The communicative significance of song frequency and song length in territorial chiffchaffs

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1338-1347

  Linhart, Pavel ^a,b   Slabbekoorn, Hans ^c   Fuchs, Roman ^b  

^a INSTITUTE OF ANIMAL SCIENCE   (Czech Republic)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BOHEMIA   (Czech Republic)

^c LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

acoustic communication; fighting ability; motivational signaling; Phylloscopus collybita; playback experiment

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; BODY SIZE; FIGHTING; MATE ATTRACTION; SIGNALING; SONG; SONGBIRD; TERRITORIALITY;

EID: 84867771990     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/ars127     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Adhikerana AS, Slater PJB. 1993. Singing interactions in coal tits, Parus ater: an experimental approach. Anim Behav. 46:1205-1211.
2. Arak A. 1983. Sexual selection by male-male competition in natterjack toad choruses. Nature. 306:261-262.
3. Badyaev AV, Leaf ES. 1997. Habitat associations of song characteristics in Phylloscopus and Hippolais warblers. Auk. 114:40-46.
4. Balsby TJS, Dabelsteen T. 2001. The meaning of song repertoire size and song length to male whitethroats Sylvia communis. Behav Process. 56:75-84.
5. Bowman RI. 1979. Adaptive morphology of song dialects in Darwin's finches. J Ornithol. 120:353-389.
6. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL. 1998. Principles of animal communication. 1st ed. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates.
7. Burnham KP, Anderson D. 2002. Model selection and multi-model inference. 2nd ed. New York: Springer.
8. Burnham KP, Anderson DR, Huyvaert KP. 2011. AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 65:23-35.
9. Cardoso GC. 2012. Paradoxical calls: the opposite signaling role of sound frequency across bird species. Behav Ecol. 23:237-241.
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. 2007. Song diversification and complexity in canaries and seedeaters (Serinus spp.). Biol J Linn Soc. 92:183-194.
12. 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.
13. Colegrave N, Ruxton GD. 2003. Confidence intervals are a more useful complement to nonsignificant tests than are power calculations. Behav Ecol. 14:446-447.
14. Collins SA. 2004. Vocal fighting and flirting: the functions of birdsong. In: Marler PR, Slabbekoorn H, editors. Nature's music: the science of birdsong. San Diego (CA); Elsevier Academic Press. pp. 39-79.
15. Cramp, S, Brooks DJ. 1992. Handbook of the birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa: the birds of the Western Palearctic. Volume VI, Warblers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. Davies NB, Halliday TR. 1978. Deep croaks and fighting assessment in toads Bufo bufo. Nature. 274:683-685.
17. Davies NB, Krebs JR. 1993. An introduction to behavioural ecology. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
18. Dugatkin LA. 2008. Principles of animal behavior. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
19. Forstmeier W, Burger C, Temnow K, Derégnaucourt S. 2009. The genetic basis of zebra finch vocalizations. Evolution. 63:2114-2130.
20. 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.
21. Garamszegi LZ, Calhim S, Dochtermann N, Hegyi G, Hurd PL, Jorgensen C, Kutsukake N, Lajeunesse MJ, Pollard KA, Schielzeth H, et al. 2009. Changing philosophies and tools for statistical inferences in behavioral ecology. Behav Ecol. 20:1363-1375.
22. Gaunt AS. 1983. An hypothesis concerning the relationship of syringeal structure to vocal abilities. Auk. 100:853-862.
23. Geberzahn N, Goymann W, ten Cate C. 2010. Threat signaling in female song-evidence from playbacks in a sex-role reversed bird species. Behav Ecol. 21:1147-1155.
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. Hammerstein P. 1981. The role of asymmetries in animal contests. Anim Behav. 29:193-205.
26. Handford P, Lougheed SC. 1991. Variation in duration and frequency characters in the song of the rufous-collared sparrow, Zonotrichia capensis, with respect to habitat, trill dialects, and bodysize. Condor. 93:644-658.
27. Hardouin LA, Reby D, Bavoux C, Burneleau G, Bretagnolle V. 2007. Communication of male quality in owl hoots. Am Nat. 169:552-562.
28. Ihaka R, Gentleman R. 1996. R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Graph Stat. 5:299-314.
29. Illes AE, Hall ML, Vehrencamp SL. 2006. Vocal performance influences male receiver response in the banded wren. Proc R Soc B. 273:1907-1912.
30. Jenni L, Winkler R. 1994. Moult and Ageing of European Passerines. 1st ed. London: Academic Press Limited.
31. Jennions MD, Møller AP. 2003. A survey of the statistical power of research in behavioral ecology and animal behavior. Behav Ecol. 14:438-445.
32. Jonart LM, Hill GE, Badyaev AV. 2007. Fighting ability and motivation: determinants of dominance and contest strategies in females of a passerine bird. Anim Behav. 74:1675-1681.
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. Lambrechts M, Dhondt AA. 1986. Male quality, reproduction, and survival in the Great tit (Parus major). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 19:57-63.
35. Lampe HM, Espmark YO. 1994. Song structure reflects male quality in pied flycatchers, Ficedula hypoleuca. Anim Behav. 47:869-876.
36. Langemann U, Tavares JP, Peake TM, McGregor PK. 2000. Response of great tits to escalating patterns of playback. Behaviour. 137:451-471.
37. Lattin C, Ritchison G. 2009. Intra-and intersexual functions of singing by male blue grosbeaks: the role of within-song variation. Wilson J Ornithol. 121:714-721.
38. Leitao A, Riebel K. 2003. Are good ornaments bad armaments? Male chaffinch perception of songs with varying flourish length. Anim Behav. 66:161-167.
39. Logue DM, Droessler EE, Roscoe DW, Vokey JR, Rendall D, Kunimoto RM. 2007. Sexually antithetical song structure in a duet singing wren. Behaviour. 144:331-350.
40. Mager JN, 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.
41. Mahler B, Gil D. 2009. The evolution of song in the Phylloscopus leaf warblers (Aves: Sylviidae): a tale of sexual selection, habitat adaptation, and morphological constraints. Adv Study Behav. 40:35-66.
42. Martín-Vivaldi M, Palomino JJ, Soler M. 1998. Song structure in the Hoopoe (Upupa epops)-Strophe length reflects male condition. J Ornithol. 139:287-296.
43. Martín-Vivaldi M, Palomino JJ, Soler M. 2004. Strophe length in spontaneous songs predicts male response to playback in the hoopoe Upupa epops. Ethology. 110:351-362.
44. McGregor PK. 1988. Song length and "male quality" in the chiffchaff. Anim Behav. 36:606-608.
45. McGregor PK. 1992. Quantifying responses to playback: one, many, or composite multivariate measures? In: McGregor PK, editor. Playback and studies of animal communication. New York: Plenum Press. pp. 79-96.
46. McGregor PK, Horn AG. 1992. Strophe length and response to playback in great tits. Anim Behav. 43:667-676.
47. Miyazaki 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.
48. Nakagawa S. 2004. A farewell to Bonferroni: the problems of low statistical power and publication bias. Behav Ecol. 15:1044-1045.
49. Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC. 2007. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev. 82:591-605.
50. Oberweger K, Goller F. 2001. The metabolic cost of birdsong production. J Exp Biol. 204:3379-3388.
51. Owings DH, Morton ES. 1998. Animal vocal communication: a new approach. 1st ed. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.
52. Parker GA. 1974. Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behaviour. J Theor Biol. 47:223-243.
53. Patel R, Mulder RA, Cardoso GC. 2010. What makes vocalisation frequency an unreliable signal of body size in birds? A study on black swans. Ethology. 116:554-563.
54. 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.
55. Reby D, McComb K, Cargnelutti B, Darwin C, Fitch WT, Clutton-Brock T. 2005. Red deer stags use formants as assessment cues during intrasexual agonistic interactions. Proc R Soc B. 272:941-947.
56. Richner H. 1989. Phenotypic correlates of dominance in carrion crows and their effects on access to food. Anim Behav. 38:606-612.
57. Ríos-Chelén AA, Garcia CM. 2007. Responses of a sub-oscine bird during playback: effects of different song variants and breeding period. Behav Process. 74:319-325.
58. Ripmeester EAP, de Vries AM, Slabbekoorn H. 2007. Do blackbirds signal motivation to fight with their song? Ethology. 113:1021-1028.
59. Rodrigues M. 1996a. Parental care and polygyny in the chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita. Behaviour. 133:1077-1094.
60. Rodrigues M. 1996b. Song activity in the chiffchaff: territorial defence or mate guarding? Anim Behav. 51:709-716.
61. Ryan MJ, Brenowitz EA. 1985. The role of body size, phylogeny, and ambient noise in the evolution of bird song. Am Nat. 126:87-100.
62. 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.
63. Schubert G. 1971. Experimentelle Untersuchungen über die Artkennzeichnenden Parameter im Gesang des Zilpzalps, Phylloscopus c. collybita (Vieillot). Behaviour. 38:289-314.
64. Searcy WA. 1979. Morphological correlates of dominance in captive male red-winged blackbirds. Condor 81:417-420.
65. Searcy WA, Beecher MD. 2009. Song as an aggressive signal in songbirds. Anim Behav. 78:1281-1292.
66. Searcy WA, Nowicki S. 2000. Male-male competition and female choice in the evolution of vocal signaling. In: Espmark Y, Amundsen T, Rosenqvist G, editors. Animal signals: signalling and signal design in animal communication. 1st ed. Trondheim; Tapir Academic Press. pp. 277-300.
67. Seddon N. 2005. Ecological adaptation and species recognition drives vocal evolution in neotropical suboscine birds. Evolution. 59:200-215.
68. Shy E. 1983. The relation of geographica variation in song to habitat characteristics and body size in north-American tanagers (Thraupinae, Piranga). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 12:71-76.
69. Smith DR, Hardy ICW, Gammell MP. 2011. Power rangers: no improvement in the statistical power of analyses published in Animal Behaviour. Anim Behav. 81:347-352.
70. Smith JM, Parker GA. 1976. The logic of asymmetric contests. Anim Behav. 24:159-175.
71. ten Cate C, Slabbekoorn H, Ballintijn MR. 2002. Birdsong and male-male competition: causes and consequences of vocal variability in the collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto). Adv Study Behav. 31:31-75.
72. Turoková L, Osiejuk TS, Pavel V, Glapan J, Petrusková T. 2010. Song divergence of two Bluethroat subspecies (Luscinia s. svecica and L. s. cyanecula). Ornis Fennica. 87:168-179.
73. Vehrencamp SL. 2000. Handicap, index, and conventional signal elements of bird song. In: Espmark Y, Amundsen T, Rosenqvist G, editors. Animal signals: signalling and signal design in animal communication. 1st ed. Trondheim; Tapir Academic Press. pp. 277-300.
74. Verzijden MN, Ripmeester EAP, Ohms VR, Snelderwaard P, Slabbekoorn H. 2010. Immediate spectral flexibility in singing chiffchaffs during experimental exposure to highway noise. J Exp Biol. 213:2575-2581.
75. Wällschlager D. 1980. Correlation of song frequency and body weight in passerine birds. Experientia. 36:412-412.
76. Wesolowski T. 1987. Polygyny in three temperate forest passerines (with a critical reevaluation of hypotheses for the evolution of polygyny). Acta Ornithol. 23:273-302.