The influence of the acoustic community on songs of birds in a neotropical rain forest

The efficacy of communication depends on the detection of species-specific signals in background noise that includes other species' signals. To avoid confusion with each others' signals, species should partition communication space. I investigated this possibility for the dawn chorus of birds in an Amazonian rain forest. Acoustic censuses at a location in Matto Grosso, Brazil, detected 82 sedentary species of birds that sang frequently during dawn choruses. Eleven features of these species' songs were analyzed to characterize the acoustic space of this community. The Euclidean distances between species' songs in this acoustic space were then used to investigate spatial, temporal, and phylogenetic influences on the divergence of songs. Songs of species in the same stratum of the forest and during the same 30-min interval had the most dispersed songs. Songs of congeners and family members were more dispersed than songs of random species. These results indicate that in this complex acoustic environment, species singing at the same place and time partition signal space. These species either choose times and places for singing to minimize acoustic interference from other species or they have evolved different songs to reduce this interference. Copyright 2009, Oxford University Press.

[1]  David A. Luther,et al.  Signaller: receiver coordination and the timing of communication in Amazonian birds , 2008, Biology Letters.

[2]  A. A. Chek,et al.  Mating signal partitioning in multi‐species assemblages: a null model test using frogs , 2003 .

[3]  J. Terborgh,et al.  Structure and Organization of an Amazonian Forest Bird Community , 1990 .

[4]  R. Haven Wiley,et al.  5 – Adaptations for Acoustic Communication in Birds: Sound Transmission and Signal Detection , 1982 .

[5]  K. Otter,et al.  Effect of blue tit song syntax on great tit territorial responsiveness – an experimental test of the character shift hypothesis , 2000, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[6]  E. Miller.  8 – Character and Variance Shift in Acoustic Signals of Birds , 1982 .

[7]  H. Brumm,et al.  Acoustic Communication in Noise , 2005 .

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

[9]  W. Duellman,et al.  Acoustic Resource Partitioning in Anuran Communities , 1983 .

[10]  Jack W. Bradbury,et al.  Principles of Animal Communication , 1998 .

[11]  K. Wells,et al.  An experimental study of acoustic interference between two species of neotropical treefrogs , 1983, Animal Behaviour.

[12]  Marc Naguib,et al.  Estimating the distance to a source of sound: mechanisms and adaptations for long-range communication , 2001, Animal Behaviour.

[13]  P. J. Clark,et al.  Distance to Nearest Neighbor as a Measure of Spatial Relationships in Populations , 1954 .

[14]  J. Endler.  The Color of Light in Forests and Its Implications , 1993 .

[15]  K. Pfennig.  Female spadefoot toads compromise on mate quality to ensure conspecific matings , 2000 .

[16]  J. D. Hoyo,et al.  Handbook of the Birds of the World , 2010 .

[17]  R. Wiley,et al.  Background noise from a natural chorus alters female discrimination of male calls in a Neotropical frog , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[18]  L. Garamszegi,et al.  Flycatcher song in allopatry and sympatry – convergence, divergence and reinforcement , 2004, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[19]  Martin L. Cody,et al.  Convergent Characteristics in Sympatric Species: A Possible Relation to Interspecific Competition and Aggression , 1969 .

[20]  D. Kroodsma,et al.  Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds , 1997 .

[21]  S. Stafford,et al.  Multivariate Statistics for Wildlife and Ecology Research , 2000, Springer New York.

[22]  M. Littlejohn,et al.  CALL DIFFERENTIATION IN A COMPLEX OF SEVEN SPECIES OF CRINIA (ANURA, LEPTODACTYLIDAE) , 1959 .

[23]  T. Aubin,et al.  Finding One's Mate in a King Penguin Colony: Efficiency of Acoustic Communication , 1999 .

[24]  B. Whitney,et al.  Use of vocalizations to establish species limits in antbirds (Passeriformes: Thamnophilidae) , 1998 .

[25]  Lori Wollerman,et al.  Possibilities for error during communication by neotropical frogs in a complex acoustic environment , 2002, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[26]  J. Podos,et al.  Motor constraints on vocal development in a songbird , 1996, Animal Behaviour.

[27]  T. A. Parker,et al.  Survey of a Southern Amazonian Avifauna: The Alta Floresta Region, Mato Grosso, Brazil , 1997 .

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

[29]  P. Slater,et al.  Ambient noise, motor fatigue, and serial redundancy in chaffinch song , 2006, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[30]  J. Sueur.  Cicada acoustic communication: potential sound partitioning in a multispecies community from Mexico (Hemiptera: Cicadomorpha: Cicadidae) , 2002 .

[31]  G. E. Drewry,et al.  Characteristics of an acoustic community: Puerto Rican frogs of the genus Eleutherodactylus , 1983 .

[32]  Eliot A. Brenowitz,et al.  The Role of Body Size, Phylogeny, and Ambient Noise in the Evolution of Bird Song , 1985, The American Naturalist.

[33]  Franz Huber,et al.  Acoustic Communication in Insects and Anurans: Common Problems and Diverse Solutions , 2002 .

[34]  William N. Tavolga,et al.  Animal Sounds and Communication , 1960 .

[35]  P. Marler,et al.  Sound transmission and its significance for animal vocalization , 1977, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[36]  Peter Marler,et al.  Bird songs and mate selection , 1958 .

[37]  N. Seddon.  ECOLOGICAL ADAPTATION AND SPECIES RECOGNITION DRIVES VOCAL EVOLUTION IN NEOTROPICAL SUBOSCINE BIRDS , 2005, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[38]  W. L. Brown,et al.  The birds of South America , 1989 .

[39]  W. Hödl,et al.  Call differences and calling site segregation in anuran species from central Amazonian floating meadows , 1977, Oecologia.

[40]  R. Haven Wiley,et al.  Signal Detection and Animal Communication , 2006 .

[41]  Bremond Jean-Claude,et al.  Acoustic Competition Between the Song of the Wren (Troglodytes Troglodytes) and the Songs of Other Species , 1978 .

[42]  J. Dunning,et al.  CRC Handbook of Avian Body Masses , 2007 .

[43]  Anil Kumar,et al.  Acoustic communication in birds , 2003 .

[44]  H. Gerhardt,et al.  REPRODUCTIVE CHARACTER DISPLACEMENT IN THE ACOUSTIC COMMUNICATION SYSTEM OF GREEN TREE FROGS (HYLA CINEREA) , 2003, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[45]  J. Endler.  Signals, Signal Conditions, and the Direction of Evolution , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[46]  E. Nemeth,et al.  Differential degradation of antbird songs in a neotropical rainforest: adaptation to perch height? , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[47]  P. J. Clark,et al.  GENERALIZATION OF A NEAREST NEIGHBOR MEASURE OF DISPERSION FOR USE IN K DIMENSIONS , 1979 .

[48]  C. Cate,et al.  Diverge or merge? The effect of sympatric occurrence on the territorial vocalizations of the vinaceous dove Streptopelia vinacea and the ring-necked dove S. capicola , 2002 .