Do birds vocalize at higher pitch in noise, or is it a matter of measurement?

  • Alejandro A. Ríos-ChelénEmail author
  • Ambria N. McDonald
  • Ayala Berger
  • Anna C. Perry
  • Alan H. Krakauer
  • Gail L. Patricelli
Original Article


Studies have found that some birds use vocalizations with higher minimum frequency in noisy areas. Minimum frequency is often measured by visual inspection of spectrograms (“by-eye practice” (BEP)), which is prone to bias, e.g., if low-frequency components are masked by noise. We tested for this bias by comparing measurements of minimum frequency obtained with the BEP for the same set of red-winged blackbird vocalizations (songs and two call types “checks” and “cheers”) played back under ambient, medium, and high noise conditions using a dual playback experiment where both vocalizations and noise were introduced. We compared BEP measurements to those obtained from power spectrum analyses using a preset amplitude threshold (“threshold method” (TM)). The BEP was biased when measuring the minimum frequencies of songs and checks, which are masked by noise, but not when measuring cheers, which are higher pitched and thus not masked. Measures using the TM were not affected by noise, but this method may fail to identify the vocalizations’ lowest frequency if noise necessitates a low (i.e., conservative) threshold. Using the BEP, we also found a bias toward shorter-duration measurements for songs in increasing noise, and for checks, a bias toward increased measures of an energy distribution parameter (Freq5%), likely in correlation with increased measured minimum frequency. Measures taken from the unmasked cheers were similar regardless of the technique used. We discuss limitations of each approach and encourage the use of the TM, as studies using the BEP may lead to spurious results.

Significance statement

Noise from human activities is ubiquitous. Researchers have found that some birds vocalize at higher frequency (pitch) in noise, hypothesizing that this may improve signal detection in low-frequency noise. Noise may also hinder detection of signal components by researchers using the most common measurement technique (the BEP), which may be mistaken for increasing frequency. To examine this bias, we conducted a dual playback experiment, in which we broadcast the same vocalizations at three background noise levels. We found that BEP measures of minimum frequency increased with increasing noise even though the vocalizations did not change. We recommend the TM which yielded similar measures across noise levels, although it excluded some lower-frequency elements included by the BEP. We encourage researchers to use the TM over the BEP and to validate their methods across noise levels of interest.


Noise Bird song Pitch Minimum frequency By-eye practice Threshold method 



We thank the Wetlands reserve for allowing us to work in the Wetlands. We thank members of the Patricelli Lab, especially Allison Injaian, for the feedback and help in the field. We thank Carole Hom, Rick Grosberg, and the UC Davis Evolution and Ecology Graduate Admissions Pathways program for bringing ANM to UC Davis for a summer and providing excellent feedback and training. We thank Laura Corkovic for the help with translation during the literature survey. We thank the reviewers and editor who improved this paper with their valuable comments.

Compliance with ethical standards


AAR-CH was supported by a UC MEXUS-CONACYT fellowship, and ANM was supported by the UC Davis Evolution and Ecology Graduate Admissions Pathways program. Support for the data collection was provided by UC MEXUS-CONACYT to AAR-CH, by UC Davis and National Science Foundation grant (IOS-1258217) to GLP and AHK, and an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship to ACP (DGE-1148897).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

265_2016_2243_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (15 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 14 kb)


  1. Azar JF, Bell BD, Borowiec M (2014) Temporal change of the song of a local population of the Grey warbler (Gerygone igata): has its song changed over time? Emu 114:80–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beecher MD (1988) Spectrographic analysis of animal vocalizations: implications of the ‘uncertainty principle’. Bioacoustics 1:187–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bermúdez-Cuamatzin E, Ríos-Chelén AA, Gil D, Macías Garcia C (2009) Strategies of song adaptation to urban noise in the house finch: syllable pitch plasticity or differential syllable use? Behaviour 146:1269–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bermúdez-Cuamatzin E, Ríos-Chelén AA, Gil D, Macías Garcia C (2011) Experimental evidence for real-time song frequency shift in response to urban noise in a passerine bird. Biol Lett 7:36–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brumm H, Slabbekoorn H (2005) Acoustic communication in noise. Adv Stud Behav 35:151–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brumm H, Slater PJB (2006) Ambient noise, motor fatigue, and serial redundancy in chaffinch song. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:475–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brumm H, Zollinger SA (2013) Avian vocal production in noise. In: Brumm H (ed) Animal communication and noise. Animal signals and communication, vol 2. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 187–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cardoso GC, Atwell JW (2011a) On the relation between loudness and the increased song frequency of urban birds. Anim Behav 82:831–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cardoso GC, Atwell JW (2011b) Directional cultural change by modification and replacement of memes. Evolution 65:295–300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cardoso GC, Atwell JW (2012) On amplitude and frequency in birdsong: a reply to Zollinger et al. Anim Behav 84:e10–e15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cartwright LA, Taylor DR, Wilson DR, Chow-Fraser P (2014) Urban noise affects song structure and daily patterns of song production in red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus). Urban Ecosyst 17:561–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Derryberry EP, Danner RM, Danner JE, Derryberry GE, Phillips JN, Lipshutz SE, Gentry K, Luther DA (2016) Patterns of song across natural and anthropogenic soundscapes suggest that white-crowned sparrows minimize acoustic masking and maximize signal content. PLoS One 11:e0154456CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Dowling JL, Luther DA, Marra PP (2012) Comparative effects of urban development and anthropogenic noise on bird songs. Behav Ecol 23:201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fernández-Juricic E, Poston R, De Collibus K, Morgan T, Bastain B, Martin C, Jones K, Treminio T (2005) Microhabitat selection and singing behavior patterns of male house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus) in urban parks in a heavily urbanized landscape in the western U.S. Urban Habitats 3:49–69Google Scholar
  15. Francis CD, Ortega CP, Cruz A (2011a) Vocal frequency change reflects different responses to anthropogenic noise in two suboscine tyrant flycatchers. Proc R Soc Lond B 278:2025–2031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Francis CD, Ortega CP, Cruz A (2011b) Different behavioural responses to anthropogenic noise by two closely related passerine birds. Biol Lett 7:850–852CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Gil D, Brumm H (2014) Acoustic communication in the urban environment: patterns, mechanisms, and potential consequences of avian song adjustments. In: Gil D, Brumm H (eds) Avian urban ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 69–83Google Scholar
  18. Giraudeau M, Nolan PM, Black CE, Earl SR, Hasegawa M, McGraw KJ (2014) Song characteristics track bill morphology along a gradient of urbanization in house finches (Haemorhous mexicanus). Front Zool 11:83CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Gough DC, Mennill DJ, Nol E (2014) Singing seaside: Pacific wrens (Troglodytes pacificus) change their songs in the presence of natural and anthropogenic noise. Wilson J Ornithol 126:269–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grace MK, Anderson RC (2015) No frequency shift in the “D” notes of Carolina chickadee calls in response to traffic noise. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69:253–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gross K, Pasinelli G, Kunc HP (2010) Behavioral plasticity allows short-term adjustment to a novel environment. Am Nat 176:456–464CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Halfwerk W, Bot S, Buikx J, van der Velde M, Komdeur J, ten Cate C, Slabbekoorn H (2011) Low-frequency songs lose their potency in noisy urban conditions. P Natl Acad Sci USA 108:14549–14554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamao S, Watanabe M, Mori Y (2011) Urban noise and male density affect songs in the great tit Parus major. Ethol Ecol Evol 23:111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanna D, Blouin-Demers G, Wilson DR, Mennill DJ (2011) Anthropogenic noise affects song structure in red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus). J Exp Biol 214:3549–3556CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hu Y, Cardoso GC (2009) Are bird species that vocalize at higher frequencies preadapted to inhabit noisy urban areas? Behav Ecol 20:1268–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hu Y, Cardoso GC (2010) Which birds adjust the frequency of vocalizations in urban noise? Anim Behav 79:863–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ivanitskii VV, Antipov VA, Marova IM (2015) The thrush nightingale (Luscinia luscinia) in Moscow and Moscow suburbs: city noise influences the frequency parameters of its song. Biol Bull 42:724–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lenske AK, La VT (2014) White-throated sparrows alter songs differentially in response to chorusing anurans and other background noise. Behav Process 105:28–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. León E, Beltzer A, Quiroga M (2014) The saffron finch (Sicalis flaveola) modifies its vocalizations to adapt to urban habitats. Rev Mex Biodivers 85:546–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leonard ML, Horn AG (2008) Does ambient noise affect growth and begging call structure in nestling birds? Behav Ecol 19:502–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leonard ML, Horn AG, Oswald KN, McIntyre E (2015) Effect of ambient noise on parent–offspring interactions in tree swallows. Anim Behav 109:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Luther D, Baptista L (2010) Urban noise and the cultural evolution of bird songs. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:469–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Luther DA, Derrryberry EP (2012) Birdsongs keep pace with city life: changes in song over time in an urban songbird affects communication. Anim Behav 83:1059–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Luther DA, Phillips J, Derryberry EP (2015) Not so sexy in the city: urban birds adjust songs to noise but compromise vocal performance. Behav Ecol 27:332–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McLaughlin KE, Kunc HP (2013) Experimentally increased noise levels change spatial and singing behaviour. Biol Lett 9:20120771PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Mendes S, Colino-Rabanal VJ, Peris SJ (2011) Bird song variations along an urban gradient: the case of the European blackbird (Turdus merula). Landscape Urban Plan 99:51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mockford EJ, Marshall RC (2009) Effects of urban noise on song and response behavior in great tits. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:2979–2985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Montague MJ, Danek-Gontard M, Kunc JP (2012) Phenotypic plasticity affects the response of a sexually selected trait to anthropogenic noise. Behav Ecol 24:343–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Narango DL, Rodewald AD (2016) Urban-associated drivers of song variation along a rural–urban gradient. Behav Ecol 27:608–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nemeth E, Brumm H (2010) Birds and anthropogenic noise: are urban songs adaptive? Am Nat 176:465–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Nemeth E, Zollinger SA, Brumm H (2012) Effect sizes and the integrative understanding of urban bird song. Am Nat 180:146–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nemeth E, Pieretti N, Zollinger SA, Geberzahn N, Partecke J, Miranda AC, Brumm H (2013) Bird song and anthropogenic noise: vocal constraints may explain why birds sing higher-frequency songs in cities. Proc R Soc B 280:20122798CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Oden AI, Brown MB, Burbach ME, Brandle JR, Quinn JE (2015) Variation in avian vocalizations during the non-breeding season in response to traffic noise. Ethology 121:472–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Patricelli GL, Blickley JL (2006) Avian communication in urban noise: causes and consequences of vocal adjustment. Auk 123:639–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Patricelli GL, Dantzker MS, Bradbury JW (2007) Differences in acoustic directionality among vocalizations of the male red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) are related to function in communication. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1099–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Podos J (1997) A performance constraint on the evolution of trilled vocalizations in a songbird family (Passeriformes: Emberizidae). Evolution 51:537–551CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Podos J (2001) Correlated evolution of morphology and vocal signal structure in Darwin’s finches. Nature 409:185–188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Pohl NU, Leadbeater E, Slabbekoorn H, Klump GM, Langemann U (2012) Great tits in urban noise benefit from high frequencies in song detection and discrimination. Anim Behav 83:711–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Potvin DA, MacDougal-Shackleton SA (2015) Traffic noise affects embryo mortality and nestling growth rates in captive zebra finches. J Exp Zool 323:722–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Potvin DA, Mulder RA (2013) Immediate, independent adjustment of call pitch and amplitude in response to varying background noise by silvereyes (Zosterops lateralis). Behav Ecol 24:1363–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Potvin DA, Parris KM, Mulder RA (2011) Geographically pervasive effects of urban noise on frequency and syllable rate of songs and calls in silvereyes (Zosterops lateralis). Proc R Soc Lond B 278:2464–2469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Potvin DA, Mulder RA, Parris KM (2014) Silvereyes decrease acoustic frequency but increase efficacy of alarm calls in urban noise. Anim Behav 98:27–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Redondo P, Barrantes G, Sandoval L (2013) Urban noise influences vocalization structure in the house wren Troglodytes aedon. Ibis 155:621–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ríos-Chelén AA (2009) Birdsong: the interplay between urban noise and sexual selection. Oecol Brasil 13:153–164Google Scholar
  55. Ríos-Chelén AA, Salaberria C, Barbosa I, Macías Garcia C, Gil D (2012) The learning advantage: bird species that learn their song show a tighter adjustment of song to noisy environments than those that do not learn. J Evol Biol 25:2171–2180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Ríos-Chelén AA, Quirós-Guerrero E, Gil D, Macías Garcia C (2013) Dealing with urban noise: vermilion flycatchers sing longer songs in noisier territories. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ríos-Chelén AA, Lee GC, Patricelli GL (2015) Anthropogenic noise is associated with changes in acoustic but not visual signals in red-winged blackbirds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69:1139–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ríos-Chelén AA, Lee GC, Patricelli GL (2016) A comparison between two ways to measure minimum frequency and an experimental test of vocal plasticity in red-winged blackbirds in response to noise. Behaviour (published online, doi: 10.1163/1568539X-00003390)
  59. Salaberria C, Gil D (2010) Increase in song frequency in response to urban noise in the great tit Parus major as shown by data from the Madrid (Spain) city noise map. Ardeola 57:3–11Google Scholar
  60. Seger-Fullam KD, Rodewald AD, Soha JA (2011) Urban noise predicts song frequency in northern cardinals and American robins. Bioacoustics 20:267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Slabbekoorn H (2013) Songs of the city: noise-dependent spectral plasticity in the acoustic phenotype of urban birds. Anim Behav 85:1089–1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Slabbekoorn H, den Boer-Visser A (2006) Cities change the songs of birds. Curr Biol 16:2326–2331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Slabbekoorn H, Peet M (2003) Birds sing at higher pitch in urban noise. Nature 426:267–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Slabbekoorn H, Smith TB (2002) Habitat-dependent song divergence in the little greenbul: an analysis of environmental selection pressures on acoustic signals. Evolution 56:1849–1858CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Slabbekoorn H, Yeh P, Hunt K (2007) Sound transmission and song divergence: a comparison of urban and forest acoustics. Condor 109:67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Slabbekoorn H, Yang X-J, Halfwerk W (2012) Birds and anthropogenic noise: singing higher may matter. Am Nat 180:142–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Verzijden MN, Ripmeester EAP, Ohms VR, Snelderwaard P, Slabbekoorn H (2010) Immediate spectral flexibility in singing chiffchaffs during experimental exposure to highway noise. J Exp Biol 213:2575–2581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Wood WE, Yezerinac SM (2006) Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) song varies with urban noise. Auk 123:650–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zollinger SA, Podos J, Nemeth E, Goller F, Brumm H (2012) On the relationship between, and measurement of, amplitude and frequency in bird song. Anim Behav 84:e1–e9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alejandro A. Ríos-Chelén
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ambria N. McDonald
    • 1
    • 3
  • Ayala Berger
    • 1
  • Anna C. Perry
    • 1
  • Alan H. Krakauer
    • 1
  • Gail L. Patricelli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Evolution and EcologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Centro Tlaxcala de Biología de la ConductaUniversidad Autónoma de TlaxcalaPueblaMexico
  3. 3.Department of BiologyHoward UniversityWashington,USA

Personalised recommendations