acta ethologica

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 203–210 | Cite as

Are there age-related differences in the song repertoire size of Eurasian blackbirds?

  • Nana HeslerEmail author
  • Roger Mundry
  • Torben Dabelsteen
Original Paper


Most oscine bird species possess a repertoire of different song patterns, and repertoire size is thought to signal aspects of male quality. As age is assumed to be related to male quality in terms of experience and/or viability, repertoire size may be expected to reflect male age. Here, we investigated the relationship between repertoire size and age (yearlings or older) in Eurasian blackbirds, Turdus merula, a species with a large repertoire delivered in a highly variable manner. We found that older males tended to have larger repertoires than yearlings though the two age groups overlapped considerably. Thus, compared to other species with large repertoires, age-related differences in repertoire size seem rather small in male Eurasian blackbirds. We also compared repertoires of three individuals in two successive years (as yearlings and in the year following) and found a large element turnover. Our investigation revealed that this turnover was almost complete in the quiet terminating twitter part of the song. Such turnover may allow a young bird to adjust his repertoire to his neighbours’ repertoires, which could be useful for song matching interactions.


Turdus merula Blackbird Song Repertoire Age Male quality 



We thank T. Sacher, T. Coppack and F. Bairlein for collaboration and O. Hüppop with the team of the Vogelwarte Helgoland and C. Horn for assistance during the field work. We also thank S. Newman and I. Teschke for language improvement and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on the manuscript. The study was funded by a combined PhD fellowship from NaFöG (Promotionsstipendium nach dem Nachwuchsförderungsgesetz des Landes Berlin, Germany), SNAK (Graduate School on Sense organs, Nerve systems, Behaviour and Communication, funded by the Danish Research Agency) and the University of Copenhagen to NH and a framework grant from the Danish Research Council for Nature and Universe (no. 272-07-0477) to TD. This study meets the guidelines of the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour and complies with laws of Germany and Denmark.


  1. Adams DC, Anthony CD (1996) Using randomization techniques to analyse behavioural data. Anim Behav 51:733–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balsby TJS (2000) Song activity and variability in relation to male quality and female choice in Whitethroats Sylvia communis. J Avian Biol 31:56–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balsby TJS, Hansen P (2009) Element repertoire: change and development with age in Whitethroat Sylvia communis song. J Ornithol 151:469–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beecher MD, Brenowitz EA (2005) Functional aspects of song learning in songbirds. Trends Ecol Evol 20:143–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boogert NJ, Giraldeau LA, Lefebvre L (2008) Song complexity correlates with learning ability in zebra finch males. Anim Behav 76:1735–1741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks R, Kemp DJ (2001) Can older males deliver the good genes? Trends Ecol Evol 16:308–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Catchpole CK, Slater PJB (2008) Bird song—biological themes and variations, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins S (2004) Vocal fighting and flirting: the functions of birdsong. In: Marler P, Slabbekoorn H (eds) Nature’s music: the science of birdsong. Elsevier Academic, San Diego, pp 39–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dabelsteen T (1984) An analysis of the full song of the blackbird Turdus merula with respect to message coding and adaptations for acoustic communication. Ornis Scand 15:227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dabelsteen T, Larsen ON, Pedersen SB (1993) Habitat-induced degradation of sound signals: quantifying the effects of communication sounds and bird location on blur ratio, excess attenuation, and signal-to-noise ratio in blackbird song. J Acoust Soc Am 93:2206–2220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eens M, Pinxten R, Verheyen RF (1991) Male song as a cue for mate choice in the European starling. Behaviour 116:210–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fisher J (1954) Evolution and bird sociality. In: Huxley J, Hardy AC, Ford EB (eds) Evolution as a process. Allen and Unwin, London, pp 71–83Google Scholar
  13. Forstmeier W (2002) Comparing cross-sectional with longitudinal analyses. Anim Behav 64:F9–F11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forstmeier W, Hasselquist D, Bensch S, Leisler B (2006) Does song reflect age and viability? A comparison between two populations of the great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:634–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garamszegi L, János T, Hegyi G, Szöllõsi E, Rosivall B, Eens M (2007) Age-dependent expression of song in the collared flycatcher, Ficedula albicollis. Ethology 113:246–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geberzahn N, Hultsch H (2003) Long-time storage of song types in birds: evidence from interactive playbacks. P Roy Soc Lond B Bio 270:1085–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gil D, Slater PJB (2000) Song organisation and singing patterns of the willow warbler, Phylloscopus trochilus. Behaviour 137:759–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gil D, Cobb JLS, Slater PJB (2001) Song characteristics are age dependent in the willow warbler, Phylloscopus trochilus. Anim Behav 62:689–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glutz von Blotzheim U, Bauer K (1985) Handbuch Der Vögel Mitteleuropas. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  20. Haccou P, Meelis E (1994) Statistical analyses of behavioural data. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Hesler N (2010) Song complexity in common blackbirds—an honest signal of male quality? Dissertation, University of CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  22. Hesler N, Mundry R, Dabelsteen T (2011) Does song repertoire size in common blackbirds play a role in an intra-sexual context? J Ornithol 152:591–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hiebert SM, Stoddard PK, Arcese P (1989) Repertoire size, territory acquisition and reproductive success in the song sparrow. Anim Behav 37:266–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hultsch H, Todt D (2004) Learning to sing. In: Marler P, Slabbekoorn H (eds) Nature’s music: the science of birdsong. Elsevier Academic, San Diego, pp 80–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Immelmann K (1969) Song development in the zebra finch and other estrildid finches. In: Hinde RA (ed) Bird vocalizations: their relations to current problems in biology and psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 61–74Google Scholar
  26. Kiefer S, Spiess A, Kipper S, Mundry R, Sommer C, Hultsch H, Todt D (2006) First-year common nightingales (Luscinia megarhynchos) have smaller song-type repertoire sizes than older males. Ethology 112:1217–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kiefer S, Sommer C, Scharff C, Kipper S, Mundry R (2009) Tuning towards tomorrow? Common nightingales Luscinia megarhynchos change and increase their song repertoires from the first to the second breeding season. J Avian Biol 40:231–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kiefer S, Sommer C, Scharff C, Kipper S (2010) Singing the popular songs? Nightingales share more song types with their breeding population in their second season than in their first. Ethology 116:619–626Google Scholar
  29. Kipper S, Kiefer S (2010) Age-related changes in birds’ singing styles: on fresh tunes and fading voices? In: Brockmann HJ (ed) Advances in the study of behavior. Academic, Burlington, pp 77–118Google Scholar
  30. Kipper S, Mundry R, Hultsch H, Todt D (2004) Long-term persistence of song performance rules in nightingales (Luscinia megarhynchos): a longitudinal field study on repertoire size and composition. Behaviour 141:371–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klump B, Hesler N, Dabelsteen T (2012) Quiet song in common blackbirds—repertoire size and use in an aggressive context. Bioacoustics 21:40–41, Conference abstractGoogle Scholar
  32. Lemon RE, Weary DM, Norris KJ (1992) Male morphology and behavior correlate with reproductive success in the American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29:399–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Manly BFJ (1997) Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin K (1995) Patterns and mechanisms for age-dependent reproduction and survival in birds. Am Zool 35:340–348Google Scholar
  35. McGregor PK, Dabelsteen T, Shepherd M, Pedersen SB (1992) The signal value of matched singing in great tits: evidence from interactive playback experiments. Anim Behav 43:987–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Messmer E, Messmer I (1956) Die Entwicklung der Lautäußerungen und einiger Verhaltensweisen der Amsel (Turdus merula merula L.) unter natürlichen Bedingungen und nach Einzelaufzucht in schalldichten Räumen. Z Tierpsychol 13:341–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mountjoy DJ, Lemon RE (1995) Extended song learning in wild European starlings. Anim Behav 49:357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nicholson JS, Buchanan KL, Marshall RC, Catchpole CK (2007) Song sharing and repertoire size in the sedge warbler, Acrocephalus schoenobaenus: changes within and between years. Anim Behav 74:1585–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nordby JC, Campbell SE, Beecher MD (2002) Adult song sparrows do not alter their song repertoires. Ethology 108:39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Poesel A, Kunc HP, Foerster K, Johnsen A, Kempenaers B (2006) Early birds are sexy: male age, dawn song and extrapair paternity in blue tits, Cyanistes (formerly Parus) caeruleus. Anim Behav 72:531–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Potter DM, Griffiths DJ (2006) Omnibus permutation tests of the overall null hypothesis in datasets with many covariates. J Biopharm Stat 16:327–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Préault M, Chastel O, Cezilly F, Faivre B (2005) Male bill colour and age are associated with parental abilities and breeding performance in blackbirds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:497–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. R Development Core Team (2008) R: A language and environment for statistical computing [2.9.1]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  44. Rasmussen R, Dabelsteen T (2002) Song repertoires and repertoire sharing in a local group of Blackbirds. Bioacoustics 13:63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rivera-Gutierrez HF, Pinxten R, Eens M (2010) Multiple signals for multiple messages: great tit, Parus major, song signals age and survival. Anim Behav 80:451–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sacher T, Engler J, Gorschewski A, Gottschling M, Hesler N, Bairlein F, Coppack T (2006) Die Helgoländer Amselpopulation: ein Modell für Populationsgenetik und Zugbiologie. Ornithologischer Jahresbericht Helgoland 16:76–84Google Scholar
  47. Snow DW (1958) A study of blackbirds. George Allen and Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Spencer KA, Buchanan KL, Goldsmith AR, Catchpole CK (2004) Developmental stress, social rank and song complexity in the European starling (Stumus vulgaris). P Roy Soc Lond B Bio 271(suppl):S121–S123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Svensson L (1992) Identification guide to European passerines. Svensson, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  50. Temeles EJ (1994) The role of neighbours in territorial systems—when are they dear enemies. Anim Behav 47:339–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thielcke-Poltz H, Thielcke G (1960) Akustisches Lernen verschieden alter schallisolierter Amseln (Turdus merula L.) und die Entwicklung erlernter Motive ohne und mit künstlichem Einfluß von Testosteron. Z Tierpsychol 17:211–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Todt D (1968) Korrespondenz zwischen wechselsingenden Amseln. Z Naturforsch 23b:1619Google Scholar
  53. Todt D (1970) Gesangliche Reaktionen der Amsel (Turdus merula L.) auf ihren experimentell reproduzierten Eigengesang. Z vergleichende Physiologie 66:294–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Todt D (1981) On functions of vocal matching: effect of counter-replies on song post choice and singing. Z Tierpsychol 57:73–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weatherhead PJ, Boag PT (1995) Pair and extra-pair mating success relative to male quality in red-winged blackbirds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 37:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ydenberg RC, Giraldeau LA, Falls JB (1988) Neighbours, strangers, and the asymmetric war of attrition. Anim Behav 36:343–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag and ISPA 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary AnthropologyLeipzigGermany
  3. 3.Behavioural Ecology Group, Department of BiologyUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations