Advertisement

Singing behind the stage: thrush nightingales produce more variable songs on their wintering grounds

  • Abel SouriauEmail author
  • Nicole Geberzahn
  • Vladimir V. Ivanitskii
  • Irina M. Marova
  • Jana Vokurková
  • Radka Reifová
  • Jiři Reif
  • Tereza Petrusková
Original Article

Abstract

The songs of migratory passerine birds have a key role in mate attraction and territory defence during the breeding season. Many species also sing on their wintering grounds, but the function of this behaviour remains unclear. One possible explanation, proposed by the song improvement hypothesis, is that the birds take advantage of this period to develop their singing skills for the next breeding season. If so, non-breeding songs should reflect features of an early phase in song development, characterized by high vocal plasticity. In our study, we tested this prediction by comparing songs of thrush nightingales (Luscinia luscinia) recorded at two different breeding areas in Europe and one wintering area in Africa. While all songs from European localities had a typical structure characteristic of the study species, 89% of the songs recorded from Africa were highly variable, lacking such typical structure. We conducted further detailed analysis of breeding and winter songs that exhibited species-specific structure. First, we explored plasticity at the syllable level using a cross-correlation analysis, to obtain similarity scores as a measure of consistency. Second, we asked multiple human observers to quantify element variability. Our results showed significant differences in syllable consistency between breeding and wintering grounds, with more consistent delivery of syllables in the breeding areas. Likewise, element variability was substantially lower in the breeding populations. While both results fit the predictions of the song improvement hypothesis, more research is needed to elucidate the roles of singing on the wintering grounds.

Significance statement

Many migratory songbirds sing on their wintering grounds, outside the breeding period. While the role of singing during breeding has been broadly studied, our understanding of the function of winter singing remains limited. We analysed songs of the thrush nightingale, a migratory songbird with highly complex songs, comparing song structures recorded from breeding populations in Europe and an African wintering site. We demonstrate that males recorded at wintering locations sang songs with both significantly lower syllable consistency and higher element variability. Such characteristics are comparable to those observed during the sensorimotor phase of song development, previously described in other species. This pattern supports the song improvement hypothesis, suggesting that males singing on the wintering grounds may practice songs for the next breeding season. This study contributes to the understanding of the functions of songbird vocal behaviour out of the breeding context.

Keywords

Thrush nightingale Song function Song plasticity Song consistency Element variability Non-breeding singing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We want to thank all the colleagues involved in the assessment of element variability for their precious help: Ondřej Belfín, Paolo Biella, Sharina van Boheemen, Hana Kahounová, Jan Mertens, Alexandra Průchová, Lucie Jiránková and especially Adam Petrusek for his overall support and help with the manuscript. NG would like to thank Wolfgang Goymann, Sonja and Andreas Kümmerle and Liz and Neil Baker for logistic support as well as Mackubi Joseph for help with fieldwork in Tanzania. VI and IM are grateful to Vladislav Antipov for the recording of nightingales in Russia. We also thank David Hardekopf for language corrections. Additional thanks go to Tony Archer, James Bradley, Josh Engel, Niall Perrins and Derek Solomon for kindly consenting to the use of their recordings. Lastly, we are grateful to two anonymous reviewers and Jeff Podos for their valuable comments on a previous version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Association for the Studies of Animal Behaviour (ASAB) to NG; the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (grant numbers GE 1253/3-1 and GE 1253/3-2 to NG); the Russian Fund for Basic Research (grant number 16-04-01721 to VI) and the Russian Science Foundation (grant number 14-50-00029 to VI).

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and institutional guidelines for research on animals were followed. Samples used in this study are based on a non-invasive recording technique from a distance. Birds were not caught, but for few individuals, playback stimulation was performed to trigger an active singing behaviour. This stimulation was kept as short as possible and we are not aware of any consequences for subjects’ breeding or welfare. Passive recording did not require supervision from institutional or regulatory bodies, but authorizations were granted from legal authorities in each different sampling country when needed. In the wintering population, recordings were made within the framework of another research project (for more details see Geberzahn et al. 2009, 2010).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Data accessibility

Analyses reported in this article can be reproduced using the data provided in Souriau et al. 2019 (data Tables with recordings information and spectrograms prints used for the human-based assessment of element variability).

Supplementary material

265_2019_2765_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.1 mb)
Online resource 1 Spectrograms of syllable types used in the cross-correlation analysis for each population and each category. The letters above the spectrograms indicates the population (PL: Poland, RU: Russia, TA: Tanzania), the syllable category and the identity code of the subject (PDF 1118 kb)
265_2019_2765_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (185 kb)
Online resource 2 Contrast in syllable consistency scores (SPCC) between categories for each population. Table a shows the overall contrast in the element variability index between all three categories (A = disyllabic associations, B = complex syllables, C: castanet-like syllables). Table b shows all pairwise comparisons from the modelling of the effect of syllable category on the syllable consistency score, for each population (PDF 185 kb)
265_2019_2765_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (1.9 mb)
Online resource 3 Spectrograms of thrush nightingale song bouts from several different wintering sites in Africa. All wintering populations showed various degrees of song plasticity, reflecting similar observations in our focus population in Tanzania. Recording references are as following (www.xeno-canto.org): (a) Kenya (XC396432), (b) Malawi (XC82082) lacking typical song organization of thrush nightingale, (c) Zambia (XC41337) and (d) Botswana (XC46020) plastic songs with high syllable and element variability, (e) and (f) South Africa (XC400388 and XC184009) song resembling the typical species songs with some level of plasticity (PDF 1960 kb)

References

  1. Alexander CJ (1917) Observations on birds singing in their winter quarters and on migration. Brit Birds 11:98Google Scholar
  2. Bannerman DA (1931) Some evidence of the nightingale, Luscinia megarhyncha megarhyncha, singing in tropical West Africa. Ibis 73:71–74.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1931.tb01505.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beecher MD (2008) Function and mechanisms of song learning in song sparrows. Adv Stud Behav 38:167–225.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-3454(08)00004-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berglund A, Bisazza A, Pilastro A (1996) Armaments and ornaments: an evolutionary explanation of traits of dual utility. Biol J Linn Soc 58:385–399.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1996.tb01442.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brainard MS, Doupe AJ (2000) Interruption of a basal ganglia–forebrain circuit prevents plasticity of learned vocalizations. Nature 404(6779):762–766.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35008083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brainard MS, Doupe AJ (2002) What songbirds teach us about learning. Nature 417:351–358.  https://doi.org/10.1038/417351a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brenowitz EA, Margoliash D, Nordeen KW (1997) An introduction to birdsong and the avian song system. J Neurobiol 33:495–500.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4695(19971105)33:5<495::aid-neu1>3.0.CO;2-%23 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bretz F, Hothorn T, Westfall P (2010) Multiple Comparisons Using R. CRC Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Brumm H, Zollinger SA, Niemelä PT, Sprau P (2017) Measurement artefacts lead to false positives in the study of birdsong in noise. Methods Ecol Evol 8:1617–1625.  https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12766 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Catchpole CK, Slater P (2008) Bird song: biological themes and variations, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cramp S, Perrins CM (1994) The birds of the Western Palearctic. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex, vol 2. John Murray, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geberzahn N, Hultsch H (2003) Long–time storage of song types in birds: evidence from interactive playbacks. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1085–1090.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Geberzahn N, Hultsch H, Todt D (2002) Latent song type memories are accessible through auditory stimulation in a hand-reared songbird. Anim Behav 64:783–790.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2002.3099 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geberzahn N, Goymann W, Muck C, ten Cate C (2009) Females alter their song when challenged in a sex-role reversed bird species. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:193–204.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-009-0836-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Geberzahn N, Goymann W, ten Cate C (2010) Threat signaling in female song—evidence from playbacks in a sex-role reversed bird species. Behav Ecol 21:1147–1155.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arq122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gil D, Gahr M (2002) The honesty of bird song: multiple constraints for multiple traits. Trends Ecol Evol 17:133–141.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02410-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gil D, Slater PJB (2000) Song organisation and singing patterns of the willow warbler, Phylloscopus trochilus. Behaviour 137:759–782.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156853900502330 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gil D, Cobb JLS, Slater PJB (2001) Song characteristics are age dependent in the willow warbler, Phylloscopus trochilus. Anim Behav 62:689–694.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1812 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Griessmann B, Naguib M (2002) Song sharing in neighboring and non-neighboring thrush nightingales (Luscinia luscinia) and its implications for communication. Ethology 108:377–387.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0310.2002.00781.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Handley HG, Nelson DA (2005) Ecological and phylogenetic effects on song sharing in songbirds. Ethology 111:221–238.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2004.01043.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hultsch H, Todt D (2004) Learning to sing. In: Marler PR, Slabbekoorn H (eds) Nature’s Music: The Science of Birdsong. Elsevier Academic Press, London, pp 80–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ivanitskii VV, Marova IM, Antipov VA (2016) Sequential organization in the song of thrush nightingale (Luscinia luscinia): clustering and sequential order of the song types. Bioacoustics 26:199–215.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09524622.2016.1239132 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Järvi T (1983) The evolution of song versatility in the willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus: a case of evolution by intersexual selection explained by the “female’s choice of the best mate”. Ornis Scand 14:123–128 https://10.2307/3676015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kao MH, Brainard MS (2006) Lesions of an avian basal ganglia circuit prevent context-dependent changes to song variability. J Neurophysiol 96:1441–1455.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01138.2005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kelsey MG (1989) A comparison of the song and territorial behavior of a long-distance migrant, the marsh warbler Acrocephalus palustris, in Summer and Winter. Ibis 131:403–414.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1989.tb02788.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kipper S, Sellar P, Barlow CR (2016) A comparison of the diurnal song of the common nightingale (Luscinia megarhynchos) between the non-breeding season in the Gambia, West Africa and the breeding season in Europe. J Ornithol 157:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-016-1364-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Margoliash D, Staicer CA, Inoue SA (1991) Stereotyped and plastic song in adult indigo buntings, Passerina cyanea. Anim Behav 42:367–388.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80036-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marler P, Peters S (1982) Structural changes in song ontogeny in the swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana. Auk 3:446–458.  https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/99.3.446 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marova IM, Ivanitskii VV, Veprintseva OD (2010) Individual, population, and geographic differentiation in advertising song of the Blyth's reed warbler, Acrocephalus dumetorum (Sylvidae). Biol Bull 37:846–860.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S106235901008008X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marova IM, Ivlyeva AL, Veprintzeva OD, Ivanitskii VV (2015a) A comparative analysis of song differentiation in thrush nightingale (Luscinia luscinia) and common nightingale (Luscinia megarhynchos) within their ranges. Zool Zh 94:701–710.  https://doi.org/10.7868/S0044513415060124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Naguib M, Todt D (1998) Recognition of neighbors’ song in a species with large and complex song repertoires: the thrush nightingale. J Avian Biol 29:155–160.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3677193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nottebohm F (1981) A brain for all seasons: cyclical anatomical changes in song control nuclei of the canary brain. Science 214:1368–1370.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7313697 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Nottebohm F, Nottebohm ME, Crane L (1986) Developmental and seasonal changes in canary song and their relation to changes in the anatomy of song-control nuclei. Behav Neural Biol 46:445–471.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-1047(86)90485-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Pearson DJ (1984) The nightingale, sprosser and irania in Kenya. Scopus 8:18–23Google Scholar
  36. Pearson DJ, Backhurst GC (1976) The Southward migration of Palearctic birds over Ngulia, Kenya. Ibis 118:78–105.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919x.1976.tb02012.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, Core Team R (2017) nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3:1–131 http://CRAN.R-project.org/prackage=nlme Google Scholar
  38. R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria http://www.R-project.org Google Scholar
  39. Reif J, Jiran M, Reifová R, Vokurková J, Dolata PT, Petrusek A, Petrusková T (2015) Interspecific territoriality in two songbird species: potential role of song convergence in male aggressive interactions. Anim Behav 104:131–136.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.03.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sakata JT, Vehrencamp SL (2012) Integrating perspectives on vocal performance and consistency. J Exp Biol 215:201–209.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.056911 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Sakata JT, Hampton CM, Brainard MS (2008) Social modulation of sequence and syllable variability in adult birdsong. J Neurophysiol 99:1700–1711.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01296.2007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Samotskaya V, Marova IM, Kvartalnov P, Arkhipov VY, Ivanitskii VV (2016) Song in two cryptic species: comparative analysis of large-billed reed warblers Acrocephalus orinus and Blyth’s reed warblers Acrocephalus dumetorum. Bird Study 63:479–489.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00063657.2016.1220489 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sorensen MC (2014) Singing in Africa: no evidence for a long supposed function of winter song in a migratory songbird. Behav Ecol 25:909–915.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/aru058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sorensen MC, Jenni-Eiermann S, Spottiswoode CN (2016) Why do migratory birds sing on their tropical wintering grounds? Am Nat 187:E65–E76.  https://doi.org/10.1086/684681 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Sorjonen J (1983) Transmission of the two most characteristic phrases of the song of the thrush nightingale Luscinia luscinia in different environmental conditions. Ornis Scand 14:278–288.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3676320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sorjonen J (1987) Temporal and spatial differences in traditions and repertoires in the song of the thrush nightingale (Luscinia luscinia). Behaviour 102:196–211.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156853986X00126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Souriau A, Kohoutová H, Reif J, Vokurková J, Petrusek A, Reifová R, Petrusková T (2018) Can mixed singing facilitate coexistence of closely related nightingale species? Behav Ecol 29:925–932.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Souriau A, Geberzahn N, Ivanitskii VV, Marova IM, Vokurková J, Reifová R, Reif J, Petrusková T (2019) Data from: Singing behind the stage: thrush nightingales produce more variable songs on their wintering grounds. Dryad Digital Repository.  https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.tqjq2bvtd
  49. Specht R (2007) Avisoft-SASLab Pro ver. 4.5, 5. Sound analysis and synthesis software. Berlin: Avisoft Bioacoustics. Available at www.avisoft.com
  50. Stach R, Jakobsson S, Kullberg C, Fransson T (2012) Geolocators reveal three consecutive wintering areas in the thrush nightingale. Anim Migr 1:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.2478/ami-2012-0001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thorup K, Tøttrup AP, Willemoes M, Klaassen RHG, Strandberg R, Vega ML, Rahbek C (2017) Resource tracking within and across continents in long-distance bird migrants. Sci Adv 3:e1601360.  https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1601360 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Todt D, Geberzahn N (2003) Age-dependent effects of song exposure: song organisation sets a boundary between fast and delayed vocal imitation. Anim Behav 65:971–979.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2003.2127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Todt D, Naguib M (2000) Vocal interactions in birds: the use of song as a model in communication. Adv Stud Behav 29:247–296.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-3454(08)60107-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tramontin AD, Brenowitz EA (2000) Seasonal plasticity in the adult brain. Trends Neurosci 23:251–258.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(00)01558-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Tumer EC, Brainard MS (2007) Performance variability enables adaptive plasticity of ‘crystallized’ adult birdsong. Nature 450:1240–1244.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06390 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Vokurková J, Petrusková T, Reifová R, Kozman A, Mořkovský L, Kipper S, Weiss M, Reif J, Dolata PT, Petrusek A (2013) The causes and evolutionary consequences of mixed singing in two hybridizing songbird species (Luscinia spp.). PLoS ONE 8:e60172.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060172 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Weiss M, Kiefer S, Kipper S (2012) Buzzwords in females’ ears? The use of buzz songs in the communication of nightingales (Luscinia megarhynchos). PLoS ONE 7:e45057.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045057 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Woolley SC, Doupe AJ (2008) Social context–induced song variation affects female behavior and gene expression. PLoS Biol 6:e62.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060062 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Zeigler P, Marler P (2008) The Neuroscience of Birdsong. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Faculty of ScienceCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Laboratoire Ethologie Cognition Développement, EA 3456, UPLUniv Paris NanterreNanterreFrance
  3. 3.Institute of Biology LeidenLeiden UniversityLeidenNetherlands
  4. 4.Faculty of BiologyLomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia
  5. 5.Department of Zoology, Faculty of ScienceCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  6. 6.Institute for Environmental Studies, Faculty of ScienceCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations