Advertisement

Population Ecology

, Volume 57, Issue 2, pp 333–337 | Cite as

Reproductive interference via display signals: the challenge of multiple receivers

Special feature: Notes and comments Reproductive Interference

Abstract

Sexually selected traits important in both mate and competitor recognition provide an opportunity to understand the tradeoffs associated with reproductive and competitive interference. When co-occurring species compete over similar resources, selection may promote signal similarity to facilitate competitive interactions in opposition to selection for signal divergence to maintain assortative mating. Bird song provides a classic example of contrasting selection on signal design, because songs function both in mate discrimination and in territorial advertisement. Similarity in songs aids competitor recognition both within and across species, and song convergence or mixing is widespread in the songbirds. Two related mechanisms can maintain mate recognition in the face of song convergence. First, multiple recognition signals, both across and within signaling modalities, provide a basis for mate and competitor discrimination using different sets of cues. Second, stricter female song preferences may allow interspecific male–male competitive communication without compromising female mate discrimination. I suggest that increased understanding of the neurobiology underlying song recognition will provide insight into the relative importance and prevalence of these different mechanisms along a continuum of species divergence.

Keywords

Competitive interference Evolutionary tradeoffs Reproductive interference Song Sexually selected signals 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Daisuke Kyogoku and the organizers of this special feature for their invitation to contribute and Anna Qvarnström for helpful comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Research Fellowship in Biology (www.nsf.gov).

References

  1. Adret P (2004) In search of the song template. Ann NY Acad Sci 1016:303–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker MC, Baker AEM (1990) Reproductive behavior of female buntings: isolating mechanisms in a hybridizing pair of species. Evolution 44:332–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baptista LF, Catchpole CK (1989) Vocal mimicry and interspecific aggression in songbirds: experiments using white-crowned sparrow imitation of song sparrow song. Behaviour 109:247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolhuis JJ, Moorman S (2015) Birdsong memory and the brain: in search of the template. Neursci Biobehav Rev 50:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Catchpole C, Slater PJ (1995) Bird song: biological themes and variations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Cody ML (1969) Convergent characteristics in sympatric species: a possible relation to interspecific competition and aggression. Condor 71:222–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Curé C, Mathevon N, Mundry R, Aubin T (2012) Acoustic cues used for species recognition can differ between sexes and sibling species: evidence in shearwaters. Anim Behav 84:239–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cynx J (1993) Conspecific song perception in zebra finches (Taeniopygiaguttata). J Comp Psychol 107:395–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dalziel AH, Welbergen JA, Igic B, Magrath RD (2014) Avian vocal mimicry: a unified conceptual framework. Biol Rev. doi: 10.1111/brv.12129 Google Scholar
  10. Danner JE, Danner RM, Bonier F, Martin PR, Small TW, Moore IT (2011) Female, but not male, tropical sparrows respond more strongly to the local song dialect: implications for population divergence. Am Nat 178:53–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. den Hertog PM, de Kort SR, ten Cate C (2007) Hybrid vocalizations are effective within, but not outside, an avian hybrid zone. Behav Ecol 18:608–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeVoogd TJ, Krebs JR, Healy SD, Purvis A (1993) Relations between song repertoire size and the volume of brain nuclei related to song: comparative evolutionary analysis amongst oscine birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 254:75–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gorissen L, Gorissen M, Eens M (2006) Heterospecific song matching in two closely related songbirds (Parus major and P. caeruleus): great tits match blue tits but not vice versa. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:260–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grant PR, Grant BR (1997) Hybridization, sexual imprinting and mate choice. Am Nat 149:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grether GF, Losin N, Anderson CN, Okamoto K (2009) The role of interspecific interference competition in character displacement and the evolution of competitor recognition. Biol Rev 84:617–635PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gröning J, Hochkirch A (2008) Reproductive interference between animal species. Q Rev Biol 83:257–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haavie J, Borge T, Bures S, Garamszegi LZ, Lampe H, Moreno J, Qvarnström A, Török J, Sætre G-P (2004) Flycatcher song in allopatry and sympatry: convergence, divergence and reinforcement. J Evol Biol 17:227–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Helb H-W, Dowsett-Lemaire F, Bergmann H-H, Conrads K (1985) Mixed singing in European songbirds: a review. Z Tierpsychol 69:27–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hudson EJ, Price TD (2014) Pervasive reinforcement and the role of sexual selection in biological speciation. J Hered S1:821–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hunt J, Breuker CJ, Sadowski JA, Moore AJ (2009) Male–male competition, female mate choice and their interaction: determining total sexual selection. J Evol Biol 22:13–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karubian J, Swaddle JP, Varian-Ramos CW, Webster MS (2009) The relative importance of male tail length and nuptial plumage on social discrimination and mate choice in the red-backed fairy-wren Malurusmelanocephalus: evidence for the multiple receiver hypothesis. J Avian Biol 40:559–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kelley LA, Coe RL, Madden JR, Healy SD (2008) Vocal mimicry in songbirds. Anim Behav 76:521–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kyogoku D (2015) Reproductive interference: ecological and evolutionary consequences of interspecific promiscuity. Popul Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10144-015-0486-1 Google Scholar
  24. Lackey ACR, Boughman JW (2013) Divergent sexual selection via male competition: ecology is key. J Evol Biol 26:1611–1624PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laiolo P (2012) Interspecific interactions drive cultural co-evolution and acoustic convergence in syntopic species. J Anim Ecol 81:594–604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leedale AE, Collins SA, de Kort SR (2015) Blackcaps (Sylvia atricapilla) increase the whistle part of their song in response to simulated territorial intrusion. Ethology 121:403–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leitão A, Riebel K (2003) Are good ornaments bad armaments? Male chaffinch perception of songs with varying flourish length. Anim Behav 66:161–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marler P (1997) Three models of song learning: evidence from behavior. J Neurobiol 33:501–516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nelson DA, Soha JA (2004) Male and female white-crowned sparrows respond differently to geographic variation in song. Behaviour 141:53–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nottebohm F, Arnold AP (1976) Sexual dimorphism in vocal control areas of the songbird brain. Science 194:211–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nottebohm R, Liu W-C (2010) The origins of vocal learning: new sounds, new circuits, new cells. Brain Lang 115:3–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nowicki S, Searcy WA (2004) Song function and the evolution of female preferences: why birds sing, why brains matter. Ann NY Acad Sci 1016:704–723PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Odom KJ, Hall ML, Riebel K, Omland KE, Langmore NE (2014) Female song is widespread and ancestral in songbirds. Nat Commun 5:3379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Okanoya K (2006) Neuro-ecology of song complexity in Bengalese finches. Acta Zool Sin 52:76–79Google Scholar
  35. Qvarnström A, Haavie J, Sæther SA, Eriksson D, Pärt T (2006) Song similarity predicts hybridization in flycatchers. J Evol Biol 19:1202–1209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reichard DG, Price JJ (2008) Species recognition in a vocal mimic: repetition pattern not the only cue used by northern mockingbirds in discriminating songs of conspecifics and brown thrashers. Wilson J Ornithol 120:717–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rohwer SA (1973) Significance of sympatry to behavior and evolution of Great Plains meadowlarks. Evolution 27:44–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Searcy WA (1990) Species recognition of song by female red-winged blackbirds. Anim Behav 40:1119–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Searcy WA, Brenowitz EA (1988) Sexual differences in species recognition of avian song. Nature 332:152–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Searcy WA, Nowicki S, Hughes M (1997) The response of male and female song sparrows to geographic variation in song. Condor 99:651–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Secondi J, Bordas P, Hipsley CA, Bensch S (2011) Bilateral song convergence in a passerine hybrid zone: genetics contribute in one species only. Evol Biol 38:441–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Seddon N, Tobias JA (2010) Character displacement from the receiver’s perspective: species and mate recognition despite convergent signals in suboscine birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:2475–2483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Servedio MR, Noor MAF (2003) The role of reinforcement in speciation: theory and data. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:339–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shuker DM, Currie N, Hoole T, Burdfield-Steel ER (2015) The extent and costs of reproductive interference among four species of true bug. Popul Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10144-014-0470-1 Google Scholar
  45. Svedin N, Wiley C, Veen T, Gustafsson L, Qvarnström A (2008) Natural and sexual selection against hybrid flycatchers. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:735–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Takakura KI, Nishida T, Iwao K (2015) Conflicting intersexual mate choices maintain interspecific sexual interactions. Popul Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10144-015-0492-3 Google Scholar
  47. Tobias JA, Seddon N (2009) Signal design and perception in Hypocnemisantbirds: evidence for convergent evolution via social selection. Evolution 63:3169–3189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tobias JA, Cornwallis CK, Derryberry DP, Claramunt S, Brumfield RT, Seddon N (2014) Species coexistence and the dynamics of phenotypic evolution in adaptive evolution. Nature 506:359–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tomaszycki ML, Blaine SK (2014) Temporary inactivation of NCM, an auditory region, increases social interaction and decreases song perception in female zebra finches. Behav Proc 108:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Uy JA, Moyle RG, Filardi CE (2009) Plumage and song differences mediate species recognition between incipient flycatcher species of the Solomon Islands. Evolution 63:153–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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:e60172PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weir JT, Wheatcroft DJ, Price TD (2012) The role of ecological constraint in driving the evolution of avian frequency across a latitudinal gradient. Evolution 66:2773–2783PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology and Springer Japan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal EcologyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations