How is model selection determined in a vocal mimic?: Tests of five hypotheses
äºBehaviourSearch for other papers by David E. Gammon in
Current site
Google Scholar
Many animal species imitate the sounds of other species, but we know little about why vocal mimics copy some species while failing to copy other species, i.e., âmodel selectionâ. In this observational study of free-living northern mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos), I tested five hypotheses of model selection: (1)Â Proximity hypothesis: preferential imitation of species found in close proximity to the vocal mimic, (2)Â Aggression hypothesis: preferential imitation of species with which the mimic interacts aggressively, (3)Â Passive sampling hypothesis: preferential imitation of species heard frequently by the mimic, (4)Â Acoustic similarity hypothesis: preferential imitation of species whose sounds are acoustically similar to the non-imitative songs of the vocal mimic and (5)Â Alarm hypothesis: preferential imitation of alarm-associated vocalisations. The data supported only the acoustic similarity hypothesis. Given that this hypothesis has been supported in two additional mimicking lineages, it suggests a potential non-adaptive explanation for the evolution of vocal mimicry. Species that learn vocalisations are already predisposed toward learning sounds with key acoustic characteristics. Whenever natural selection favours a widening of the auditory template that guides model selection, vocal imitation of heterospecifics becomes more likely because of âlearning mistakesâ.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Baptista L.F. (1988). Imitations of white-crowned sparrow songs by song sparrow. â Condor 90: 489-492.
-
Baylis J.R. (1982). Avian vocal mimicry: its function and evolution. â In: Acoustic communication in birds ( Kroodsma D.E., Miller E.H., Ouellet H., eds). Academic Press, New York, p. 51-83.
-
Botero C.A., Boogert N.J., Vehrencamp S.L., Lovette I.J. (2009). Climatic patterns predict the elaboration of song displays in mockingbirds. â Curr. Biol. 19: 1-5.
-
Catchpole C.K., Baptista L.F. (1988). A test of the competition hypothesis of vocal mimicry, using song sparrow imitation of white-crowned sparrow song. â Behaviour 106: 119-128.
-
Catchpole C.K., Slater P.J.B. (2008). Bird song: biology themes and variations, 2nd edn. â Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
-
Chisholm A.H. (1932). Vocal mimicry among Australian birds. â Ibis 74: 605-624.
-
Chisholm A.H. (1937). The problem of vocal mimicry. â Ibis 79: 703-721.
-
Chu M. (2001). Vocal mimicry in distress calls of phainopeplas. â Condor 103: 389-395.
-
Derrickson K.C. (1987). Yearly and situational changes in the estimate of repertoire size in northern mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos). â Auk 104: 198-207.
-
Dowsett-Lemaire F. (1979). The imitative range of the song of the marsh warbler Acrocephalus palustris, with special reference to imitations of African birds. â Ibis 121: 453-468.
-
Farnsworth G., Londono G.A., Martin J.U., Derrickson K.C., Breitwisch R. (2011). Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). â In: The Birds of North America Online ( Poole A., ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, retrieved from the Birds of North America Online, available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.bnaproxy.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/007
-
Ferguson J.W.H., van Zyl A., Delport K. (2002). Vocal mimicry in African Cossypha robin chats. â J. Ornithol. 143: 319-330.
-
Flower T. (2011). Fork-tailed drongos use deceptive mimicked alarm calls to steal food. â Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. 278: 1548-1555.
-
Gammon D.E., Altizer C.E. (2011). Northern mockingbirds produce syntactical patterns of vocal mimicry that reflect taxonomy of imitated species. â J. Field Ornithol. 82: 158-164.
-
Garamszegi L.Z., Eens M., Pavlova D.Z., Avilés J.M., Møller A.P. (2007). A comparative study of the function of heterospecific vocal mimicry in European passerines. â Behav. Ecol. 18: 1001-1009.
-
Goodale E., Kotagama S.W. (2006). Context-dependent vocal mimicry in a passerine bird. â Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. 273: 875-880.
-
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. â Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 60: 260-269.
-
Hartley R.S., Suthers R.A. (1989). Airflow and pressure during canary song: evidence for mini-breaths. â J. Comp. Physiol. A 165: 15-26.
-
Hartshorne C. (1973). Born to sing. â Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.
-
Hausberger M., Jenkins P.F., Keene J. (1991). Species-specificity and mimicry in bird song: are they paradoxes? AÂ reevaluation of song mimicry in the European starling. â Behaviour 117: 53-81.
-
Hindmarsh A.M. (1984a). Vocal mimicry in starlings. â Behaviour 90: 302-324.
-
Hindmarsh A.M. (1984b). Vocal mimicry in starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). â D. Phil. Thesis, University of Oxford, Oxford.
-
Hindmarsh A.M. (1986). The functional significance of vocal mimicry in song. â Behaviour 99: 87-100.
-
Howard R.D. (1974). Influence of sexual selection and interspecific competition on mockingbird song (Mimus polyglottos). â Evolution 28: 428-438.
-
Hultsch H., Todt D. (1989). Song acquisition and acquisition constraints in the nightingale, Luscinia megarhynchos. â Naturwissenschaften 76: 83-85.
-
Igic B., Magrath R.D. (2013). Fidelity of vocal mimicry: identification and accuracy of mimicry of heterospecific alarm calls by the brown thornbill. â Anim. Behav. 85: 593-603.
-
Kelley L.A., Coe R.L., Madden J.R., Healy S.D. (2008). Vocal mimicry in songbirds. â Anim. Behav. 76: 521-528.
-
Kelley L.A., Healy S.D. (2011). The mimetic repertoire of the spotted bowerbird Ptilonorhynchus maculates. â Naturwissenschaften 98: 501-507.
-
Kelley L.A., Healy S.D. (2012). Vocal mimicry in spotted bowerbirds is associated with an alarming context. â J. Avian Biol. 43: 1-6.
-
Lloyd J.E. (1965). Aggressive mimicry in Photuris: firefly femmes fatales. â Science 149: 653-654.
-
Marler P. (1970). A comparative approach to vocal learning: song development in white-crowned sparrows. â J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 71: 1-25.
-
Marler P., Peters S. (1988). The role of song phonology and syntax in vocal learning preferences in the song sparrow, Melospiza melodia. â Ethology 77: 125-149.
-
Merritt P.G. (1985). Song function and the evolution of song repertoires in the northern mockingbird, Mimus polyglottos. â PhD Thesis, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL.
-
Mooney R. (2009). Neural mechanisms for learned birdsong. â Learn. Mem. 16: 655-669.
-
Moore F.R. (1978). Interspecific aggression: toward whom should a mockingbird be aggressive? â Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 3: 173-176.
-
Nelson D.A., Marler P. (1993). Innate recognition of song in white-crowned sparrows: a role in selective vocal learning? â Anim. Behav. 46: 806-808.
-
Payne R.B. (1973). Behavior, mimetic songs and song dialects, and relationships of the parasitic indigobirds (Vidua) of Africa. â Ornithol. Monogr. 11: 1-333.
-
Podos J., Nowicki S. (2004). Performance limits on birdsong. â In: Natureâs music: the science of birdsong ( Marler P., Slabbekoorn H., eds). Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, CA, p. 318-342.
-
Poole A. (ed.) (2005). The Birds of North America Online. â Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, available online at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/.
-
Prather J.F., Peters S., Nowicki S., Mooney R. (2010). Persistent representation of juvenile experience in the adult songbird brain. â J. Neurosci. 30: 10586-10598.
-
Rainey M.M., Grether G.F. (2007). Competitive mimicry: synthesis of a neglected class of mimetic relationships. â Ecology 88: 2440-2448.
-
Soha J.A., Marler P. (2000). A species-specific acoustic cue for selective song learning in the white-crowned sparrow. â Anim. Behav. 60: 297-306.
-
Stokes D., Stokes L., Elliot L. (1997). Stokes field guide to bird songs: eastern region [audio CD]. â Hachette Audio, Paris.
-
Suthers R.A., Goller F. (1997). Motor correlates of vocal diversity in songbirds. â Curr. Ornithol. 14: 235-288.
-
Tchernichovski O., Lints T., Mitra P.P., Nottebohm F. (1999). Vocal imitation in zebra finches is inversely related to model abundance. â Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96: 12901-12904.
-
Visscher J.P. (1928). Notes on the nesting habits and songs of the mockingbird. â Wilson Bull. 40: 209-216.
-
Whittle C.L. (1922). Additional data regarding the famous Arnold arboretum mockingbird. â Auk 39: 496-506.
-
Wildenthal J.L. (1965). Structure in primary song of the mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). â Auk 82: 161-189.
-
Zann R., Dunstan E. (2008). Mimetic song in superb lyrebirds: species mimicked and mimetic accuracy in different populations and age classes. â Anim. Behav. 76: 1043-1054.
-
Zollinger S.A., Suthers R.A. (2004). Motor mechanisms of a vocal mimic: implications for birdsong production. â Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. 271: 483-491.
| å ¨é¨æé´ | è¿å»ä¸å¹´ | è¿å»30天 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| æè¦æµè§æ¬¡æ° | 1238 | 178 | 14 |
| å ¨ææµè§æ¬¡æ° | 195 | 7 | 0 |
| PDFä¸è½½æ¬¡æ° | 114 | 16 | 0 |
How is model selection determined in a vocal mimic?: Tests of five hypotheses
äºBehaviourSearch for other papers by David E. Gammon in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Many animal species imitate the sounds of other species, but we know little about why vocal mimics copy some species while failing to copy other species, i.e., âmodel selectionâ. In this observational study of free-living northern mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos), I tested five hypotheses of model selection: (1)Â Proximity hypothesis: preferential imitation of species found in close proximity to the vocal mimic, (2)Â Aggression hypothesis: preferential imitation of species with which the mimic interacts aggressively, (3)Â Passive sampling hypothesis: preferential imitation of species heard frequently by the mimic, (4)Â Acoustic similarity hypothesis: preferential imitation of species whose sounds are acoustically similar to the non-imitative songs of the vocal mimic and (5)Â Alarm hypothesis: preferential imitation of alarm-associated vocalisations. The data supported only the acoustic similarity hypothesis. Given that this hypothesis has been supported in two additional mimicking lineages, it suggests a potential non-adaptive explanation for the evolution of vocal mimicry. Species that learn vocalisations are already predisposed toward learning sounds with key acoustic characteristics. Whenever natural selection favours a widening of the auditory template that guides model selection, vocal imitation of heterospecifics becomes more likely because of âlearning mistakesâ.
| å ¨é¨æé´ | è¿å»ä¸å¹´ | è¿å»30天 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| æè¦æµè§æ¬¡æ° | 1238 | 178 | 14 |
| å ¨ææµè§æ¬¡æ° | 195 | 7 | 0 |
| PDFä¸è½½æ¬¡æ° | 114 | 16 | 0 |
