Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sex differences in auditory filters of brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater)

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Comparative Physiology A Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Receiver sensory abilities can be influenced by a number of factors, including habitat, phylogeny and the selective pressure to acquire information about conspecifics or heterospecifics. It has been hypothesized that brood-parasitic brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) females may locate or determine the quality of potential hosts by eavesdropping on their sexual signals. This is expected to produce different sex-specific pressures on the auditory system to detect conspecific and heterospecific acoustic signals. Here, we examined auditory filter shape and efficiency, which influence the ability to resolve spectral and temporal information, in males and females at center frequencies of 2, 3 and 4 kHz. We found that overall, cowbirds had relatively wide filters (lsmean ± SE: 619.8 ± 41.6 Hz). Moreover, females had narrower filters (females: 491.4 ± 66.8, males: 713.8 ± 67.3 Hz) and greater filter efficiency (females: 59.0 ± 2.0, males: 69.8 ± 1.9 dB) than males. Our results suggest that the filters of female cowbirds may allow them to extract spectral information from heterospecific vocalizations. The broader auditory filters of males may reflect limited spectral energy in conspecific vocalizations in this frequency range, and hence, weaker selection for high resolution of frequency in the range of 2–4 kHz.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Banks AJ, Martin TE (2001) Host activity and the risk of nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds. Behav Ecol 12:31–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Boersma P, Weenink D (2009) Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer version 5.1.17. Computer program retrieved September 2008. http://www.praat.org/

  • Brenowitz EA (1989) Neighbour call amplitude influences aggressive behaviour and intermale spacing in choruses of the Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla). Ethology 83:69–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brittan-Powell EF, Dooling RJ, Gleich O (2002) Auditory brainstem responses (ABR) in adult budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulates). J Acoust Soc Am 112:999–1008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brittan-Powell EF, Lohr B, Hahn DC, Dooling RJ (2005) Auditory brainstem responses in the eastern screech owl: an estimate of auditory thresholds. J Acoust Soc Am 118:314–321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bruns V, Burda H, Ryan MJ (1989) Ear morphology of the frog-eating bat (Trachops cirrhosus Family: Phyllostomidae): apparent specializations for low-frequency hearing. J Morphol 199:103–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnell K, Rothstein SI (1994) Variation in the structure of female brown-headed vocalizations and its relation to vocal function. Condor 96:703–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charitidi K, Meltser I, Tahera Y, Canlon B (2009) Functional responses of estrogen receptors in the male and female auditory system. Hear Res 252:71–78

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clotfelter ED (1998) What cues due brown-headed cowbirds use to locate red-winged blackbird host nests? Anim Behav 55:1181–1189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dent ML, Klump GM, Schwenzfeier C (2002) Temporal modulation transfer functions in the barn owl (Tyto alba). J Comp Physiol A 187:937–943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dooling RJ, Lohr B, Dent ML (2000) Hearing in birds and reptiles. In: Dooling RJ, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) Comparative hearing: birds and reptiles. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 308–359

    Google Scholar 

  • Dooling RJ, Leek MR, Gleich O, Dent ML (2002) Auditory temporal resolution in birds: discrimination of harmonic complexes. J Acoust Soc Am 112:748–759

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Endler JA (1992) Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution. Am Nat 139:S125–S153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng AS, Narins PM, Xu C, Lin W, Yu Z, Qiu Q, Xu Z (2006) Ultrasonic communication in frogs. Nature 440:333–336

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Forlano PL, Deitcher DL, Bass AH (2005) Distribution of estrogen receptor alpha mRNA in the brain and inner ear of a vocal fish with comparisons to sites of aromatase expression. J Comp Neurol 483:91–113

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann H, Kiff LF (1985) The parasitic cowbirds and their hosts. Proc West Found Vertebr Zool 2:225–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Gall MD, Lucas JR (2010) Sex difference in frequency-specific auditory processing in the brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater): implications for vocal processing (in review)

  • Glassberg BR, Moore BCJ (1990) Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data. Hear Res 47:103–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goense JBM, Feng AS (2005) Seasonal changes in frequency tuning and temporal processing in single neurons in the frog auditory midbrain. J Neurobiol 65:22–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hall JW III (2007) New handbook of auditory-evoked responses. Allyn and Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry KS, Lucas JR (2008) Coevolution of auditory sensitivity and temporal resolution with acoustic signal space in three songbirds. Anim Behav 76:1659–1671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry KS, Lucas JR (2009) Vocally correlated seasonal auditory variation in the house sparrow (Passer domesticus). J Exp Biol 212:3817–3822

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henry KS, Lucas JR (2010) Habitat-related differences in auditory filter bandwidth of songbirds. Funct Ecol 24:614–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hienz JD, Sachs MB (1987) Effects of noise on pure-tone thresholds in blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus and Molothrus ater) and pigeons (Columba livia). J Comp Psychol 101:16–24

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jønsson KA, Fjeldså J (2006) A phylogenetic supertree of oscine passerine birds (Aves: Passeri). Zoologica Scripta 35:149–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konishi M (1970) Comparative neurophysiological studies of hearing and vocalizations in songbirds. Z Vgl Physiol 66:257–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köppl C (1997) Phase locking to high frequencies in the auditory nerve and cochlear nucleus magnocellularis of the barn owl, Tyto alba. J Neurosci 17:3312–3321

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lowther PE (1993) Brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). In: Poole A (ed) The birds of North America online Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca

  • Lucas JR, Freeberg TM, Krishnan A, Long GR (2002) A comparative study of avian auditory brainstem responses: correlations with phylogeny and vocal complexity, and seasonal effects. J Comp Physiol A 188:981–992

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas JR, Freeberg TM, Long GR, Krishnan A (2007) Seasonal variation in avian auditory evoked responses to tones: a comparative analysis of Carolina chickadees, tufted titmice, and white-breasted nuthatches. J Comp Physiol A 192:201–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marean GC, Burt JM, Beecher MD, Rubel EW (1998) Auditory perception following hair cell regeneration in European starling (Sturnus volgaris): frequency and temporal resolution. J Acoust Soc Am 103:3567–3580

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moore BCJ (1993) Frequency analysis and pitch perception. In: Yost WA, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) Human psychophysics. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 56–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Naguib M (1995) Auditory distance estimation of singing conspecifics in Carolina wrens: the role of reverberation and frequency-dependent attenuation. Anim Behav 50:1297–1307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naguib M, Wiley RH (2001) Estimating the distance to a source sound: mechanisms and adaptations for long-range communication. Anim Behav 62:825–837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson BS (2000) Avian dependence on sound pressure level as an auditory distance cue. Anim Behav 59:57–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Noirot IC, Adler HJ, Cornil CA, Harada N, Dooling RJ, Balthazart J, Ball GF (2009) Presence of aromatase and estrogen receptor alpha in the inner ear of zebra finches. Hear Res 252:49–55

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Loghlen AL, Rothstein SI (2010) Multimodal signaling in a songbird: male audiovisual displays vary significantly by social context in brown-headed cowbirds. Anim Behav (in press)

  • Padgham M (2004) Reverberation and frequency attenuation in forests—implications for acoustic communication in animals. J Acoust Soc Am 115:402–410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parejo D, Avilés JM (2007) Do avian brood parasites eavesdrop on heterospecific sexual signals revealing host quality? A review of the evidence. Anim Cogn 10:81–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson RD (1976) Auditory filter shape derived with noise stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 59:640–654

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson RD, Nimmo-Smith I, Weber DL, Milroy R (1982) The deterioration of hearing with age: frequency selectivity, the critical ratio, the audiogram, and speech threshold. J Acoust Soc Am 72:1788–1803

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Popov VV, Supin AY, Wang D, Wang K (2006) Nonconstant quality of auditory filters in the porpoises, Phocoena phocoena and Neophocaena phocaenoides (Cetacea Phocoenidae). J Acoust Soc Am 119:3173–3180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Richards DG, Wiley RH (1980) Reverberations and amplitude fluctuations in the propagation of sound in a forest: implications for animal communication. Am Nat 115:381–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robert D, Amoroso J, Hoy RR (1992) The evolutionary convergence between a parasitoid fly and its cricket host. Science 258:1135–1137

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robert D, Miles RN, Hoy RR (1996) Directional hearing by mechanical coupling in the parasitoid fly, Ormia ochracea. J Comp Physiol A 179:29–44

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sek A, Moore BCJ (2000) Detection of quasitrapezoidal frequency and amplitude modulation. J Acoust Soc Am 107:1598–1604

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sinnott JM, Sachs MB, Hienz RD (1980) Aspects of frequency discrimination in passerine birds and pigeons. J Comp Physiol Psychol 94:401–415

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sinsneros JA, Forlano PM, Deitcher DL, Bass AH (2004) Steroid-dependent auditory plasticity leads to adaptive coupling of sender and receiver. Science 305:404–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sisneros JA (2009) Adaptive hearing in the vocal plainfin midshipman fish: getting in tune for the breeding season and implications for acoustic communication. Integr Zool 4:33–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stenberg AE, Wang H, Sahlin L, Hultcrantz M (1999) Mapping of estrogen receptors a and b in the inner ear of mouse and rat. Hear Res 136:29–34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stenberg AE, Wang H, Fish J III, Schrott-Fischer A, Sahlin L, Hultcrantz M (2001) Estrogen receptors in the normal adult and developing human inner ear and in Turner’s syndrome. Hear Res 157:87–92

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thyer N, Mahar D (2006) Discrimination of nonlinear frequency glides. J Acoust Soc Am 119:2929–2936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Viemeister NF, Plack CJ (1993) Time analysis. In: Yost WA, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) Human psychophysics. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 116–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilczynski W, Brenowitz EA (1988) Acoustic cues mediate inter-male spacing in a neotropical frog. Anim Behav 36:1054–1063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley RH, Richards DG (1978) Physical constraints on acoustic communication in atmosphere—implications for evolution of animal vocalizations. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 3:69–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Kenneth Henry for feedback on methods and data collection. Thanks also to Dave Steyer and Esteban Fernández-Juricic for their assistance in bird capture. Finally, thanks to Mark Nolen, Lauren Brierley, Jacquelyn Randolet, Partrice Baumhardt, Kyle Hernandez, Jackie Doyle, and John Shorter for their feedback on this manuscript. All procedures were approved under Purdue University Animal Care and Use Committee protocol # 08-132.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Sciences, Lilly Hall, Purdue University, 915 State St, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    Megan D. Gall & Jeffrey R. Lucas

Authors
  1. Megan D. Gall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey R. Lucas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Megan D. Gall.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gall, M.D., Lucas, J.R. Sex differences in auditory filters of brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater). J Comp Physiol A 196, 559–567 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-010-0543-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-010-0543-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation