Animal Cognition

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 999–1006 | Cite as

Age-based discrimination of rival males in western bluebirds

  • Çağlar Akçay
  • J. Andrew Arnold
  • Katherine L. Hambury
  • Janis L. Dickinson
Original Paper

Abstract

Adaptive social behavior frequently involves discriminating between classes of individuals such as relatives versus non-relatives, older versus younger individuals, or individuals of different status. In the absence of spatial cues, this discrimination may be based on signals that correlate with fitness-related traits (e.g., older or high-status males may sing higher performance songs) or with identity, for example, when receivers distinguish and classify signalers based on their unique signal structure. Here, we examine vocal age-based discrimination in western bluebirds (Sialia mexicana), a North American songbird in which older males have a significant advantage in obtaining extra-pair fertilizations, and therefore pose a significantly higher threat to paternity than younger males. We asked whether western bluebird males showed a higher response to playback of songs of older males compared to younger males relative to their own age. We prepared song stimuli by removing three potential signals of age that have been identified as important in other species: (1) note consistency (which was achieved by playing a single instance of each note repeatedly), (2) note repertoire size, and (3) singing rate (the latter two were equalized across conditions). Even in the absence of these potential signals of age, young males responded more strongly to playback of older males’ songs than to young males’ songs, suggesting that they are able to discriminate between age classes relative to the threat they pose. Further research is required to determine whether this discrimination is based on individual recognition or signal features that are correlated with age.

Keywords

Extra-pair mating Individual recognition Dear enemy effect Communication networks Western bluebirds 

References

  1. Akçay E, Roughgarden J (2007) Extra-pair paternity in birds: review of genetic benefits. Evol Ecol Res 9:855–868Google Scholar
  2. Akçay Ç, Wood WE, Searcy WA, Templeton CN, Campbell SE, Beecher MD (2009) Good neighbour, bad neighbour: song sparrows retaliate against aggressive rivals. Anim Behav 78:97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akçay Ç, Swift RJ, Reed VA, Dickinson J (2013) Vocal kin recognition in kin neighborhoods of western bluebirds. Behav Ecol. doi:10.1093/beheco/art018 Google Scholar
  4. Akçay Ç, Hambury KL, Arnold JA, Nevins AM, Dickinson JL (2014) Song sharing with neighbours and relatives in a cooperatively breeding songbird. Anim Behav 92:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Botero CA, Rossman RJ, Caro LM, Stenzler LM, Lovette IJ, de Kort SR, Vehrencamp SL (2009) Syllable type consistency is related to age, social status and reproductive success in the tropical mockingbird. Anim Behav 77:701–706CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Brumm H, Ritschard M (2011) Song amplitude affects territorial aggression of male receivers in chaffinches. Behav Ecol. doi:10.1093/beheco/arq205 Google Scholar
  7. Budden AE, Dickinson JL (2009) Signals of quality and age: the information content of multiple plumage ornaments in male western bluebirds Sialia mexicana. J Avian Biol 40:18–27. doi:10.1111/j.1600-048X.2008.04344.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cleasby IR, Nakagawa S (2012) The influence of male age on within-pair and extra-pair paternity in passerines. Ibis 154:318–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Core Team R (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  10. Cramer ERA, Price JJ (2007) Red-winged blackbirds Ageliaus phoeniceus respond differently to song types with different performance levels. J Avian Biol 38:122–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Kort SR, Eldermire ER, Valderrama S, Botero CA, Vehrencamp SL (2009) Trill consistency is an age-related assessment signal in banded wrens. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 276:2315–2321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dickinson JL (1997) Male detention affects extra-pair copulation frequency and pair behaviour in western bluebirds. Anim Behav 53:561–571. doi:10.1006/anbe.1996.0331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dickinson JL (2001) Extrapair copulations in western bluebirds (Sialia mexicana): female receptivity favors older males. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 50:423–429. doi:10.1007/s002650100381 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dickinson JL, Akre JJ (1998) Extrapair paternity, inclusive fitness, and within-group benefits of helping in western bluebirds. Mol Ecol 7:95–105. doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00320.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dickinson JL, Koenig WD, Pitelka FA (1996) Fitness consequences of helping behavior in the western bluebird. Behav Ecol 7:168–177. doi:10.1093/beheco/7.2.168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferree ED, Dickinson JL (2011) Natural extrapair paternity matches receptivity patterns in unguarded females: evidence for importance of female choice. Anim Behav 82:1167–1173. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.08.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fisher JB (1954) Evolution and bird sociality. In: Huxley J, Hardy AC, Ford EB (eds) Evolution as process. Allen & Unwin, London, pp 71–83Google 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. Godard R (1993) Tit-for-tat among neighboring hooded warblers. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 33:45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hill CE, Akçay Ç, Campbell SE, Beecher MD (2011) Extrapair paternity, song and genetic quality in song sparrows. Behav Ecol 22:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hsu YH, Schroeder J, Winney I, Burke T, Nakagawa S (2015) Are extra-pair males different from cuckolded males? A case study and a meta-analytic examination. Mol Ecol 24:1558–1571CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hyman J, Hughes M (2006) Territory owners discriminate between aggressive and nonaggressive neighbours. Anim Behav 72:209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Illes AE, Hall ML, Vehrencamp SL (2006) Vocal performance influences male receiver response in the banded wren. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 273:1907–1912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kondo N, Izawa E-I, Watanabe S (2012) Crows cross-modally recognize group members but not non-group members. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 279:1937–1942. doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.2419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kraaijeveld K, Dickinson JL (2001) Family-based winter territoriality in western bluebirds, Sialia mexicana, the structure and dynamics of winter groups. Anim Behav 61:109–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. McGregor PK (1993) Signalling in territorial systems: a context for individual identification, ranging and eavesdropping. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 340:237–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McGregor PK (2005) Animal communication networks. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mennill DJ, Ratcliffe LM, Boag PT (2002) Female eavesdropping on male song contests in songbirds. Science (Wash) 296:873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Naguib M, Amrhein V, Kunc HP (2004) Effects of territorial intrusions on eavesdropping neighbors: communication networks in nightingales. Behav Ecol 15:1011–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nemeth E, Kempenaers B, Matessi G, Brumm H (2012) Rock sparrow song reflects male age and reproductive success. PLoS ONE 7:e43259CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Otter K, McGregor PK, Terry AMR, Burford FRL, Peake TM, Dabelsteen T (1999) Do female great tits (Parus major) assess males by eavesdropping? A field study using interactive song playback. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 266:1305–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peake TM (2005) Eavesdropping in communication networks. In: McGregor PK (ed) Animal communication networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 13–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peake TM, Terry AM, McGregor PK, Dabelsteen T (2001) Male great tits eavesdrop on simulated male-to-male vocal interactions. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 268:1183–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Richardson D, Burke T (1999) Extra-pair paternity in relation to male age in Bullock’s orioles. Mol Ecol 8:2115–2126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Shizuka D, Dickinson JL (2005) Using molt limits to age Western Bluebirds. J Field Ornithol 76:193–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Snijders L, van Rooij EP, Burt JM, Hinde CA, van Oers K, Naguib M (2014) Social networking in territorial great tits: slow explorers have the least central social network positions. Anim Behav 98:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stoddard PK (1996) Vocal recognition of neighbors by territorial passerines. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller DE (eds) Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 356–374Google Scholar
  39. Wiley R (2013) Specificity and multiplicity in the recognition of individuals: implications for the evolution of social behaviour. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 88:179–195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Çağlar Akçay
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. Andrew Arnold
    • 1
    • 3
  • Katherine L. Hambury
    • 1
  • Janis L. Dickinson
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Cornell Lab of OrnithologyIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA
  4. 4.Department of Natural ResourcesCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations