4.5 Article

Developmental stress affects song learning but not song complexity and vocal amplitude in zebra finches

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY AND SOCIOBIOLOGY
卷 63, 期 9, 页码 1387-1395

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-009-0749-y

关键词

Bird song; Condition-dependent signal; Early nutritional deficiency; Developmental stress hypothesis; Song amplitude; Song learning; Taenopygia guttata; Zebra finch

资金

  1. BBSRC [BB/E003494/1)]
  2. German Research Foundation [BR 2309/6-1]
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/E003494/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. BBSRC [BB/E003494/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several recent studies have tested the hypothesis that song quality in adult birds may reflect early developmental conditions, specifically nutritional stress during the nestling period. Whilst all of these earlier studies found apparent links between early nutritional stress and song quality, their results disagree as to which aspects of song learning or production were affected. In this study, we attempted to reconcile these apparently inconsistent results. Our study also provides the first assessment of song amplitude in relation to early developmental stress and as a potential cue to male quality. We used an experimental manipulation in which the seeds on which the birds were reared were mixed with husks, making them more difficult for the parents to obtain. Compared with controls, such chicks were lighter at fledging; they were thereafter placed on a normal diet and had caught up by 100 days. We show that nutritional stress during the first 30 days of life reduced the birds' accuracy of song syntax learning, resulting in poorer copies of tutor songs. Our experimental manipulations did not lead to significant changes in song amplitude, song duration or repertoire size. Thus, individual differences observed in song performance features probably reflect differences in current condition or motivation rather than past condition.

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