Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 67, Issue 4, pp 593–600 | Cite as

Male response to an aggressive visual signal, the wing wave display, in swamp sparrows

  • R. C. AndersonEmail author
  • A. L. DuBois
  • D. K. Piech
  • W. A. Searcy
  • S. Nowicki
Original Paper


Signaling often involves complex suites of behaviors that incorporate different sensory modalities. Whatever modality is used to establish that a signal functions in communication researchers must demonstrate that receivers respond to it. The territory defense response of male swamp sparrows involves a variety of behaviors that includes both vocal and visual displays. One of these, the “wing wave” display, is a distinctive movement that predicts physical attack. Here, we use robotic taxidermic mounts paired with song to test the hypothesis that wing waving is a signal and, specifically, that male receivers respond to wing waving as a signal of aggressive intent. As predicted, subjects responded more aggressively to the mount during wing waving trials than during stationary trials. A second experiment demonstrated that this effect cannot be attributed simply to increased attention to movement. Less expectedly, subjects did not alter their own display behavior in response to wing waving as compared to a static mount. We conclude that the wing wave display in the context of singing is a signal that functions in male–male aggressive communication. Questions remain, including whether wing waving functions as a signal in the absence of singing and whether wing waving and song are redundant signals or communicate different information.


Animal communication Aggressive signal Visual display Animal robot Wing wave Swamp sparrow 



We thank Jason Dudley at Whistlin’ Wings Taxidermy, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, for preparing the taxidermic mount used in the wing waving experiment, and Meng Kang and Martin Steren for their assistance with the design and creation of the actuator mechanism and controller used to animate this mount. We thank Susan Peters for her support throughout the study and for her help with preparing playback stimuli. Robert Lachlan kindly provided his photo of a wing waving swamp sparrow. Thanks to three anonymous reviewers whose suggestions improved the manuscript. Funding was provided by the Duke University Office of the Provost; access to field sites was granted by the Pennsylvania State Game Commission, and logistical support in the field was provided by the Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology of the University of Pittsburgh.

Ethical standards

All work conforms to the ABS/ASAB guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and teaching and was approved by the Duke Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol no. A061-11-03) and the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol no. 12030268).

Supplementary material


(M4V 7801 kb)


(M4V 17651 kb)


  1. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson RC, Searcy WA, Nowicki S (2008) Soft song in song sparrows: acoustic structure and implications for signal function. Ethology 114:662–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson RC, Searcy WA, Hughes M, Nowicki S (2012) The receiver-dependent cost of soft song: a signal of aggressive intent in songbirds. Anim Behav 83:1443–1448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersson M (1982) Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature 99(818):820Google Scholar
  5. Ballentine B (2009) The ability to perform physically challenging songs predicts age and size in male swamp sparrows, Melospiza georgiana. Anim Behav 77:973–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ballentine B, Hyman J, Nowicki S (2004) Vocal performance influences female response to male bird song: an experimental test. Behav Ecol 15:163–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ballentine B, Searcy WA, Nowicki S (2008) Reliable aggressive signalling in swamp sparrows. Anim Behav 75:693–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Balsby TJS, Dabelsteen T (2002) Female behaviour affects male courtship in whitethroats, Sylvia communis: an interactive experiment using visual and acoustic cues. Anim Behav 63:251–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beecher MD, Stoddard PK, Campbell SE, Horning CL (1996) Repertoire matching between neighbouring song sparrows. Anim Behav 51:917–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bradbury J, Vehrencamp S (2011) Principles of animal communication. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  11. Burford FRL, McGregor PK, Oliveira RF (2000) Response of fiddler crabs (Uca tangeri) to video playback in the field. Acta Ethol 3:55–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burt JM, Campbell SE, Beecher MD (2001) Song type matching as threat: a test using interactive playback. Anim Behav 62:1163–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Candolin U (2003) The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev 78:575–595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark DL, Uetz GW (1992) Morph-independent mate selection in a dimorphic jumping spider: demonstration of movement bias in female choice using video-controlled courtship behaviour. Anim Behav 43:247–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davies NB, Lundberg A (1984) Food distribution and a variable mating system in the dunnock, Prunella modularis. J Anim Ecol 53:895–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DuBois AL, Nowicki S, Searcy WA (2009) Swamp sparrows modulate vocal performance in an aggressive context. Biol Lett 5:163–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DuBois AL, Nowicki S, Searcy WA (2011) Discrimination of vocal performance by male swamp sparrows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:717–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Falls J (1992) Playback: A historical perspective. In: McGregor P (ed) Playback and studies of animal communication. Plenum, New York, pp 11–33Google Scholar
  19. Gerhardt H, Huber F (2002) Acoustic communication in insects and anurans. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. Gottlander K (1987) Variation in the song rate of the male pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca: causes and consequences. Anim Behav 35:1037–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greenberg R (1988) Seasonal plumage dimorphism in the swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana). J Field Ornithol 59:149–154Google Scholar
  22. Hasson O (1989) Amplifiers and the handicap principle in sexual selection: a different emphasis. Proc R Soc B 235:383–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hebets EA, Papaj DR (2005) Complex signal function: developing a framework for testable hypotheses. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hill GE (1991) Plumage coloration is a sexually selected indicator of male quality. Nature 350:337–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnstone RA (1996) Multiple displays in animal communication: ‘backup signals’ and ‘multiple messages’. Phil Trans R Soc B 351:329–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. King AP, West MJ (1977) Species identification in the North American cowbird: appropriate responses to abnormal song. Science 195:1002–1004PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krebs JR, Ashcroft R, Webber M (1978) Song repertoires and territory defence in the great tit. Nature 271:539–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marler P (1967) Animal communication signals. Science 157:769–774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martof BS, Thompson EF (1958) Reproductive behaviour of the chorus frog, Pseudacris nigrita. Behaviour 13:243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Møller AP (1988) Female choice selects for male sexual tail ornaments in the monogamous swallow. Nature 332:640–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Møller AP, Pomiankowski A (1993) Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:167–176Google Scholar
  32. Narins PM, Hödl W, Grabul DS (2003) Bimodal signal requisite for agonistic behavior in a dart-poison frog, Epipedobates femoralis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:577–580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nelson DA, Marler P (1989) Categorical perception of a natural stimulus continuum: birdsong. Science 244:976–978PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Nowicki S, Searcy WA, Hughes M, Podos J (2001) Motor performance and the evolution of birds song: male and female response to song innovation in swamp sparrows. Anim Behav 62:1189–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Partan SR, Marler P (2005) Issues in the classification of multimodal communication signals. Am Nat 166:231–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Partan SR, Larco CP, Owens MJ (2009) Wild tree squirrels respond with multisensory enhancement to conspecific robot. Anim Behav 77:1127–1135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Patricelli GL, Uy JAC, Walsh G, Borgia G (2002) Sexual selection: male displays adjusted to female's response. Nature 415:279–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pauly GB, Bernal XE, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2006) The vocal sac increases call rate in the Tungara frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Physiol Biochem Zool 79:708–719PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peters S, Searcy WA, Marler P (1980) Species song discrimination in choice experiments with territorial male swamp and song sparrows. Anim Behav 28:393–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Petrie M, Halliday T (1994) Experimental and natural changes in the peacock's (Pavo cristatus) train can affect mating success. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 35:213–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rohwer S (1977) Status signaling in Harris sparrows: some experiments in deception. Behaviour 61:107–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rowe C (1999) Receiver psychology and the evolution of multicomponent signals. Anim Behav 58:921–931PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rowland WJ (1995) Do female stickleback care about male courtship vigor? Manipulation of display tempo using video playback. Behaviour 132:951–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Searcy WA, Beecher MD (2009) Song as an aggressive signal in songbirds. Anim Behav 78:1281–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Searcy W, Nowicki S (2005) The evolution of animal communication: reliability and deception in signaling systems. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  47. Searcy WA, Anderson RC, Nowicki S (2006) Bird song as a signal of aggressive intent. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:234–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Taylor RC, Klein BA, Stein J, Ryan MJ (2008) Faux frogs: multimodal signalling and the value of robotics in animal behaviour. Anim Behav 76:1089–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van Doorn GS, Weissing FJ (2006) Sexual conflict and the evolution of female preferences for indicators of male quality. Am Nat 168:742–757PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weeden JS, Falls JB (1959) Differential responses of male ovenbirds to recorded songs of neighboring and more distant individuals. Auk 76:343–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilson EO (1965) Chemical communication in the social insects. Science 149:1064–1071PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wishart G, Riordan DF (1959) Flight responses to various sound by adult males of Aedes aegypti L. (Diptera, Culicidae). Can Entomol 91:181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. C. Anderson
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. L. DuBois
    • 2
  • D. K. Piech
    • 3
  • W. A. Searcy
    • 2
  • S. Nowicki
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA
  3. 3.Departments of Biomedical Engineering and Mechanical EngineeringDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations