Advertisement

Quantifying song categories in Adelaide’s Warbler (Setophaga adelaidae)

  • Chinthaka D. Kaluthota
  • Orlando J. Medina
  • David M. Logue
Original Article

Abstract

Many migratory wood-warblers in the genus Setophaga divide their song repertoires into two categories. Category B songs are usually sung before dawn, with immediate variety and short latencies between songs, whereas category A songs are sung exclusively after dawn, with eventual variety and longer latencies between songs. Songs in different categories may also differ with respect to their acoustic structure. We used an unsupervised clustering algorithm to identify song categories in Adelaide’s Warbler (Setophaga adelaidae), a year-round territorial species. We identified two categories of song types, the characteristics of which are similar to song categories in other migratory wood-warblers. Clusters were not well separated, suggesting that song categories may not be discrete. Song structures in the two categories were similar, but category B songs were shorter and had fewer notes than category A songs. On average, dyads of males shared more category B songs than category A songs, and were more likely to use category B songs when song type matching other males. The most important song delivery variable for separating clusters was residual average run length (residual values control for covariation with time of day), followed by percent of songs delivered before dawn, residual latency, and percent of songs used as song-type matches. We recommend a scheme based on the first three variables to classify novel song types.

Keywords

Neotropical birds Singing modes Song repertoires Song types Year-round territoriality Wood warbler 

Zusammenfassung

Quantifizierung von Gesangskategorien des Antillenwaldsängers ( Setophaga adelaidae )

Bei vielen ziehenden Waldsängerarten der Gattung Setophaga lassen sich deren Gesangsrepertoires in zwei Kategorien unterteilen. Gesänge der Kategorie B werden üblicherweise vor der Morgendämmerung mit unmittelbarer Abwechslung und kurzen Pausen zwischen den Gesangsstrophen vorgetragen, während Gesänge der Kategorie A ausschließlich nach Tagesanbruch, mit geringerer Abwechslung und längeren Pausen zwischen den einzelnen Strophen vorgetragen werden. Gesänge in den verschiedenen Kategorien können sich außerdem in ihrer akustischen Struktur unterscheiden. Wir verwendeten einen nichtüberwachten Clustering-Algorithmus zur Identifikation der Gesangskategorien des Antillenwaldsängers (Setophaga adelaidae), einer ganzjährig territorialen Art. Wir identifizierten zwei Kategorien von Gesangstypen, deren Charakteristika denen der Gesangskategorien anderer ziehender Waldsänger ähneln. Die Cluster waren nicht deutlich voneinander entfernt, was nahelegt, dass die Gesangskategorien unter Umständen nicht getrennt sind. Die Gesangsstrukturen waren in beiden Kategorien ähnlich, aber Gesänge der Kategorie B waren kürzer und setzten sich aus weniger Tönen zusammen als Gesänge der Kategorie A. Im Durchschnitt teilten Zweiergruppen aus Männchen mehr Gesänge der Kategorie B als der Kategorie A und benutzten mit höherer Wahrscheinlichkeit Gesänge der Kategorie B, wenn sie ihren Gesangstyp an den anderer Männchen anpassten. Die wichtigste Variable für die Auftrennung von Clustern in den Gesängen war das Residuum der durchschnittlichen Länge (Residuenwerte kontrollieren für eine Kovarianz mit der Tageszeit), gefolgt vom Anteil an Gesängen vor Tagesanbruch, Residuen der Gesangspausen, sowie der Anteil an Gesängen, die für die Gesangstypanpassung verwendet wurden. Zur Klassifikation neuer Gesangstypen empfehlen wir ein System, das auf den ersten drei Variablen beruht.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to P. Sánchez-Jaureguí, F. L. Tarazona, J. Illanas, K. Medina, and A. Lamela for helping with data scoring. We also thank B. Parker, T. Shlakoff, C. Logue, J. Báez, R. Irizarry, and A. García who processed song recordings, and J. McClure who measured FEX. P. Linhart, D. Spector, and an anonymous referee offered valuable comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. This research was funded in part by a Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2015-06553) to D. M. L. The US Fish and Wildlife Service granted permission to work at the Cabo Rojo Wildlife Refuge (permit 2012-01). Protocols were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez (permit 2010 09 17).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Supplementary material

10336_2018_1623_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (256 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 255 kb)

References

  1. Anzanello MJ, Fogliatto FS (2011) Selecting the best clustering variables for grouping mass-customized products involving workers’ learning. Int J Prod Econ 130:268–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker M (2016) 1500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533:452–454.  https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates D, Machler M, Bolker BM, Walker SC (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beebee MD (2002) Song sharing by Yellow Warblers differs between two modes of singing: implications for song function. Condor 104:146–155.  https://doi.org/10.1650/0010-5422(2002)104%5b0146:ssbywd%5d2.0.co;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beebee MD (2004a) The functions of multiple singing modes: experimental tests in Yellow Warblers, Dendroica petechia. Anim Behav 67:1089–1097.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.05.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beebee MD (2004b) Variation in vocal performance in the songs of a wood warbler: evidence for the function of distinct singing modes. Ethology 110:531–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolsinger JS (2000) Use of two song categories by Golden-cheeked Warblers. Condor 102:539–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Catchpole CK, Slater PJB (2008) Bird song: biological themes and variations, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charrad M, Ghazzali N, Boiteau V, Niknafs A (2014) Nbclust: an R package for determining the relevant number of clusters in a data set. J Stat Softw 61:1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Curson J, Quinn D, Beadle D (1984) New world warblers. A&C Black, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Demko AD, Reitsma LR, Staicer CA (2013) Two song categories in the Canada Warbler (Cardellina canadensis). Auk 130:609–616.  https://doi.org/10.1525/auk.2013.13059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hastie R, Dawes RM (2010) Rational choice in an uncertain world: the psychology of judgment and decision making. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  13. Hedley RW, Logue DM, Benedict L, Mennill DJ (2018) Assessing the similarity of song-type transitions among birds: evidence for interspecies variation. Anim Behav 140:161–170.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Illes AE (2015) Context of female bias in song repertoire size, singing effort, and singing independence in a cooperatively breeding songbird. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69:139–150.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-014-1827-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kelly JK, Ward MP (2017) Do songbirds attend to song categories when selecting breeding habitat? A case study with a wood warbler. Behaviour 154:1123–1144.  https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539x-00003461 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kroodsma DE, Bereson RC, Byers BE, Minear E (1989) Use of song types by the Chestnut-Sided Warbler: evidence for both intra-sexual and inter-sexual functions. Can J Zool 67:447–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lachlan RF (2007) Luscinia: a bioacoustics analysis computer program. Version 1.0 Computer program] Retrieved from luscinia sourceforge net on October 8:2012Google Scholar
  18. Lemon RE, Cotter R, MacNally RC, Monette S (1985) Song repertoires and song sharing by American Redstarts. Condor 87:457–470.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1367942 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Logue DM, Forstmeier W (2008) Constrained performance in a communication network: implications for the function of song-type matching and for the evolution of multiple ornaments. Am Nat 172:34–41.  https://doi.org/10.1086/587849 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MacDougall-Shackleton SA (1997) Sexual selection and the evolution of song repertoires. Curr Ornithol 14:81–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacNally RC, Lemon RE (1985) Repeat and serial singing modes in American Redstarts (Setophaga ruticilla): a test of functional hypotheses. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 69:191–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Molles LE, Vehrencamp SL (1999) Repertoire size, repertoire overlap, and singing modes in the Banded Wren (Thryothorus pleurosticus). Auk 116:677–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Podos J et al (2016) A fine-scale, broadly applicable index of vocal performance: frequency excursion. Anim Behav 116:203–212.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.03.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Price JJ, Crawford CL (2013) Use and characteristics of two singing modes in Pine Warblers. Wilson J Ornithol 125:552–561.  https://doi.org/10.1676/13-006.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rousseeuw PJ (1987) Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J Comput Appl Math 20:53–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0427(87)90125-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schraft HA, Medina OJ, McClure J, Pereira DA, Logue DM (2017) Within-day improvement in a behavioural display: wild birds ‘warm up’. Anim Behav 124:167–174.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.12.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Spector DA (1991) The singing behaviour of Yellow Warblers. Behaviour 117:29–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Spector DA (1992) Wood-warbler song systems. In: Power DM (ed) Current ornithology. Springer, Boston, pp 199–238.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9921-7_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Staicer CA (1989) Characteristics, use, and significance of two singing behaviors in Grace’s Warbler (Dendroica graciae). Auk 106:49–63.  https://doi.org/10.2307/4087756 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Staicer CA (1991) The role of male song in the scioecology of the tropical resident Adelaide’s Warbler (Dendroica adelaidae). University of MassechussettsGoogle Scholar
  31. Staicer CA (1996a) Acoustical features of song categories of the Adelaide’s Warbler (Dendroica adelaidae). Auk 113:771–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Staicer CA (1996b) Honest advertisement of pairing status: evidence from a tropical resident wood warbler. Anim Behav 51:375–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stutchbury BJ, Morton ES (2001) Behavioral ecology of tropical birds. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  34. Toms JD (2010) Adelaide’s Warbler (Setophaga adelaidae). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.  https://doi.org/10.2173/nb.adewar1.01
  35. Weary DM, Lemon RE, Perreault S (1992) Song repertoires do not hinder neighbor-stranger discrimination. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:441–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Weary DM, Lemon RE, Perreault S (1994) Different responses to different song types in American redstarts. Auk 111:730–734Google Scholar
  37. Wiley HR, Godard R, Thompson AD (1994) Use of two singing modes by Hooded Warblers as adaptations for signalling. Behaviour 129:243–278.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156853994X00631 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Behaviour and Evolution Research Group, Department of PsychologyUniversity of LethbridgeLethbridgeCanada
  2. 2.Cabo Rojo National Wildlife RefugeUS Fish and Wildlife ServiceBoquerón, Cabo RojoUSA
  3. 3.Departamento de BiologíaUniversidad de Puerto RicoMayagüezUSA

Personalised recommendations