Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 67, Issue 10, pp 1691–1697

Male's return rate, rather than territory fidelity and breeding dispersal, explains geographic variation in song sharing in two populations of an oscine passerine (Oreothlypis celata)

  • Jongmin Yoon
  • T. Scott Sillett
  • Scott A. Morrison
  • Cameron K. Ghalambor
Original Paper

Abstract

Males of some oscine passerines learn and share songs of neighboring males. This process can lead to the formation of song pattern neighborhoods or microhabitat song dialects. The degree to which song sharing occurs between populations and the spatial scale over which neighboring males share songs, however, can vary widely, and interpopulation comparisons have suggested that song sharing is more common in residents than in migrants. Here, we examine two populations of the orange-crowned warbler (Oreothlypis celata) to quantify patterns of song sharing at the northern (long-distance migrant) and southern (short-distance migrant) edges of the breeding distribution and to test if return rate, territory fidelity, and breeding dispersal explain the patterns found in the two populations. The southern population (O. celata sordida breeding on Santa Catalina Island, California; 33°N) had a higher annual return rate to their territories and exhibited higher song sharing in neighborhoods than their counterparts (O. celata celata breeding in Fairbanks, Alaska; 64°N). Year-to-year patterns of territory fidelity and breeding dispersal distances were similar between populations. Our results suggest that if migratory distance generally covaries with the proportion of returning males, this could explain different levels of song sharing between the short- and long-distance migrants.

Keywords

Breeding dispersal Geographic variation Migratory behavior Return rate Song sharing Territory fidelity 

References

  1. Baker MC (2012) Silvereyes (Zosterops lateralis) song differentiation in an island-mainland comparison: analyses of a complex cultural trait. Wilson J Ornithol 124:454–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker MC, Baker MSA, Tilghman LM (2006) Differing effects of isolation on evolution of bird songs: examples from an island-mainland comparison of three species. Biol J Linn Soc 89:331–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beecher MD, Brenowitz EA (2005) Functional aspects of song learning in songbirds. Trends Ecol Evol 20:143–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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. Beyer HL (2004) Hawth's analysis tools for ArcGIS. SpatialEcology.Com. http://www.spatialecology.com/htools. Accessed 15 Dec 2010
  6. Catchpole CK, Slater PJB (2008) Bird song: biological themes and variations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ewert DN, Kroodsma DE (1994) Song sharing and repertoires among migratory and resident rufous-sided towhees. Condor 96:190–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ford RG, Myers JP (1981) Evaluation and comparison of techniques for estimating home range and territory size. Stud Avian Biol 6:461–465Google Scholar
  10. Gilbert WM (1986) Identification of individual orange-crowned warblers by song pattern and territory. N Am Bird Bander 11:76–78Google Scholar
  11. Gilbert WM, Sogge MK, Van Riper C III (2010) Orange-crowned warbler (Vermivora celata). In: Poole A (ed) The birds of North America online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, New York. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/101. Accessed 26 Oct 2010
  12. Goodale E, Podos J (2010) Persistence of song types in Darwin's finches, Geospiza fortis, over four decades. Biol Lett 6:589–592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Handley HG, Nelson DA (2005) Ecological and phylogenetic effects on song sharing in songbirds. Ethology 111:221–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill CE, Campbell SE, Nordby JC, Burt JM, Beecher MD (1999) Song sharing in two populations of song sparrows (Melospiza melodia). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:341–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Horton BM, Yoon J, Ghalambor CK, Moore IT, Sillett TS (2010) Seasonal and population variation in male testosterone levels in breeding orange-crowned warblers (Vermivora celata). Gen Comp Endocrinol 168:333–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koetz AH, Westcott DA, Congdon BC (2007) Spatial pattern of song element sharing and its implications for song learning in the chowchila, Orthonyx spaldingii. Anim Behav 74:1019–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kroodsma DE (1996) Ecology of passerine song development. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH (eds) Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in Birds. Cornell University Press, New York, pp 3–19Google Scholar
  18. Kroodsma DE, Miller EH (1996) Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds. Cornell University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Kroodsma DE, Sanchenz J, Stemple DW, Goodwin E, da Silva ML, Veilliard JME (1999) Sedentary life style of Neotropical sedge wrens promotes song imitation. Anim Behav 57:855–863PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nelson DA, Khanna H, Marler P (2001) Learning by instruction or selection: implications for patterns of geographic variation in bird song. Behaviour 138:1137–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nordby JC, Campbell SE, Beecher MD (1999) Ecological correlates of song learning in song sparrows. Behav Ecol 10:287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nordby JC, Campbell SE, Burt JM, Beecher MD (2000) Social influences during song development in the song sparrow: a laboratory experiment simulating field conditions. Anim Behav 59:1187–1197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nulty B, Burt JM, Akҫay C, Templeton CN, Campbell SE, Beecher MD (2010) Song learning in song sparrows: relative importance of autumn vs. spring tutoring. Ethology 116:653–661Google Scholar
  24. Payne RB (1981) Song learning and social interaction in indigo buntings. Anim Behav 29:688–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Payne RB (1982) Ecological consequences of song matching: breeding success and intraspecific song mimicry in indigo buntings. Ecology 63:401–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pyle P (1997) Identification guide to North American birds—part 1. Slate Creek Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  27. Rohwer S (1982) The evolution of reliable and unreliable badges of fighting ability. Am Zool 22:531–546Google Scholar
  28. Sillett TS, Holmes RT (2002) Variation in survivorship of a migratory songbird throughout its annual cycle. J Anim Ecol 71:296–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Slater PJB (1989) Bird song learning: causes and consequences. Ethol Ecol Evol 1:19–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sofaer HR, Chapman PL, Sillett TS, Ghalambor CK (2013) Advantages of nonlinear mixed models for fitting avian growth curves. J Avian Biol. doi:10.1111/j.1600-048X.2013.05719.x
  31. Templeton CN, Akҫay C, Campbell SE, Beecher MD (2010) Juvenile sparrows preferentially eavesdrop on adult song interactions. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:447–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vehrencamp SL (2001) Is song-type matching a conventional signal of aggressive intentions? Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1637–1642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilson PL, Vehrencamp SL (2001) A test of the deceptive mimicry hypothesis in song-sharing song sparrows. Anim Behav 62:1197–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilson PL, Towner MC, Vehrencamp SL (2000) Survival and song-type sharing in a sedentary subspecies of the song sparrow. Condor 102:355–363Google Scholar
  35. Yoon J, Sillett TS, Morrison SA, Ghalambor CK (2012) Breeding density, not life history, predicts interpopulation differences in territorial aggression in a passerine bird. Anim Behav 84:515–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jongmin Yoon
    • 1
    • 4
  • T. Scott Sillett
    • 2
  • Scott A. Morrison
    • 3
  • Cameron K. Ghalambor
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.Migratory Bird CenterSmithsonian Conservation Biology InstituteWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.The Nature ConservancySan FranciscoUSA
  4. 4.Korea Institute of Oriental White Stork Reintroduction ResearchKorea National University of EducationCheongwonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations