4.5 Article

Two explanations of the dawn chorus compared: how monotonically changing light levels favour a short break from singing

Journal

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
Volume 64, Issue -, Pages 527-539

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1006/anbe.2002.3091

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

I used optimality modelling to compare two of the most plausible and general explanations for the dawn and dusk peaks in bird song output. Kacelnik's explanation is that foraging is inefficient in poor light, but that social interactions are less affected, making singing more worthwhile than foraging. McNamara et al.'s explanation is based on stochasticity in foraging success and overnight energy requirements; it has been extensively analysed with stochastic dynamic programming models. Both explanations are now incorporated into this sort of model. I used various functions to link success of foraging and singing to time of day, but assumed that above some light level there is no further effect. Kacelnik's explanation has as strong an effect as stochasticity in generating dawn and dusk choruses. It also predicts short pauses in the singing output just after the dawn chorus and before the dusk chorus. The former arises because birds delay foraging when it will become more profitable later, until foraging success reaches a plateau, when the energetic debt accumulated makes them forage. The principle of this see-saw double switch in behaviours may apply to other explanations for the dawn chorus, and to other shifts in behaviour when conditions change gradually. The model predicts that from day to day cloud cover determines when a dawn chorus starts, but that overnight temperature and wind strength have more effect on chorus intensity and duration. I discuss what sort of observational and experimental data on singing routines would better test this model. (C) 2002 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available