Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reproductive interference via display signals: the challenge of multiple receivers

  • Special feature: Notes and comments
  • Reproductive Interference
  • Published:
Population Ecology

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

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.

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.

Fig. 1

References

  • Adret P (2004) In search of the song template. Ann NY Acad Sci 1016:303–324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baker MC, Baker AEM (1990) Reproductive behavior of female buntings: isolating mechanisms in a hybridizing pair of species. Evolution 44:332–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baptista LF, Catchpole CK (1989) Vocal mimicry and interspecific aggression in songbirds: experiments using white-crowned sparrow imitation of song sparrow song. Behaviour 109:247–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolhuis JJ, Moorman S (2015) Birdsong memory and the brain: in search of the template. Neursci Biobehav Rev 50:41–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catchpole C, Slater PJ (1995) Bird song: biological themes and variations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Cody ML (1969) Convergent characteristics in sympatric species: a possible relation to interspecific competition and aggression. Condor 71:222–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 84:239–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cynx J (1993) Conspecific song perception in zebra finches (Taeniopygiaguttata). J Comp Psychol 107:395–402

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 178:53–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • den Hertog PM, de Kort SR, ten Cate C (2007) Hybrid vocalizations are effective within, but not outside, an avian hybrid zone. Behav Ecol 18:608–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 254:75–82

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 60:260–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant PR, Grant BR (1997) Hybridization, sexual imprinting and mate choice. Am Nat 149:1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 84:617–635

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gröning J, Hochkirch A (2008) Reproductive interference between animal species. Q Rev Biol 83:257–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 17:227–237

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Helb H-W, Dowsett-Lemaire F, Bergmann H-H, Conrads K (1985) Mixed singing in European songbirds: a review. Z Tierpsychol 69:27–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson EJ, Price TD (2014) Pervasive reinforcement and the role of sexual selection in biological speciation. J Hered S1:821–833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 22:13–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 40:559–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley LA, Coe RL, Madden JR, Healy SD (2008) Vocal mimicry in songbirds. Anim Behav 76:521–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyogoku D (2015) Reproductive interference: ecological and evolutionary consequences of interspecific promiscuity. Popul Ecol. doi:10.1007/s10144-015-0486-1

    Google Scholar 

  • Lackey ACR, Boughman JW (2013) Divergent sexual selection via male competition: ecology is key. J Evol Biol 26:1611–1624

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Laiolo P (2012) Interspecific interactions drive cultural co-evolution and acoustic convergence in syntopic species. J Anim Ecol 81:594–604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 121:403–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leitão A, Riebel K (2003) Are good ornaments bad armaments? Male chaffinch perception of songs with varying flourish length. Anim Behav 66:161–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marler P (1997) Three models of song learning: evidence from behavior. J Neurobiol 33:501–516

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson DA, Soha JA (2004) Male and female white-crowned sparrows respond differently to geographic variation in song. Behaviour 141:53–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nottebohm F, Arnold AP (1976) Sexual dimorphism in vocal control areas of the songbird brain. Science 194:211–213

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nottebohm R, Liu W-C (2010) The origins of vocal learning: new sounds, new circuits, new cells. Brain Lang 115:3–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nowicki S, Searcy WA (2004) Song function and the evolution of female preferences: why birds sing, why brains matter. Ann NY Acad Sci 1016:704–723

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Odom KJ, Hall ML, Riebel K, Omland KE, Langmore NE (2014) Female song is widespread and ancestral in songbirds. Nat Commun 5:3379

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Okanoya K (2006) Neuro-ecology of song complexity in Bengalese finches. Acta Zool Sin 52:76–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Qvarnström A, Haavie J, Sæther SA, Eriksson D, Pärt T (2006) Song similarity predicts hybridization in flycatchers. J Evol Biol 19:1202–1209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 120:717–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohwer SA (1973) Significance of sympatry to behavior and evolution of Great Plains meadowlarks. Evolution 27:44–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searcy WA (1990) Species recognition of song by female red-winged blackbirds. Anim Behav 40:1119–1127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searcy WA, Brenowitz EA (1988) Sexual differences in species recognition of avian song. Nature 332:152–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searcy WA, Nowicki S, Hughes M (1997) The response of male and female song sparrows to geographic variation in song. Condor 99:651–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 38:441–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 277:2475–2483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Servedio MR, Noor MAF (2003) The role of reinforcement in speciation: theory and data. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:339–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Svedin N, Wiley C, Veen T, Gustafsson L, Qvarnström A (2008) Natural and sexual selection against hybrid flycatchers. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:735–744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Tobias JA, Seddon N (2009) Signal design and perception in Hypocnemisantbirds: evidence for convergent evolution via social selection. Evolution 63:3169–3189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 506:359–363

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 108:65–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uy JA, Moyle RG, Filardi CE (2009) Plumage and song differences mediate species recognition between incipient flycatcher species of the Solomon Islands. Evolution 63:153–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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:e60172

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weir JT, Wheatcroft DJ, Price TD (2012) The role of ecological constraint in driving the evolution of avian frequency across a latitudinal gradient. Evolution 66:2773–2783

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Animal Ecology, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18D, 752 36, Uppsala, Sweden

    David Wheatcroft

Authors
  1. David Wheatcroft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Wheatcroft.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wheatcroft, D. Reproductive interference via display signals: the challenge of multiple receivers. Popul Ecol 57, 333–337 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-015-0487-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-015-0487-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation