The evolution of bird song: male and female response to song innovation in swamp sparrows

Abstract Closely related species of songbirds often show large differences in song syntax, suggesting that major innovations in syntax must sometimes arise and spread. Here we examine the response of male and female swamp sparrows,Melospiza georgiana , to an innovation in song syntax produced by males of this species. Young male swamp sparrows that have been exposed to tutor songs with experimentally increased trill rates reproduce these songs with periodic silent gaps (Podos 1996, Animal Behaviour,51, 1061–1070). This novel temporal pattern, termed ‘broken syntax’, has been demonstrated to transmit across generations (Podos et al. 1999, Animal Behaviour,58, 93–103). We show here that adult male swamp sparrows respond more strongly in territorial playback tests to songs with broken syntax than to heterospecific songs, and equally strongly to conspecific songs with normal and broken syntax. In tests using the solicitation display assay, adult female swamp sparrows respond more to broken syntax than to heterospecific songs, although they respond significantly less to conspecific songs with broken syntax than to those with normal syntax. We conclude that sexual selection by female choice is in this case conservative, acting against the spread of innovation. The conservative effect of female preferences must sometimes be overcome, however, to allow the evolution of the major structural differences in song observed between species.

[1]  P. F. Jenkins.  Cultural transmission of song patterns and dialect development in a free-living bird population , 1978, Animal Behaviour.

[2]  P. Slater,et al.  The cultural transmission of bird song. , 1986, Trends in ecology & evolution.

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

[4]  P. Slater,et al.  Bird song learning: causes and consequences , 1989 .

[5]  Peter K. McGregor,et al.  Playback and Studies of Animal Communication , 1992, NATO ASI Series.

[6]  M. West-Eberhard.  Sexual Selection, Social Competition, and Speciation , 1983, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[7]  Jeffrey Podos,et al.  Permissiveness in the learning and development of song syntax in swamp sparrows , 1999, Animal Behaviour.

[8]  Stewart H. Hulse,et al.  The comparative psychology of audition : perceiving complex sounds , 1989 .

[9]  P. Marler.  A comparative approach to vocal learning: Song development in white-crowned sparrows. , 1970 .

[10]  A. King,et al.  Song structure and song development as potential contributors to reproductive isolation in cowbirds (Molothrus ater). , 1980 .

[11]  R. Zink,et al.  PATTERNS OF ALLOZYME, MITOCHONDRIAL DNA, AND MORPHOMETRIC VARIATION IN FOUR SPARROW GENERA , 1996 .

[12]  Douglas A. Nelson,et al.  Feature Weighting in Species Song Recognition By the Field Sparrow (Spizella Pusilla) , 1988 .

[13]  W. Hoese,et al.  Birdsong: motor function and the evolution of communication , 1992 .

[14]  P. Slater,et al.  Changes with Time in the Songs of a Population of Chaffinches , 1980 .

[15]  A. King,et al.  Validating the female bioassay of cowbird song: Relating differences in song potency to mating success , 1981, Animal Behaviour.

[16]  P. Marler,et al.  Singing in the brain. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  S. Nowicki,et al.  The response of male and female song sparrows to geographic variation in song , 1997 .

[18]  N. Burley,et al.  “A Taste for the Beautiful”: Latent Aesthetic Mate Preferences for White Crests in Two Species of Australian Grassfinches , 1998, The American Naturalist.

[19]  R. M. Alexander,et al.  Walking and running , 1984, The Mathematical Gazette.

[20]  W. Searcy.  Measuring Responses of Female Birds to Male Song , 1992 .

[21]  B. Grant,et al.  CULTURAL INHERITANCE OF SONG AND ITS ROLE IN THE EVOLUTION OF DARWIN'S FINCHES , 1996, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[22]  W. Hoese,et al.  Vocal tract function in birdsong production: experimental manipulation of beak movements. , 2000, The Journal of experimental biology.

[23]  Eliot A. Brenowitz,et al.  Sexual differences in species recognition of avian song , 1988, Nature.

[24]  M. C. Baker,et al.  Sexual response of female yellowhammers to differences in regional song dialects and repertoire sizes , 1987, Animal Behaviour.

[25]  W. Searcy.  Species recognition of song by female red-winged blackbirds , 1990, Animal Behaviour.

[26]  K. Riebel.  Early exposure leads to repeatable preferences for male song in female zebra finches , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[27]  R. Meldola.  Sexual Selection , 1871, Nature.

[28]  A. King,et al.  Species identification in the North American cowbird: appropriate responses to abnormal song. , 1977, Science.

[29]  P. Slater,et al.  Bird Song: Biological Themes and Variations , 1995 .

[30]  H. Williams,et al.  Song learning in birds: the relation between perception and production. , 1990, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[31]  Fernando Nottebohm,et al.  The Origins of Vocal Learning , 1972, The American Naturalist.

[32]  T. Amundsen,et al.  Animal signals : signalling and signal design in animal communication , 2000 .

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

[34]  D. Schluter,et al.  Honesty, perception and population divergence in sexually selected traits , 1993, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[35]  F. Hunter,et al.  Heterospecific mating preferences for a feather ornament in least auklets , 1998 .

[36]  Jeffrey Podos,et al.  A PERFORMANCE CONSTRAINT ON THE EVOLUTION OF TRILLED VOCALIZATIONS IN A SONGBIRD FAMILY (PASSERIFORMES: EMBERIZIDAE) , 1997, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.