Do songbirds attend to song categories when selecting breeding habitat? A case study with a wood warbler
äºBehaviourSearch for other papers by Janice K. Kelly in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Michael P. Ward in
Current site
Google Scholar
Breeding habitat selection strongly affects reproduction and individual fitness. Among birds, using social cues from conspecifics to select habitat is widespread, but how different types of conspecific social cues influence breeding habitat selection remains less understood. We conducted a playback experiment evaluating if the yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), a species with two song categories linked to pairing status, uses categories differently when selecting breeding habitat. We hypothesized that yellow warblers use second-category singing mode, which is mostly sung by paired males, over first-category singing mode for habitat selection, as successfully paired males should indicate higher-quality habitat. We broadcast yellow warbler first-category singing mode, second-category singing mode, and silent controls at sites in Illinois. Yellow warblers were more abundant at sites treated with second-category singing mode compared other sites. Our results demonstrate that yellow warblers use social cues informing successful pairing over other types of social cues to select breeding habitat.
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
-
Ahlering M.A., Arlt D., Betts M.G., Fletcher R.J. Jr., Nocera J.J., Ward M.P. (2010). Research needs and recommendations for the use of conspecific attraction methods in the conservation of migratory songbirds. â Condor 112: 252-264.
-
Alessi M.G., Benson T.J., Ward M.P. (2010). Nocturnal social cues attract migrating yellow-breasted chats. â Wilson J. Ornithol. 122: 780-783.
-
Anders A., Marshall M. (2005). Increasing the accuracy of productivity and survival estimates in assessing landbird population status. â Conserv. Biol. 19: 66-74.
-
Andrews J.E., Brawn J.D., Ward M.P. (2015). When to use social cues: conspecific attraction at newly created grasslands. â Condor 117: 297-305.
-
Arlt D., Pärt T. (2007). Nonideal breeding habitat selection: a mismatch between preference and fitness. â Ecology 88: 792-801.
-
Balsby T.J., Dabelsteen T. (2005). Simulated courtship interactions elicit neighbor intrusion in the whitethroat Sylvia communis. â Anim. Behav. 69: 161-168.
-
Bankwitz K., Thompson W. (1979). Song characteristics of the yellow warbler. â Wilson Bull. 91: 533-550.
-
Beebee M. (2002). Song sharing by yellow warblers differ between two modes of singing: implications for song function. â Condor 104: 146-155.
-
Beebee M. (2004). The functions of multiple singing modes: experimental tests in yellow warblers, Dendroica petechia. â Anim. Behav. 67: 1089-1097.
-
Beecher M., Campbell S., Burt J., Hill C., Nordby J. (2000). Song-type matching between neighboring song sparrows. â Anim. Behav. 59: 21-27.
-
Betts M.G., Hadley A.S., Rodenhouse N., Nocera J.J. (2008). Social information trumps vegetation structure in breeding-site selection by a migrant songbird. â Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 275: 2257-2263.
-
Brown C., Brown M., Danchin E. (2000). Breeding habitat selection in cliff swallows: the effect of conspecific reproductive success on colony choice. â J. Anim. Ecol. 69: 133-142.
-
Buxton V.L., Ward M.P., Sperry J.H. (2015). Use of chorus sounds for location of breeding habitat in 2 species of anuran amphibians. â Behav. Ecol. 26: 1111-1118.
-
Buxton V.L., Ward M.P., Sperry J.H. (2017). Frog breeding pond selection in response to predators and conspecific cues. â Ethology 123: 397-404.
-
Byers B. (1996). Messages encoded in the songs of chestnut-sided warblers. â Anim. Behav. 52: 691-705.
-
Byers B., Kroodsma D. (2009). Female mate choice and songbird song repertoires. â Anim. Behav. 77: 13-22.
-
Catchpole C. (1983). Variation in the song of the great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus in relation to mate attraction and territorial defence. â Anim. Behav. 31: 1217-1225.
-
Chalfoun A.D., Martin T.E. (2010). Facultative nest patch shifts in response to nest predation risk in the Brewerâs sparrow: a âwin-stay, lose-switchâ strategy? â Oecologia 163: 885-892.
-
Cilimburg A.B., Lindberg M.S., Tewksbury J.J., Hejl S.J. (2002). Effects of dispersal on survival probability of adult yellow warblers (Dendroica petechia). â Auk 119: 778-789.
-
Clark K., Robertson R. (1979). Spatial and temporal multi-species nesting aggregations in birds as anti-parasite and anti-predator defenses. â Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 5: 359-371.
-
Cody M. (1981). Habitat selection in birds â the roles of vegetation structure, competitors, and productivity. â Bioscience 31: 107-113.
-
Danchin E., Giraldeau L.-A., Valone T.J., Wagner R.H. (2004). Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. â Science 305: 487-491.
-
Doligez B., Cadet C., Danchin E., Boulinier T. (2003). When to use public information for breeding habitat selection? The role of environmental predictability and density dependence. â Anim. Behav. 66: 973-988.
-
Emmering Q.C., Schmidt K.A. (2011). Nesting songbirds assess spatial heterogeneity of predatory chipmunks by eavesdropping on their vocalizations. â J. Anim. Ecol. 80: 1305-1312.
-
Farrell S.L., Morrison M.L., Campomizzi A.J., Wilkins R.N. (2012). Conspecific cues and breeding habitat selection in an endangered woodland warbler. â J. Anim. Ecol. 81: 1056-1064.
-
Fickens M., Fickens W. (1965). Comparative ethology of the chestnut-sided warbler, yellow warbler, and American redstart. â Wilson Bull. 77: 363-375.
-
Fickens M., Fickens W. (1970). Response of four warbler species to playback of their two song types. â Auk 87: 296-304.
-
Fletcher R.J. Jr. (2006). Emergent properties of conspecific attraction in fragmented landscapes. â Am. Nat. 168: 207-219.
-
Fletcher R.J. Jr., Miller C.W. (2008). The type and timing of social information alters offspring production. â Biol. Lett. 4: 482-485.
-
Fretwell S.D., Lucas H.L.J. (1970). On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds part 1 â theoretical development. â Acta Biotheor. 19: 16-36.
-
Gordinho L.D.O., Matheu E., Hasselquist D., Neto J.M. (2015). Song divergence between subspecies of reed bunting is more pronounced in singing styles under sexual selection. â Anim. Behav. 107: 221-231.
-
Groschupf K. (1985). Changes in 5-striped sparrow song in intrasexual and intersexual contexts. â Wilson Bull. 97: 102-106.
-
Grunst A., Grunst M. (2014). Multiple sexual pigments, assortative social pairing, and genetic paternity in the yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia). â Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 68: 1451-1463.
-
Hobson K., Sealy S. (1989). Mate guarding in the yellow warbler Dendroica petechia. â Ornis Scand. 20: 241-249.
-
Hof D., Podos J. (2013). Escalation of aggressive vocal signals: a sequential playback study. â Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 280: 20131553.
-
Holmes R., Marra P., Sherry T. (1996). Habitat-specific demography of breeding black-throated blue warblers (Dendroica caerulescens): implications for population dynamics. â J. Anim. Ecol. 65: 183-195.
-
Holt R.D. (2009). Bringing the Hutchinsonian niche into the 21st century: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. â Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106: 19659-19665.
-
Hua F., Fletcher R.J. Jr., Sieving K., Dorazio R.M. (2013). Too risky to settle: avian community structure changes in response to perceived predation risk on adults and offspring. â Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 280. DOI:10.1098/rspb.2013.0762.
-
Humple D.L., Burnett R.D. (2010). Nesting ecology of yellow warblers (Dendroica petechia) in montane chaparral habitat in the northern Sierra Nevada. â West N. Am. Nat. 70: 355-363.
-
Jane S., Ryker L. (2011). Geographic variation in type I songs of black-throated gray warblers. â Wilson J. Ornithol. 123: 339-346.
-
Kelly J.K., Schmidt K.A. (2017). Fledgling calls are a source of social information for conspecific, but not heterospecific, songbird territory selection. â Ecosphere 8. DOI:10.1002/ecs2.1512.
-
Kokko H., Gunnarsson T., Morrell L., Gill J. (2006). Why do female migratory birds arrive later than males? â J. Anim. Ecol. 75: 1293-1303.
-
Koops M.A. (2004). Reliability and the value of information. â Anim. Behav. 67: 103-111.
-
Kroodsma D., Bereson R., Byers B., Minear E. (1989). Use of song types by the chestnut-sided warbler â evidence for both intra-sexual and inter-sexual functions. â Can. J. Zool. 67: 447-456.
-
Kroodsma D., Byers B., Goodale E., Johnson S., Liu W.-C. (2001). Pseudoreplication in playback experiments, revisited a decade later. â Anim. Behav. 61: 1029-1033.
-
Lecchini D. (2011). Visual and chemical cues in habitat selection of sepioid larvae. â C.R. Biol. 334: 911-915.
-
Lohr B., Ashby S., Wakamiya S. (2013). The function of song types and song components in grasshopper sparrows (Ammodramus savannarum). â Behaviour 150: 1085-1106.
-
Lowther P.E., Celada C., Klein N.K., Rimmer C.C., Spector D.A. (1999). Yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia). â In: The birds of North America ( Rodewald P.G., ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. DOI:10.2173/bna.454.
-
Lozano G.A., Perreault S., Lemon R.E. (1996). Age arrival date and reproductive success of male American redstarts Setophaga ruticilla. â J. Avian Biol. 27: 164-170.
-
Martin T. (2001). Abiotic vs. biotic influences on habitat selection of coexisting species: climate change impacts? â Ecology 82: 175-188.
-
Matthysen E. (2005). Density-dependent dispersal in birds and mammals. â Ecography 28: 403-416.
-
Mayer C., Pasinelli G. (2013). New support for an old hypothesis: density affects extra-pair paternity. â Ecol. Evol. 3: 694-705.
-
Morse D. (1966). Context of songs in the yellow warbler. â Wilson Bull. 78: 444-455.
-
Murkin H., Murkin E., Ball J. (1997). Avian habitat selection and prairie wetland dynamics: a 10-year experiment. â Ecol. Appl. 7: 1144-1159.
-
Nocera J., Forbes G., Giraldeau L. (2006). Inadvertent social information in breeding site selection of natal dispersing birds. â Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 273: 349-355.
-
Parejo D., White J., Clobert J., Dreiss A., Danchin E. (2007). Blue tits use fledgling quantity and quality as public information in breeding site choice. â Ecology 88: 2373-2382.
-
Pärt T., Arlt D., Doligez B., Low M., Qvarnstrom A. (2011). Prospectors combine social and environmental information to improve habitat selection and breeding success in the subsequent year. â J. Anim. Ecol. 80: 1227-1235.
-
Proppe D., Ritchison G. (2008). Use and possible functions of the primary and sustained songs of male grasshopper sparrows. â Am. Midl. Nat. 160: 1-6.
-
Raitanen J., Forsman J.T., Kivela S.M., Maenpaa M.I., Valimaki P. (2014). Attraction to conspecific eggs may guide oviposition site selection in a solitary insect. â Behav. Ecol. 25: 110-116.
-
Reed J., Dobson A. (1993). Behavioral constraints and conservation biology â conspecific attraction and recruitment. â Trends Ecol. Evol. 8: 253-256.
-
Reichard D., Anderson R. (2015). Why sing softly? The structure, function and evolutionary significance of low-amplitude signals. â Anim. Behav. 105: 253-265.
-
Richmond S., Nol E., Burke D. (2011). Avian nest success, mammalian nest predator abundance, and invertebrate prey availability in a fragmented landscape. â Can. J. Zool. 89: 517-528.
-
Rodenhouse N.N., Holmes R.T. (1992). Results of experimental and natural food reductions for breeding black-throated blue warblers. â Ecology 73: 357-372.
-
Rosenzweig M.L. (1973). Habitat selection experiments with a pair of coexisting heteromyid rodent species. â Ecology 54: 111-117.
-
Rousseau J.S., Savard J.L., Titman R. (2015). Shrub-nesting birds in urban habitats: their abundance and association with vegetation. â Urban Ecosyst. 18: 871-884.
-
Rudolf V., Rödel M. (2005). Oviposition site selection in a complex and variable environment: the role of habitat quality and conspecific cues. â Oecologia 142: 316-325.
-
Rushing C.S., Dudash M.R., Marra P.P. (2015). Habitat features and long-distance dispersal modify the use of social information by a long-distant migratory bird. â J. Anim. Ecol. 84: 1469-1479.
-
Schielzeth H. (2010). Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. â Meth. Ecol. Evol. 1: 103-113.
-
Schmidt K. (2004). Site fidelity in temporally correlated environments enhances population persistence. â Ecol. Lett. 7: 176-184.
-
Scott M.L., Whiting M.J., Webb J.K., Shine R. (2013). Chemosensory discrimination of social cues mediates space use in snakes, Cryptophis nigrescens (Elapidae). â Anim. Behav. 85: 1493-1500.
-
Searcy W., Beecher M. (2009). Song as an aggressive signal in songbirds. â Anim. Behav. 78: 1281-1292.
-
Searcy W., Akçay C., Nowicki S., Beecher M. (2014). Aggressive signaling in song sparrows and other songbirds. â Adv. Stud. Behav. 46: 89-125.
-
Seppänen J., Forsman J.T., Mönkkönen M., Thomson R.L. (2007). Social information use is a process across time, space, and ecology, reaching heterospecifics. â Ecology 88: 1622-1633.
-
Spector D. (1991). The singing behavior of yellow warblers. â Behaviour 117: 29-52.
-
Spector D. (1992). Wood-warbler song systems. A review of paruline singing behaviors. â Curr. Ornithol. 9: 199-238.
-
Spector D., McKim L., Kroodsma D. (1989). Yellow warblers are able to learn songs and situations in which to use them. â Anim. Behav. 38: 723-725.
-
Staicer C. (1996). Acoustical features of song categories of the Adelaideâs warbler (Dendroica adelaidae). â Auk 113: 771-783.
-
Stamps J. (1988). Conspecific attraction and aggregation in territorial species. â Am. Nat. 131: 329-347.
-
Stamps J., Krishnan V. (2005). Nonintuitive cue use in habitat selection. â Ecology 86: 2860-2867.
-
Stewart R.L.M., Francis C.M., Massey C. (2002). Age-related differential timing of spring migration within sexes in passerines. â Wilson Bull. 114: 264-271.
-
Szymkowiak J. (2013). Facing uncertainty: how small songbirds acquire and use social information in habitat selection process? â Springer Sci. Rev. 1: 115-131.
-
Szymkowiak J., Thomson R., KuczyÅski L. (2016). Wood warblers copy settlement decisions of poor quality conspecifics: support for the tradeoff between the benefit of social information use and competition avoidance. â Oikos 125: 1561-1569.
-
Titus R. (1998). Short-range and long-range songs: use of two acoustically distinct song classes by dark-eyed juncos. â Auk 115: 386-393.
-
Valone T., Templeton J. (2002). Public information for the assessment of quality: a widespread social phenomenon. â Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 357: 1549-1557.
-
Valone T.J. (2007). From eavesdropping on performance to copying the behavior of others: a review of public information use. â Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62: 1-14.
-
Ward M.P. (2005). Habitat selection by dispersing yellow-headed blackbirds: evidence of prospecting and the use of public information. â Oecologia 145: 1432-1939.
-
Ward M.P., Schlossberg S. (2004). Conspecific attraction and the conservation of territorial songbirds. â Conserv. Biol. 18: 519-525.
-
Weary D., Lemon R., Perreault S. (1994a). Different responses to different song types in American redstarts. â Auk 111: 730-734.
-
Weary D., Lemon R., Perreault S. (1994b). Male yellow warblers vary use of song types depending on pairing status and distance from nest. â Auk 111: 727-729.
-
Westneat D.F., Sherman P.W. (1997). Density and extra-pair fertilizations in birds: a comparative analysis. â Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 41: 205-215.
-
Westneat D.F., Stewart I.R.K. (2003). Extra-pair paternity in birds: causes, correlates, and conflict. â Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol Syst. 34: 365-396.
-
Yezerinac S.M., Weatherhead P.J. (1997). Extra-pair mating, male plumage coloration and sexual selection in yellow warblers (Dendroica petechia). â Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 264: 527-532.
-
Yezerinac S.M., Weatherhead P.J., Boag P.T. (1996). Cuckoldry and lack of parentage-dependent paternal care in yellow warblers: a costâbenefit approach. â Anim. Behav. 52: 821-832.
| å ¨é¨æé´ | è¿å»ä¸å¹´ | è¿å»30天 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| æè¦æµè§æ¬¡æ° | 788 | 106 | 11 |
| å ¨ææµè§æ¬¡æ° | 208 | 3 | 0 |
| PDFä¸è½½æ¬¡æ° | 81 | 2 | 0 |
Do songbirds attend to song categories when selecting breeding habitat? A case study with a wood warbler
äºBehaviourSearch for other papers by Janice K. Kelly in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Michael P. Ward in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Breeding habitat selection strongly affects reproduction and individual fitness. Among birds, using social cues from conspecifics to select habitat is widespread, but how different types of conspecific social cues influence breeding habitat selection remains less understood. We conducted a playback experiment evaluating if the yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), a species with two song categories linked to pairing status, uses categories differently when selecting breeding habitat. We hypothesized that yellow warblers use second-category singing mode, which is mostly sung by paired males, over first-category singing mode for habitat selection, as successfully paired males should indicate higher-quality habitat. We broadcast yellow warbler first-category singing mode, second-category singing mode, and silent controls at sites in Illinois. Yellow warblers were more abundant at sites treated with second-category singing mode compared other sites. Our results demonstrate that yellow warblers use social cues informing successful pairing over other types of social cues to select breeding habitat.
| å ¨é¨æé´ | è¿å»ä¸å¹´ | è¿å»30天 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| æè¦æµè§æ¬¡æ° | 788 | 106 | 11 |
| å ¨ææµè§æ¬¡æ° | 208 | 3 | 0 |
| PDFä¸è½½æ¬¡æ° | 81 | 2 | 0 |
