Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 60, Issue 2, pp 234–241 | Cite as

Bird song as a signal of aggressive intent

  • William A. SearcyEmail author
  • Rindy C. Anderson
  • Stephen Nowicki
Original Article

Abstract

A central question in animal communication research concerns the reliability of animal signals. The question is particularly relevant to aggressive communication, where there often may be advantages to signaling an exaggerated likelihood of attack. We tested whether aggressive signals are indeed reliable signals of attack in song sparrows (Melospiza melodia). We elicited aggressive signaling using a 1-min playback on a male’s territory, recorded the behavior of the male for 5 min, and then gave him the opportunity to attack a taxidermic mount of a song sparrow associated with further playback. Twenty subjects attacked the mount and 75 did not. Distance to the speaker was a significant predictor of attack for both the initial recording period and the 1 min before attack. For the initial recording period, none of the measures of singing behavior that we made was a significant predictor of attack, including song-type matching, type-switching frequency, and song rate. For the 1-min period immediately before attack, only the number of low amplitude “soft songs” was a significant predictor of attack. Although most aggressive signals contained little information on attack likelihood, as some models suggest should be the case, the unreliability of these signals was not caused by convergence of individuals on a single signaling strategy, as those models argue should occur.

Keywords

Communication Bird song Aggressive signals Reliability Melospiza melodia 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the Pennsylvania Game Commission and Pymatuning State Park for the access to study sites, and the Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology, University of Pittsburgh, for the use of laboratory facilities. Financial support was provided by grants from the National Science Foundation to W.A.S. (IBN-0315566) and to S.N. (IBN-0315377). This research complies with the laws and regulations of the U.S.A. and Pennsylvania.

References

  1. Adams ES, Mesterton-Gibbons M (1995) The cost of threat displays and the stability of deceptive communication. J Theor Biol 175:405–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson RC, Searcy WA, Nowicki S (2005) Partial song matching in an eastern population of song sparrows, Melospiza melodia. Anim Behav 69:189–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson M (1976) Social behaviour and communication in the great skua. Behaviour 58:40–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beecher MD, Campbell SE, Burt JM, Hill CE, Nordby JC (2000) Song-type matching between neighbouring song sparrows. Anim Behav 59:21–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bremond JC (1968) Recherches sur la semnatique et les elements vecteurs d’information dans les signaux acoustiques du rouge-gorge (Erithacus rebecula L.). Terre Vie 2:109–220Google Scholar
  6. Burmeister SS, Ophir AG, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W (2002) Information transfer during cricket frog contests. Anim Behav 64:715–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burt JM, Campbell SE, Beecher MD (2001) Song type matching as threat: a test using interactive playback. Anim Behav 62:1163–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Capp MS, Searcy WA (1991) Acoustical communication of aggressive intentions by territorial male bobolinks. Behav Ecol 2:319–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caryl PG (1979) Communication by agonistic displays: what can games theory contribute to ethology? Behaviour 68:136–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. D’Agincourt LG, Falls JB (1983) Variation of repertoire use in the eastern meadowlark, Sturnella magna. Can J Zool 61:1086–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dabelsteen T, McGregor PK, Lampe HM, Langmore NE, Holland J (1998) Quiet song in birds: an overlooked phenomenon. Bioacoustics 9:80–105Google Scholar
  12. Davies NB, Lundberg A (1984) Food distribution and a variable mating system in the dunnock, Prunella modularis. J Anim Ecol 53:895–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawkins R, Krebs JR (1978) Animal signals: information or manipulation? In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 282–309Google Scholar
  14. Dunham DW (1966) Agonistic behavior in captive rose-breasted grosbeaks, Pheucticus ludovicianus (L.). Behaviour 27:160–173Google Scholar
  15. Enquist M (1985) Communication during aggressive interactions with particular reference to variation in choice of behaviour. Anim Behav 33:1152–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Falls JB (1969) Functions of territorial song in the white-throated sparrow. In: Hinde RA (ed) Bird vocalizations. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp 207–232Google Scholar
  17. Falls JB, D’Agincourt LG (1982) Why do meadowlarks switch song types? Can J Zool 60:3400–3408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gottlander K (1987) Variation in the song rate of the male pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca: causes and consequences. Anim Behav 35:1037–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grafen A (1990) Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol 144:517–546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Husak JF (2004) Signal use by collared lizards, Crotaphytus collaris: the effects of familiarity and threat. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:602–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hyman J, Hughes M, Searcy WA, Nowicki S (2004) Individual variation in the strength of territory defense in male song sparrows: correlates of age, territory tenure, and neighbor aggressiveness. Behaviour 141:15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klecka WR (1975) Discriminant analysis. In: Nie NH, Hull CH, Jenkins JG, Steinbrenner K, Bent DH (eds) SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 434–467Google Scholar
  23. Kramer HG, Lemon RE (1983) Dynamics of territorial singing between neighboring song sparrows (Melospiza melodia). Behaviour 85:198–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kramer HG, Lemon RE, Morris MJ (1985) Song switching and agonistic stimulation in the song sparrow (Melospiza melodia): five tests. Anim Behav 33:135–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krebs JR, Ashcroft R, Van Orsdol K (1981) Song matching in the great tit Parus major L. Anim Behav 29:918–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maynard Smith J (1974) The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflicts. J Theor Biol 47:209–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maynard Smith J (1979) Game theory and the evolution of behaviour. Proc R Soc Lond B 205:475–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maynard Smith J, Harper D (2003) Animal signals. Oxford Univ. Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. McGregor PK (1993) Signalling in territorial systems: a context for individual identification, ranging and eavesdropping. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 340:237–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McGregor PK, Dabelsteen T (1996) Communication networks. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH (eds) Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York, pp 409–425Google Scholar
  31. Nice MM (1943) Studies in the life history of the song sparrow. II. The behavior of the song sparrow and other passerines. Trans Linn Soc NY 6:1–328Google Scholar
  32. Nowicki S, Searcy WA, Krueger T, Hughes M (2002) Individual variation in response to simulated territorial challenge among territory-holding song sparrows. J Avian Biol 33:253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oliveira RF, McGregor PK, Latruffe C (1998) Know thine enemy: fighting fish gather information from observing conspecific interactions. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1045–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Otte D (1974) Effects and functions in the evolution of signaling systems. Ann Rev Ecolog Syst 5:385–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Otter K, McGregor PK, Terry AMR, Burford FRL, Peake TM, Dabelsteen T (1999) Do female great tits (Parus major) assess males by eavesdropping? A field study using interactive song playback. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1305–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peake TM, Terry AMR, McGregor PK, Dabelsteen T (2001) Male great tits eavesdrop on simulated male-to-male vocal interactions. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1183–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peters SS, Searcy WA, Marler P (1980) Species song discrimination in choice experiments with territorial male swamp and song sparrows. Anim Behav 28:393–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Podos J, Peters S, Rudnicky T, Marler P, Nowicki S (1992) The organization of song repertoires in song sparrows: themes and variations. Ethology 90:89–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Popp JW (1987) Risk and effectiveness in the use of agonistic displays by American goldfinches. Behaviour 103:141–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Searcy WA, Nowicki S (2005) The evolution of animal communication: reliability and deception in signaling systems. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  41. Searcy WA, Podos J, Peters S, Nowicki S (1995) Discrimination of song types and variants in song sparrows. Anim Behav 49:1219–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Searcy WA, Nowicki S, Hogan C (2000) Song type variants and aggressive context. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48:358–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Simpson BS (1985) Effects of location in territory and distance from neighbours on the use of song repertoires by Carolina wrens. Anim Behav 33:793–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stoddard PK, Beecher MD, Willis MS (1988) Response of territorial male song sparrows to song types and variations. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:125–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stokes AW (1962) Agonistic behaviour among blue tits at a winter feeding station. Behaviour 19:118–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Számadó S (2000) Cheating as a mixed strategy in a simple model of aggressive communication. Anim Behav 59:221–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vehrencamp SL (2001) Is song-type matching a conventional signal of aggressive intentions? Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1637–1642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wagner WE (1992) Deceptive or honest signalling of fighting ability? A test of alternative hypotheses for the function of changes in call dominant frequency by male cricket frogs. Anim Behav 44:449–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • William A. Searcy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rindy C. Anderson
    • 1
  • Stephen Nowicki
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations