Discrimination of vocal performance by male swamp sparrows
- 193 Downloads
In aggressive communication, the interests of signalers and receivers are directly opposed, presenting a challenge to the maintenance of reliable signaling. Index signals, whose production is constrained by physical ability, offer one solution to the reliable signaling problem. Vocal performance, the ability to produce physically challenging songs, is likely such a signal in swamp sparrows. Maximum vocal performance varies between males and is correlated with aspects of quality. However, vocal performance can be modulated in aggressive contexts by increasing the frequency bandwidth and trill rate of songs. This study examines receiver response to (1) differences in performance of the same song types by different signalers and (2) individual modulation of performance between contexts. Results demonstrate that male receivers show differential response to between-male differences in song type performance, but do not show differential response to the smaller scale modulations of performance produced by individuals singing the same song type at different times. This pattern suggests that vocal performance cannot be effectively cheated and may therefore serve as a good example of an index signal.
KeywordsBirdsong Vocal performance Aggression Reliable signaling Communication
The authors would like to thank Barbara Ballentine for providing stimuli for the inter-male discrimination experiment, Susan Peters for her gracious and invaluable help in creating artificial stimuli for the intra-male discrimination experiment, and Kennon Todd for assistance in the field during pilot work for this study. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions in revising the manuscript. We would also like to thank the Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology for logistical support and the Pennsylvania Game Commission for access to study sites. This work was funded by the University of Miami College of Arts and Sciences and the University of Pittsburgh’s Arthur and Barbara Pape Endowment.
The experimental methods for this study complied with current rules and regulations within the USA.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Dawkins R, Krebs JR (1978) Animal signals: information or manipulation? In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 282–309Google Scholar
- Martin WF (1972) Evolution of vocalization in the genus Bufo. In: Blair WF (ed) Evolution in the Genus Bufo. University of Texas, Austin, pp 279–309Google Scholar
- Maynard Smith J, Harper D (2003) Animal signals. New York, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Nowicki S, Marler P (1988) How do birds sing? Music Percept 5:391–426Google Scholar
- Ryan MJ (1985) The Tungara frog: a study in sexual selection and communication. University of Chicago, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Searcy WA, Nowicki S (2005) The evolution of animal communication: reliability and deception in signaling systems. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Vehrencamp S (2000) Handicap, index, and conventional signal elements of bird song. In: Espmark Y, Amundsen T, Rosenqvist G (eds) Signalling and signal design in animal communication. Tapir, Trondheim, pp 301–315Google Scholar
- Westneat MW, Long JH, Hoese W, Nowicki S (1993) Kinematics of birdsong: functional correlation of cranial movements and acoustic features in sparrows. J Exp Biol 182:141–171Google Scholar