Habitat-related differences in the frequency selectivity of auditory filters in songbirds

Summary 1. Environmental constraints in woodland habitats favour long-range communication signals with slow modulations of frequency and amplitude, while constraints in open habitats favour faster modulations. 2. Spectral filtering by the peripheral auditory system results in a trade-off between frequency resolution and temporal resolution of modulations. Greater frequency resolution requires integration of acoustic signals over a longer period of time, which in turn decreases responsiveness to temporal modulations. 3. Here, we test the hypothesis in songbirds that woodland habitats have selected for narrowly tuned auditory filters with high frequency resolution of tonal elements, while open habitats have selected for broader auditory filters with greater temporal resolution of rapid modulation. 4. Auditory filter shapes were measured at 2, 3 and 4 kHz in three woodland species, the dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor) and white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), and two open-habitat species, the house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys). Auditory filter shapes were derived from auditory brainstem response thresholds in notched noise using Patterson’s rounded exponential (roex) auditory filter model. 5. Auditory filters increased in bandwidth with increasing frequency in all species except the dark-eyed junco. Auditory filters were generally narrower in woodland species than open-habitat species as predicted, although auditory filters of the junco were relatively narrow only at 4 kHz, and the difference between white-crowned sparrows and tufted titmice was not significant. Finally, at 4 kHz, open-habitat species had auditory filters with lower signal-to-noise response thresholds than woodland species (i.e. greater response efficiency). 6. The results suggest that environmental constraints on song structure have influenced the evolution of peripheral auditory filters in songbirds, although species using signals not optimized for long-range transmission should be less affected. Differences in filter bandwidth between dark-eyed juncos and white-crowned sparrows are noteworthy because Junco and Zonotrichia share a recent common ancestor as sister genera within the Emberizidae. Finally, open-habitat species may compensate for inherently lower sensitivity in noise of broad auditory filters with greater response efficiency.

[1]  K. Jønsson,et al.  A phylogenetic supertree of oscine passerine birds (Aves: Passeri) , 2006 .

[2]  B. May,et al.  Auditory filter shapes of CBA/CaJ mice: behavioral assessments. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Michael J. Ryan,et al.  How cricket frog females deal with a noisy world: habitat-related differences in auditory tuning , 2005 .

[4]  G. Spicer,et al.  A phylogenetic analysis of the emberizid sparrows based on three mitochondrial genes. , 2003, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[5]  R. Dooling,et al.  Auditory brainstem responses in the Eastern Screech Owl: an estimate of auditory thresholds. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  N Suga,et al.  Sharpening of frequency tuning by inhibition in the thalamic auditory nucleus of the mustached bat. , 1997, Journal of neurophysiology.

[7]  D. Mahar,et al.  Discrimination of nonlinear frequency glides. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Amanda M. Lauer,et al.  Psychophysical evidence of damaged active processing mechanisms in Belgian Waterslager Canaries , 2009, Journal of Comparative Physiology.

[9]  J. P. Hailman,et al.  The organization of major vocalizations in the paridae , 1989 .

[10]  C. G. Sibley.  ECOLOGICAL SOURCES OF SELECTION ON AVIAN SOUNDS , 2004 .

[11]  Lynda Peterson,et al.  The effects of time constraints and changes in body mass and satiation on the simultaneous expression of caching and diet-choice decisions , 1993, Animal Behaviour.

[12]  Kexiong Wang,et al.  Nonconstant quality of auditory filters in the porpoises, Phocoena phocoena and Neophocaena phocaenoides (Cetacea, Phocoenidae). , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  M. Konishi.  Hearing, Single-Unit Analysis, and Vocalizations in Songbirds , 1969, Science.

[14]  J. Endler.  Some general comments on the evolution and design of animal communication systems. , 1993, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[15]  N. Suga,et al.  Peripheral auditory tuning for fine frequency analysis by the CF-FM bat,Rhinolophus ferrumequinum , 2004, Journal of comparative physiology.

[16]  G. Gottlieb,et al.  Development of brainstem auditory pathway in mallard duck embryos and hatchlings , 1992, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[17]  M. Gustafson.  Identification Guide to North American Birds. Part II , 2009 .

[18]  R. Dooling,et al.  The discrimination of temporal fine structure in call-like harmonic sounds by birds. , 2006, Journal of comparative psychology.

[19]  B. Moore,et al.  Suggested formulae for calculating auditory-filter bandwidths and excitation patterns. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  T. Irino,et al.  Comparison of the roex and gammachirp filters as representations of the auditory filter. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Brian C. J. Moore,et al.  Frequency Analysis and Pitch Perception , 1993 .

[22]  M. Leek,et al.  Auditory temporal resolution in birds: discrimination of harmonic complexes. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  R. H. Wiley.  Associations of Song Properties with Habitats for Territorial Oscine Birds of Eastern North America , 1991, The American Naturalist.

[24]  P. Waser,et al.  Experimental Studies of Primate Vocalization: Specializations for Long-distance Propagation , 2010 .

[25]  W. Shofner,et al.  Behavioral measures of frequency selectivity in the chinchilla. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  V. Popov,et al.  Frequency tuning of the dolphin's hearing as revealed by auditory brain-stem response with notch-noise masking. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  Marc Naguib,et al.  Reverberation of rapid and slow trills: implications for signal adaptations to long-range communication. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  G. A. Manley,et al.  Activity patterns of cochlear ganglion neurones in the starling , 1985, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[29]  R. Wiley,et al.  Physical constraints on acoustic communication in the atmosphere: Implications for the evolution of animal vocalizations , 1978, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[30]  James J Finneran,et al.  Auditory filter shapes for the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and the white whale (Delphinapterus leucas) derived with notched noise. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  R. Fay,et al.  Comparative Hearing: Birds and Reptiles , 2000, Springer Handbook of Auditory Research.

[32]  Cecilia Kopuchian,et al.  Temporal stability and change in a microgeographical pattern of song variation in the rufous-collared sparrow , 2004, Animal Behaviour.

[33]  Jessica L Owens,et al.  Variation in chick-a-dee calls of tufted titmice, Baeolophus bicolor: note type and individual distinctiveness. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  Geoffrey A. Manley,et al.  An auditory fovea in the barn owl cochlea , 2004, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[35]  R. Patterson,et al.  The deterioration of hearing with age: frequency selectivity, the critical ratio, the audiogram, and speech threshold. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  Brian R Glasberg,et al.  Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data , 1990, Hearing Research.

[37]  Excitation patterns in the starling cochlea: a population study of primary auditory afferents. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  James W. Hall.  Handbook of Auditory Evoked Responses , 1991 .

[39]  Geoffrey A. Manley,et al.  The Hearing Organ of Birds and Crocodilia , 2000 .

[40]  A. Badyaev,et al.  HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS OF SONG CHARACTERISTICS IN PHYLLOSCOPUS AND HIPPOLAIS WARBLERS , 1997 .

[41]  G. Boncoraglio,et al.  Habitat structure and the evolution of bird song: a meta-analysis of the evidence for the acoustic adaptation hypothesis , 2007 .

[42]  J. Lucas,et al.  Coevolution of auditory sensitivity and temporal resolution with acoustic signal space in three songbirds , 2008, Animal Behaviour.

[43]  R. Howard.  Principles of Animal Communication , 1999 .

[44]  A. Goldizen,et al.  Habitat type and density influence vocal signal design in satin bowerbirds. , 2006, The Journal of animal ecology.

[45]  Micheal L. Dent,et al.  Hearing in Birds and Reptiles , 2000 .

[46]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer , 2002 .

[47]  Russell C. Titus.  Short-Range And Long-Range Songs: Use Of Two Acoustically Distinct Song Classes By Dark-Eyed Juncos , 1998 .

[48]  E. Morton.  Ecological Sources of Selection on Avian Sounds , 1975, The American Naturalist.

[49]  D. Irvine.  The Auditory Brainstem , 1986, Progress in Sensory Physiology.

[50]  E. Rubel,et al.  Auditory perception following hair cell regeneration in European starling (Sturnus vulgaris): frequency and temporal resolution. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[51]  R. H. Wiley,et al.  Reverberations and Amplitude Fluctuations in the Propagation of Sound in a Forest: Implications for Animal Communication , 1980, The American Naturalist.

[52]  K. Marchetti.  Dark habitats and bright birds illustrate the role of the environment in species divergence , 1993, Nature.

[53]  R. Dooling,et al.  Auditory brainstem responses in adult budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.