav. 57: 655-661. (Pubitemid 29245144)
47. Riebel K, Slater PJB. 1999b. Testing female chaffinch song preferences by operant conditioning. Anim Behav. 56:1443-1453. (Pubitemid 29049736)
48. Riebel K, Slater PJB. 2000. Testing the flexibility of song type bout duration in the chaffinch, Fringilla coelebs. Anim Behav. 59:1135-1142.
49. Ritschard M, Laucht S, Dale J, Brumm H. 2011. Enhanced testosterone levels affect singing motivation but not song structure and amplitude in Bengalese finches. Physiol Behav. 102:30-35.
50. Ritschard M, Riebel K, Brumm H. 2010. Female zebra finches prefer high-amplitude song. Anim Behav. 79:877-883.
51. Rose GJ, Brenowitz EA. 1991. Aggressive thresholds of male Pacific treefrogs for advertisement calls vary with amplitude of neighbors calls. Ethology. 89:244-252.
52. Ruxton GD. 2006. The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to Student's t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Behav Ecol. 17:688-690. (Pubitemid 43992440)
53. 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. (Pubitemid 351847421)
54. Searcy WA. 1996. Sound pressure levels and song preferences in female red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus)(Aves, Emberizi-dae). Ethology. 102:187-196.
55. Searcy WA, Nowicki S. 2005. The evolution of animal communication: reliability and deception in signaling systems. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
56. Slater PJB. 1981. Chaffinch song repertoires: observations, experiments and a discussion of their significance. Z Tierpsychol. 56:1-24.
57. Slater PJB. 1983. Sequences of song in chaffinches. Anim Behav. 31:272-281.
58. Slater PJB, Catchpole CK. 1990. Responses of the two chaffinch species on Tennerife (Fringilla teydea and F. coelebs tintillon) to playback of the song of their own and the other species. Behaviour. 115:143-152.
59. Sprau P, Roth T, Schmidt R, Amrhein V, Naguib M. 2010. Communication across territory boundaries: distance-dependent responses in nightingales. Behav Ecol. 21:1011-1017.
60. Todt D. 1981. On functions of vocal matching: effect of counter-replies on song post choice and singing. Z Tierpsychol. 57:73-93.
61. Ward S, Lampe HM, Slater PJB. 2004. Singing is not energetically demanding for pied flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca. Behav Ecol. 15:477-484. (Pubitemid 38751706)
62. Ward S, Speakman JR, Slater PJB. 2003. The energy cost of song in the canary, Serinus canaria. Anim Behav. 66:893-902. (Pubitemid 37457984)
63. Wiley RH, Richards DG. 1982. Adaptations for acoustic communication in birds: sound transmission and signal detection. In: Kroods-ma DE, Miller EH, editors. Acoustic communication in birds. New York: Academic Press. p. 131-181.