Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 61, Issue 8, pp 1267–1274 | Cite as

Soft song in song sparrows: response of males and females to an enigmatic signal

  • Rindy C. AndersonEmail author
  • Stephen Nowicki
  • William A. Searcy
Original Paper

Abstract

Low-amplitude “soft song” is used by a variety of songbirds; in some species during aggressive encounters, in others during courtship, and yet others in both these contexts. In song sparrows (Melospiza melodia), soft song has thus far been observed only in aggressive encounters, where its production is a more reliable predictor of attack than any other signaling behavior. We used song playback to test the response of both male and female song sparrows to soft song. The design of the playback experiments took into account the existence of two classes of soft song: crystallized soft song, which consists of song types also found in the broadcast repertoire, and warbled soft song, which consists of less-structured song types not found in the broadcast repertoire. Female song sparrows responded with significantly less courtship display to the playback of crystallized soft song than to that of normal broadcast song, and response to warbled soft song was if anything lower than to that of crystallized soft song. Male song sparrows responded equally aggressively to normal broadcast song as to crystallized soft song, and equally aggressively to warbled soft song as to crystallized soft song. The female results support the conclusion that neither form of soft song functions in courtship. The male results suggest that the reliability of soft song as a signal of aggressive intent is not maintained by a receiver retaliation rule.

Keywords

Soft song Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Bird song Aggressive signaling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the Pennsylvania Game Commission and Pymatuning State Park for access to the study sites, the Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology, University of Pittsburgh, for logistical support, and Barbara Ballentine, Melissa Hughes, Jeremy Hyman, and Kim Rosvall for discussion. Financial support was provided by grants from the National Science Foundation to WAS (IBN-0315566) and to SN (IBN-0315377). The experiments described herein comply with the current laws of the USA.

References

  1. Anderson RC (2006) Song as an aggressive signal in the song sparrow Melospiza melodia. Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami, Coral GablesGoogle Scholar
  2. Arak A (1983) Sexual selection by male–male competition in natterjack toad choruses. Nature 306:261–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beecher MD, Campbell SE, Burt JM, Hill CE, Nordby JC (2000) Song-type matching between neighbouring song sparrows. Anim Behav 59:21–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brenowitz EA, Rose GJ (1999) Female choice and plasticity of male calling behaviour in the Pacific treefrog. Anim Behav 57:1337–1342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Catchpole CK (1983) Variation in the song of the great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus in relation to mate attraction and territorial defence. Anim Behav 31:1217–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dabelsteen, T, Pedersen SB (1988) Song parts adapted to function both at long and short ranges may communicate information about the species to female blackbirds Turdus merula. Ornis Scand 19:195–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dabelsteen T, Pedersen SB (1990) Song and information about aggressive responses of blackbirds, Turdus merula: evidence from interactive playback experiments with territory owners. Anim Behav 40:1158–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dabelsteen T, McGregor PK, Lampe HM, Langmore NE, Holland J (1998) Quiet song in birds: an overlooked phenomenon. Bioacoustics 9:80–105Google Scholar
  9. Davies NB, Halliday TR (1978) Deep croaks and fighting assessment in toads Bufo bufo. Nature 274:683–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dawkins R, Krebs JR (1978) Animal signals: Information or manipulation? In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 282–309Google Scholar
  11. Enquist M (1985) Communication during aggressive interactions with particular reference to variation in choice of behaviour. Anim Behav 33:1152–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eriksson D, Wallin L (1986) Male bird song attracts females—a field experiment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:297–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Falls JB, Kopachena JG (1994) White-throated sparrow (Zonatrichia albicollis). In: Poole A, Gill F (eds) The birds of North America, vol. 128. Academy of Natural Sciences, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  14. Fellers GM (1979) Aggression, territoriality, and mating behaviour in North American treefrogs. Anim Behav 27:107–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerhardt HC, Huber F (2002) Acoustic communication in insects and anurans. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  16. Grafen A (1990) Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol 144:517–546PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hinde RA, Steel E (1976) The effect of male song on an estrogen-dependent behavior pattern in the female canary (Serinus canarius). Horm Behav 7:293–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Howard RD (1978) The evolution of mating strategies in bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana. Evolution 32(4):850–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hurd PL (1997) Is signalling of fighting ability costlier for weaker individuals? J Theor Biol 184:83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Järvi T, Radesäter T, Jakobsson S (1980) The song of the willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus with special reference to singing behaviour in agonistic situations. Ornis Scand 11:236–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson LS, Searcy WA (1996) Female attraction to male song in house wrens (Troglodytes aedon). Behaviour 133:357–366Google Scholar
  22. King AP, West MJ (1977) Species identification in the North American cowbird: appropriate responses to abnormal song. Science 195:1002–1004PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kroodsma DE (1976) Reproductive development in a female songbird: differential stimulation by quality of male song. Science 192:574–575CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Latimer W, Sippel M (1987) Acoustic cues for female choice and male competition in Tettigonia cantans. Anim Behav 35:887–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lundberg A, Alatalo RV (1992) The pied flycatcher. T & A D Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Maynard Smith J (1979) Game theory and the evolution of behaviour. Proc R Soc Lond B 205:475–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maynard Smith J, Harper DGC (1995) Animal signals: models and terminology. J Theor Biol 177:305–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maynard Smith J, Harper D (2003) Animal signals. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. McGregor PK, Dabelsteen T (1996) Communication networks. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH (eds) Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY 409–425Google Scholar
  30. Molles LE, Vehrencamp SL (2001) Songbird cheaters pay a retaliation cost: evidence for auditory conventional signals. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:2013–2019CrossRefGoogle 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, Peters S, Podos J (1998) Song learning, early nutrition and sexual selection in songbirds. Am Zool 38:179–190Google Scholar
  33. Nowicki S, Searcy WA, Peters S (2002) Brain development, song learning and mate choice in birds: a review and experimental test of the “nutritional stress hypothesis”. J Comp Physiol A 188:1003–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oberweger K, Goller F (2001) The metabolic cost of birdsong production. J Exp Biol 204:3379–3388PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Popp JW (1987) Risk and effectiveness in the use of agonistic displays by American goldfinches. Behaviour 103:141–156Google Scholar
  37. Robertson JGM (1986) Male territoriality, fighting and assessment of fighting ability in the Australian frog Uperoleia rugosa. Anim Behav 34:763–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwartz JJ (1987) The importance of spectral and temporal properties in species and call recognition in a neotropical treefrog with a complex vocal repertoire. Anim Behav 35:340–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Searcy WA (1996) Sound-pressure levels and song preferences in female red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) (Aves, Emberizidae). Ethology 102:187–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Searcy WA, Marler P (1981) A test for responsiveness to song structure and programming in female sparrows. Science 213:926–928CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Searcy WA, Nowicki S (2000) Male–male competition and female choice in the evolution of vocal signaling. In: Espmark Y, Amundsen T, Rosenqvist G (eds) Animal signals: signalling and signal design in animal communication. Tapir Academic, Trondheim, Norway, pp 301–315Google Scholar
  42. Searcy WA, Nowicki S (2005) The evolution of animal communication: reliability and deception in signaling systems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  43. Searcy WA, Nowicki S (2006) Signal interception and the use of soft song in aggressive interactions. Ethology 112:865–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Searcy WA, Nowicki S, Hughes M (1997) The response of male and female song sparrows to geographic variation in song. Condor 99:651–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Searcy WA, Anderson RC, Nowicki S (2006) Bird song as a signal of aggressive intent. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:234–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Snow DW (1958) A study of blackbirds. Dorset, DorchesterGoogle Scholar
  47. Spencer KA, Buchanan KL, Goldsmith AR, Catchpole CK (2004) Developmental stress, social rank and song complexity in the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Proc R Soc Lond B 271:S121–S123Google Scholar
  48. Vehrencamp SL (2000) Handicap, index, and conventional signal elements of bird song. In: Espmark Y, Amundsen T, Rosenqvist G (eds). Animal signals: signalling and signal design in animal communication. Tapir Academic, Trondheim, Norway, pp 277–300Google Scholar
  49. Vehrencamp SL (2001) Is song-type matching a conventional signal of aggressive intentions? Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1637–1642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ward S, Speakman JR, Slater PJB (2003) The energy cost of song in the canary, Serinus canaria. Anim Behav 66:893–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wells KD, Bard KM (1987) Vocal communication in a neotropical treefrog Hyla ebraccata: responses of females to advertisement and aggressive calls. Behaviour 101:199–210Google Scholar
  52. West MJ, King AP, Eastzer DH (1981) Validating the female bioassay of cowbird song: relating differences in song potency to mating success. Anim Behav 29:490–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations