Urban noise and male density affect songs in the great tit Parus major

Ethology Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 111-119

  Hamao, S ^a   Watanabe, M ^b   Mori, Y ^b  

^a DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY   (Japan)

^b TEIKYO UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE   (Japan)

Author keywords

great tit; male density; minimum frequency; Parus major; song structure; sound detectability; urban noise

Indexed keywords

BIOACOUSTICS; MALE; NOISE; POPULATION DENSITY; SONG; SONGBIRD; SPERM COMPETITION; URBAN AREA; URBAN ECOSYSTEM;

HONSHU; JAPAN; KANTO; TOKYO [KANTO];

PARUS MAJOR;

EID: 79956365274     PISSN: 03949370     EISSN: 18287131     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03949370.2011.554881     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. BENJAMINI Y. & HOCHBERG Y. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, London (Series B) 57: 289-300.
2. BRUMM H. 2004. The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird. Journal of Animal Ecology 73: 434-440. (Pubitemid 38583739)
3. BRUMM H. & SLATER P.J.B. 2006. Ambient noise,motor fatigue, and serial redundancy in chaffinch song. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 60: 475-481.
4. BRUMM H. & TODT D. 2002. Noise-dependent song amplitude regulation in a territorial songbird. Animal Behaviour 63: 891-897. (Pubitemid 34749790)
5. BRUMM H. & TODT D. 2004. Male-male vocal interactions and the adjustment of song amplitude in a territorial bird. Animal Behaviour 67: 281-286. (Pubitemid 38272185)
6. CATCHPOLE C.K. & SLATER P.J.B. 1995. Bird song: biological themes and variations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. DOUTRELANT C., LEITAO A., OTTER K. & LAMBRECHTS M.M. 2000. Effect of blue tit song syntax on great tit territorial responsiveness - an experimental test of the character shift hypothesis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 48: 119-124. (Pubitemid 30597602)
8. DRAGANOIU T.I., NAGLE L. & KREUTZER M. 2002. Directional female preference for an exaggerated male trait in canary (Serinus canaria) song. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (B) 269: 2525-2531. (Pubitemid 36071832)
9. DUBOIS A.L., NOWICKI S. & SEARCY W.A. 2009. Swamp sparrows modulate vocal performance in an aggressive context. Biology Letters 5: 163-165.
10. FERNÁNDEZ-JURICIC E., POSTON R., DE COLLIBUS K.,MORGAN T., BASTAIN B.,MARTIN C., JONES K. & TREMINIO R. 2005. Microhabitat selection and singing behavior patterns of male house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus) in urban parks in a heavily urbanized landscape in the Western US. Urban Habitats 3: 49-69.
11. FOOTE A.D., OSBORNE R.W. & HOELZEL A.R. 2004. Whale-call response to masking boat noise. Nature 428: 910. (Pubitemid 38560299)
12. GARCIA L.V. 2004. Escaping the Bonferroni iron claw in ecological studies. Oikos 105: 657-663. (Pubitemid 38826088)
13. GORETSKAIA M.I. 2004. Song structure and singing behaviour of willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus acredula in populations of low and high density. Bioacoustics 14: 183-195. (Pubitemid 40280761)
14. HALFWERK W. & SLABBEKOORN H. 2009. A behavioural mechanism explaining noise-dependent frequency use in urban birdsong. Animal Behaviour 78: 1301-1307.
15. HU Y. & CARDOSO G.C. 2010. Which birds adjust the frequency of vocalizations in urban noise? Animal Behaviour 79: 863-867.
16. LAMBRECHTS M. & DHONDT A.A. 1986. Male quality, reproduction, and survival in the great tit (Parus major). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 19: 57-63.
17. LENGAGNE T., AUBIN T., LAUGA J. & JOUVENTIN P. 1999. How do king penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) apply themathematical theory of information to communicate in windy conditions? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (B) 266: 1623-1628. (Pubitemid 29417766)
18. MOCKFORD E.J. & MARSHALL R.C. 2009. Effects of urban noise on song and response behaviour in great tits. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (B) 276: 2979-2985.
19. MOMOSE H. 2000. Neighbour-stranger recognition based on song in the Japanese bush warbler (Cettia diphone). Memoirs of the Faculty of Science, Kyoto University (Series Biology) 17: 25-32.
20. MORTON E.S. 1975. Ecological sources of selection on avian sounds. The American Naturalist 109: 17-34.
21. NEMETH E. & BRUMM H. 2009. Blackbirds sing higher-pitched songs in cities: adaptation to habitat acoustics or side-effect of urbanization? Animal Behaviour 78: 637-641.
22. ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF JAPAN. 2000. Check-list of Japanese birds (6th rev. ed.). Obihiro: Ornithological Society of Japan.
23. PACIFICI K., SIMONS T.R. & POLLOCK K.H. 2008. Effects of vegetation and background noise on the detection process in auditory avian point-count surveys. The Auk 125: 600-607.
24. PARK S.-R. & PARK D. 2000. Song type for intrasexual interaction in the Bush Warbler. The Auk 117: 228-232. (Pubitemid 30059474)
25. PATRICELLI G.L. & BLICKLEY J.L. 2006. Avian communication in urban noise: causes and consequences of vocal adjustment. The Auk 123: 639-649. (Pubitemid 44106810)
26. POTASH L.M. 1972. Noise-induced changes in calls of the Japanese quail. Psychonomic Science 26: 252-254.
27. R DEVELOPMENT CORE TEAM. 2007. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing (Available at: www.R-project.org).
28. REIJNEN R. & FOPPEN R. 1994. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. I. Evidence of reduced habitat quality for willow warblers (Phylloscopus trochilus) breeding close to a highway source. Journal of Applied Ecology 31: 85-94.
29. RICE W.R. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43: 223-225.
30. RIPMEESTER E.A.P., KOK J.S., VAN RIJSSEL J.C. & SLABBEKOORN H. 2010. Habitat-related birdsong divergence: a multi-level study on the influence of territory density and ambient noise in European blackbirds. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 64: 409-418.
31. SLABBEKOORN H. & DEN BOER-VISSER A. 2006. Cities change the songs of birds. Current Biology 16: 2326-2331. (Pubitemid 44821838)
32. SLABBEKOORN H. & PEET M. 2003. Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise. Nature 424: 267. (Pubitemid 36899357)
33. STOREY J.D. & TIBSHIRANI R. 2003. Statistical significance for genomewide studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 100: 9440-9445. (Pubitemid 37033947)
34. WARREN P.S., KATTI M., ERMANN M. & BRAZEL A. 2006. Urban bioacoustics: it's not just noise. Animal Behaviour 71: 491-502. (Pubitemid 43327342)
35. WILEY R.H. & RICHARDS D.G. 1982. Adaptations for acoustic communication in birds: sound transmission and signal detection, pp. 131-181. In: Kroodsma D.E. et al., Eds. Acoustic communication in birds, Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press.
36. WOOD W.E. & YEZERINAC S.M. 2006. Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) song varies with urban noise. The Auk 123: 650-659. (Pubitemid 44106811)