4.5 Article

Functional reference in an alarm signal given during nest defence: seet calls of yellow warblers denote brood-parasitic brown-headed cowbirds

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY AND SOCIOBIOLOGY
卷 56, 期 1, 页码 71-80

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-003-0736-7

关键词

alarm calls; brown-headed cowbird; evolution; functional reference; yellow warbler

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Field observations and model-presentation experiments have shown that yellow warblers (Dendroica petechia) produce seet calls preferentially in response to brood-parasitic brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater). In this study, we investigated whether seet calls are functionally referential alarm calls denoting cowbirds by determining whether female warblers responded appropriately to seet calls in the absence of a cowbird, whether alarm calling by warblers varied with response urgency, and how warblers in a population allopatric with cowbirds responded to cowbird and avian predator models and seet playbacks. As a control, we presented chip calls, which are elicited by nest predators as well as by non-threatening intruders, but are not strongly associated with cowbirds. Yellow warblers responded differently to playbacks of seet than chip calls. To seet playbacks, almost 60% of females gave seet calls and rushed to sit in their nests, responses typically elicited by cowbirds, whereas these responses were given infrequently in response to chip calls. Yellow warblers seet called equally in situations that simulated low, medium and high risk of parasitism, which suggests that these calls did not vary with response urgency. In a population allopatric with cowbirds, seet calls were rarely produced in response to cowbird or avian nest predator models and never to seet playbacks. These results suggest that seet calls are functionally referential signals denoting cowbirds and that cowbird parasitism was a strong selective pressure in the evolution of functional referentiality in the seet call of yellow warblers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据