Paradoxical calls: The opposite signaling role of sound frequency across bird species

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 237-241

  Cardoso, Gonalo C ^a  

^a CENTRO DE INVESTIGAÇÃO EM BIODIVERSIDADE E RECURSOS GENÉTICOS   (Portugal)

Author keywords

animal communication; body size; motivational structural rules; receiver psychology; sound frequency; vocal performance

Indexed keywords

BIOACOUSTICS; BIRD; BODY SIZE; DIVERGENCE; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; PSYCHOLOGY; SIGNALING; VOCALIZATION;

ANIMALIA; AVES;

EID: 84857128200     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arr200     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Ames PL. 1971. The morphology of the syrinx in passerine birds. Bull Peabody Mus Nat Hist. 95:151-262.
2. Anderson R, Nowicki S, Searcy WA. 2007. Soft song in song sparrows: response of males and females to an enigmatic signal. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 61:1267-1274.
3. Araya-Ajoy Y, Chaves-Campos J, Kalko E K V, De Woody JA. 2009. Highpitched notes during vocal contests signal genetic diversity in ocellated antbirds. PLoS One. 4:e8137.
4. Beani L, Dessì-Fulgheri F. 1995. Mate choice in the grey partridge, Perdix perdix: role of physical and behavioural male traits. Anim Behav. 49:347-356.
5. Berglund A, Bisazza A, Pilastro A. 1996. Armaments and ornaments: an evolutionary explanation of traits of dual utility. Biol J Linn Soc. 58:385-399.
6. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL. 1998. Principles of animal communication. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates.
7. Byers BE. 2007. Extrapair paternity in chestnut-sided warblers is correlated with consistent vocal performance. Behav Ecol. 18:130-136.
8. Byers J, Hebets E, Podos J. 2010. Female mate choice based upon male motor performance. Anim Behav. 79:771-778.
9. Cardoso GC. 2010. Loudness of birdsong is related to the body size, syntax and phonology of passerine species. J Evol Biol. 23:212-219.
10. Cardoso GC, Mamede AT, Atwell JW, Mota PG, Ketterson ED, Price TD. 2008. Song frequency does not reflect differences in body size among males in two oscine species. Ethology. 114:1084-1093.
11. Cardoso GC, Mota PG, Depraz V. 2007. Female and male serins (Serinus serinus) respond differently to derived song traits. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 61:1425-1436.
12. Catchpole CK, Slater P J B. 2008. Bird song: biological themes and variations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13. Christie PJ, Mennill DJ, Ratcliffe LM. 2004. Pitch shifts and song structure indicate male quality in the dawn chorus of black-capped chickadees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 55:341-348.
14. Dabelsteen T. 1984. An analysis of the full song of the blackbird Turdus merula with respect to message coding and adaptations for acoustic communication. Ornis Scand. 15:227-239.
15. Dabelsteen T, Pedersen SB. 1988. Do female blackbirds, Turdus merula, decode song in the same way as males? Anim Behav. 36:1858-1860.
16. Dabelsteen T, Pedersen SB. 1993. Song-based species discrimination and behaviour assessment by female blackbirds, Turdus merula. Anim Behav. 45:759-771.
17. Darwin C. 1872. The expression of emotions in man and the animals. London: John Murray.
18. Dunning JB. 2008. CRC handbook of avian body masses. Boca Raton (FL): Taylor & Francis.
19. Enquist M, Arak A. 1993. Selection of exaggerated male traits by female aesthetic senses. Nature. 361:446-448.
20. Fischer J, Kitchen DM, Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL. 2004. Baboon loud calls advertise male quality: acoustic features and their relation to rank, age, and exhaustion. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 56:140-148.
21. Fletcher NH. 2004. A simple frequency-scaling rule for animal communication. J Acoust Soc Am. 115:2334-2338.
22. Galeotti P, Sacchi R, Rosa DP, Fasola M. 2005. Female preference for fast-rate, high-pitched calls in Hermann's tortoises Testudo hermanni. Behav Ecol. 16:301-308.
23. Galeotti P, Saino N, Sacchi R, Møller AP. 1997. Song correlates with social context, testosterone and body condition in male barn swallows. Anim Behav. 53:687-700.
24. Geberzahn N, Goymann W, Muck C, ten Cate C. 2009. Females alter their song when challenged in a sex-role reversed bird species. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 64:193-204.
25. Guilford T, Dawkins MS. 1993. Receiver psychology and the design of animal signals. Trends Neurosci. 16:430-436.
26. Güttinger HR. 1985. Consequences of domestication on the song structures in the canary. Behaviour. 94:254-278.
27. Halfwerk W, Bot S, Buikx J, van der Velde M, Komdeur J, ten Cate C, Slabbekoorn H. 2011. Low-frequency songs lose their potency in noisy urban conditions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 108:14549-14554.
28. Hu Y, Cardoso GC. 2009. Are bird species that vocalize at higher frequencies preadapted to inhabit noisy urban areas? Behav Ecol. 20:1268-1273.
29. Kirkpatrick M. 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution. 82:1-12.
30. Klenova AV, Zubakin VA, Zubakina EV. 2011. Vocal and optical indicators of individual quality in a social seabird, the crested auklet (Aethia cristatella). Ethology. 117:356-365.
31. Lambrechts MM. 1996. Organisation of birdsong and constraints on performance. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH, editors. Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press. p. 305-319.
32. Lande R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 78:3721-3725.
33. Leonard ML, Horn AG. 1995. Crowing in relation to status in roosters. Anim Behav. 49:1283-1290.
34. Madsen V, Dabelsteen T, Osorio D, Osorno JL. 2007. Morphology and ornamentation in male magnificent frigatebirds: variation with age class and mating status. Am Nat. 169:S93-S111.
35. Mager JN III, Walcott C, Piper WH. 2007. Male common loons, Gavia immer, communicate body mass and condition through dominant frequencies of territorial yodels. Anim Behav. 73:683-690.
36. Marks EJ, Rodrigo AG, Bruton DH. 2010. Ecstatic display calls of the Adélie penguin honestly predict male condition and breeding success. Behaviour. 147:165-184.
37. Miyasaki M, Waas JR. 2003. Acoustic properties of male advertisement and their impact on female responsiveness in little penguins Eudyptula minor. J Avian Biol. 34:229-232.
38. Morton ES. 1977. On the occurrence and significance of motivationstructural rules in some bird and mammal sounds. Am Nat. 111:855-869.
39. Morton ES. 2000. An evolutionary view of the origins and functions of avian vocal communication. Jpn J Ornithol. 49:69-78.
40. Nelson BS. 2000. Avian dependence on sound pressure level as an auditory distance cue. Anim Behav. 59:57-67.
41. Nelson DA. 1984. Communication of intentions in agonistic contexts by the pigeon guillemot, Cepphus columba. Behaviour. 88:145-189.
42. O'Loghlen AL, Rothstein SI. 2002. East and west coast female brownheaded cowbirds agree: both categories of male song are sexy. Anim Behav. 64:609-617.
43. Pasteau M, Nagle L, Kreutzer M. 2007. Influences of learning and predispositions on frequency level preferences on female canaries (Serinus canaria). Behaviour. 144:1103-1118.
44. Patel R, Mulder RA, Cardoso GC. 2010. What makes vocalization frequency an unreliable signal of body size in birds? A study on black swans. Ethology. 116:554-563.
45. Podos J, Huber SK, Taft B. 2004. Bird song: the interface of evolution and mechanism. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 35:55-87.
46. Price JJ, Earnshaw SM, Webster MS. 2006. Montezuma oropendolas modify a component of song constrained by body size during vocal contests. Anim Behav. 71:799-807.
47. Prum RO. 2010. The Lande-Kirkpatrick mechanism is the null model of evolution by intersexual selection: implications for meaning, honesty, and design in intersexual signals. Evolution. 64:3085-3100.
48. Ratcliffe L, Otter K. 1996. Sex differences in song recognition. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH, editors. Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press. p. 339-355.
49. Ripmeester AP, de Vries AM, Slabbekoorn H. 2007. Do blackbirds signal motivation to fight with their song? Ethology. 113:1021-1028.
50. Seddon N. 2002. The structure, context and possible function of solos, duets and choruses in the subdesert mesite (Monias benschi). Behaviour. 139:645-676.
51. Seddon N, Amos W, Mulder RA, Tobias JA. 2004. Male heterozygosity predicts territory size, song structure and reproductive success in a cooperatively breeding bird. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 271:1823-1829.
52. Slabbekoorn H, Smith TB. 2002. Bird song, ecology, and speciation. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 357:493-503.
53. Wallschläger D. 1980. Correlation of song frequency and body weight in passerine birds. Experientia. 36:412.
54. Wong B B M, Candolin U. 2005. How is female mate choice affected by male competition? Biol Rev. 80:559-571.