Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 221–229 | Cite as

Communication by changing signals: call switching in red-winged blackbirds

  • L. David Beletsky
  • B. J. Higgins
  • Gordon H. Orians
Article

Summary

Territorial male red-winged blackbirds use many different “alert” calls which overlap broadly in the context of their use and which are often given in continuous, repetitive fashion. Males give one call type many times before switching to another type, and call during all daily activities. In this field study we demonstrate that males tend to give the same call types as their neighbors and change types to match the changes of their neighbors. Individual males change call types in response to the appearance of a mounted hawk and also match call type changes broadcast from a loudspeaker. The various call types are not associated with particular behavioral contexts. We suggest that red-winged blackbirds operate a general acoustic alert system by calling repetitiously and changing call types when detecting environmental changes such as appearances of predators. Evidence is presented that communication is acheived primarily during switching among different call signals, and not by specific calls that refer to particular stimuli or states of alertness.

Keywords

Environmental Change Field Study Daily Activity Individual Male Change Type 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beer CG (1982) Conceptual issues in the study of communication. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH (eds) Acoustic communication in birds. Vol 2, Academic Press, New York, pp 279–310Google Scholar
  2. Busnel R-G (1968) Acoustic communication. In: Sebeok TA (ed) Animal communication. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, pp 127–153Google Scholar
  3. Catchpole CK (1983) Variation in the song of the great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceua in relation to mate attraction and territorial defence. Anim Behav 31:1217–1225Google Scholar
  4. Falls JB (1982) Individual recognition by sounds in birds. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH (eds) Acoustic comminication in birds. Vol 2, Academic Press, New York, pp 237–277Google Scholar
  5. Falls JB, Krebs JR, McGregor PK (1982) Song matching in the Great Tit (Parus major); The effect of similarity and familiarity. Anim Behav 30:997–1009Google Scholar
  6. Krebs JR (1977) The significance of song repertoires: The Beau Geste hypothesis. Anim Behav 25:475–478Google Scholar
  7. Krebs JR, Ashcroft R, Van Orsdol K (1981) Song matching in the Great Tit Parus major. Anim Behav 29:918–923Google Scholar
  8. Krebs JR, Dawkins R (1984) Animal signals: Mind-reading and manipulation. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology, 2nd ed. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, pp 380–402Google Scholar
  9. Krebs JR, Kroodsma DE (1980) Repertoires and geographical variation in bird song. In: Rosenblatt JS, Hinde RA, Beer CG, Busnel M-C (eds) Advances in the study of behavior. Vol 11, Academic Press, New York, pp 143–177Google Scholar
  10. Morton ES, Shalter MD (1977) Vocal response to predators in pair-bonded Carolina Wrens. Condor 79:222–227Google Scholar
  11. Moynihan MH (1970) Control, suppression, decay, disappearnance and replacement of displays. J Theor Biol 29:85–112Google Scholar
  12. Orians GH (1980) Some adaptations of marsh-nesting blackbirds. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  13. Orians GH, Christman GM (1968) A comparative study of the behavior of red-winged, tricolored, and yellow-headed blackbirds. Univ Calif Publ Zool 84:1–85Google Scholar
  14. Peek FW (1971) Seasonal change in the breeding behavior of the male red-winged blackbird. Wilson Bull 83:383–395Google Scholar
  15. Schleidt WM (1973) Tonic communication: Continual effects of discrete signs in animal communication systems. J Theor Biol 42:359–386Google Scholar
  16. Searcy WA, Searcy MH, Marler P (1982) The response of swamp sparrows to acoustically distinct song types. Behaviour 80:70–83Google Scholar
  17. Smith WJ (1965) Message, meaning, and context in ethology. Am Nat 99:405–409Google Scholar
  18. Smith WJ (1968) Message-meaning analysis. In: Sebeok TA (ed) Animal communication. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, pp 44–60Google Scholar
  19. Smith WJ (1977) The behavior of communicating. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  20. Whitney CL, Miller J (1983) Song matching in the Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina): A function of song dissimilarity. Anim Behav 31:457–461Google Scholar
  21. Wilson EO (1975) Sociobiology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. David Beletsky
    • 1
  • B. J. Higgins
    • 1
  • Gordon H. Orians
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Zoology, NJ-15University of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations