Male Quality and Playback in the Great Tit

  • Marcel M. Lambrechts
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 228)


Although it is widely accepted that male songbirds sing to repel males or to attract or stimulate females, it is not well understood why the structure of bird song is so complex. In most songbirds, individuals sing different versions of the species-specific song (i.e. song or syllable types) to form a song repertoire. The composition of repertoires (the song types that constitute the repertoire), the size of repertoires (number of song types), the rate of song type switching and the way single song types are performed (song rate, percentage performance time, song duration), all differ considerably within and among species (reviews in Kroodsma and Miller 1982; Searcy and Andersson 1986; Kroodsma and Byers 1991).


Male Quality Song Type Playback Experiment Playback Stimulus High Quality Male 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alatalo, R.Y., Lundberg,A. and Glynn, C. 1986. Female pied flycatchers choose territory quality and not male characteristics. Nature, 323, 152–153.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, M.C. 1988. Sexual selection and size of repertoire in songbirds. Acta XIX Cong.Int. Orn., 13581365.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, M.C., Bjerke, T.K., Lampe, H. and Espmark, Y. 1986. Sexual response of female great tits to variation in sizes of males’ song repertoires. Am. Nat., 128, 491–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, M.C., McGregor, P.K. and Krebs, J.R. 1987. Sexual response of female great tits to local and distant songs. Ornis. Scand., 18, 186–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, P.H. 1982. The coding of species-specific characteristics in bird sounds. In: Acoustic Communication in Birds. (Ed. by D.E. Kroodsma, E.H. Miller and H. Ouellet ), pp. 213–252. Academic Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bijnens, L. 1988. Blue tit Parus caerulus song in relation to survival, reproduction and biometry. Bird Study, 35, 61–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Catchpole, C.K. 1980. Sexual selection and the evolution of complex songs among European warblers of the genus Acrocephalus. Behaviour, 74, 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chilton, G., Lein, M.R. and Baptista, L.F. 1990. Mate choice by female white-crowned sparrows in a mixed-dialect population. Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., 27, 223–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clutton-Brock, T.H. and Albon, S.D. 1979. The roaring of red deer and the evolution of honest advertisement. Behaviour, 69, 145–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cosens, S.E. and Seely, S.G. 1986. Age-related variation in song repertoire size and repertoire sharing of yellow warblers Dendroica petechia. Can. J. Zool., 64, 1926–1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cuthill, I.C. and MacDonald, W.A. 1990. Experimental manipulation of the dawn and dusk chorus in the blackbird (Turdus merula). Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., 26, 209–216.Google Scholar
  12. Davies, N.B. and Halliday, T.R. 1978. Deep croaks and fighting assessment in toads, Bufo bufo. Nature, 274, 683–685.Google Scholar
  13. Davies, N.B. and Lundberg, A. 1984. Food distribution and a variable mating system in the dunnock Prunella modularis. Ibis, 127, 100–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dhondt, A.A. 1966. A method to establish the boundaries of bird territories. Gerfault, 56, 404–408. Diehl, P., and Helb, H.-W. 1986. Radiotelemetric monitoring of heart-rate responses to song playback in blackbirds (Turdus merula). Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., 18, 213–219.Google Scholar
  15. Eens, M., Pinxten, R. and Verheyen, R.F. 1990. On the function of singing and wing waving in the European starling Sturnus vulgaris. Bird Study, 37, 48–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eens, M., Pinxten, R. and Verheyen, R.F. 1991. Male song as a cue for mate choice in the European starling. Behaviour, 116, 210–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eriksson, D. and Wallin, L. 1986. Male bird song attracts females–a field experiment. Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., 19, 297–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Falls, J.B. 1982. Individual recognition by sound in birds. In: Evolution and Ecology of Acoustic Communication in Birds. Vol.11. (Ed. by D.E. Kroodsma, E.H. Miller and H. Ouellet ), pp. 237–273. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Giraldeau, L.A. and Ydenberg, R.C. 1987. The centre-edge effect: the result of a war of attrition between territorial residents? Auk, 104, 535–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gottlander, K. 1987. Variation in the song rate of the male pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca: causes and consequences. Anim. Behay., 35, 1037–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greig-Smith, P.W. 1982. Song-rates and parental care by individual male stonechats (Saxicolla torquata). Anim. Behay., 30, 245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hailman, J.P., Lambrechts, M.M., Clemmons, J.R., Hafthorn, S., Hailman, E.D., Kempernaers, B. and Rost, R. rn/s. A display of many contexts: wing quivering in tits (Parus).Google Scholar
  23. Hiebert, S.M., Stoddard, P.K. and Arcese, P. 1989. Repertoire size, territory acquisition and reproductive success in the song sparrow. Anim. Behay., 37, 266–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hinde, R.A. 1952. The behaviour of the great tit (Parus major) and some other related species. Behay. Suppl., 2, 1–201.Google Scholar
  25. Howard, R.D. 1974. The influence of sexual selection and interspecific competition on mockingbird song (Mimus ployglottos). Evolution, 28, 428–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jarvi, T. 1983. The evolution of song versatility in the willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus: a case of evolution by intersexual selection explained by the “female choice of best mate”. Ornis Scand., 14, 123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krebs, J.R. 1976. Habituation and song repertoires in the great tit. Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., 1, 215–227. Krebs, J.R. 1977. The significance of song repertoires, the Beau Geste hypothesis. Anim. Behay., 25, 475–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krebs, J.R. 1982. Territorial defence in the great tit: do residents always win? Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., 11, 185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krebs, J.R., Ashcroft, R., and van Orsdol, K. 1981. Song matching in the great tit (Parus major L.). Anim. Behay., 29, 918–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krebs, J.R., Ashcroft, R. and Webber, M.I. 1978. Song repertoires and territory defence in the great tit. Nature, 271, 539–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kroodsma, D.E. 1986. Design of song playback experiments. Auk, 103, 640–642.Google Scholar
  32. Kroodsma, D.E. 1990. Using appropriate experimental designs for intended hypotheses in ‘song’Google Scholar
  33. playbacks, with examples for testing effects of song repertoire size. Anim. Behay.,40 1138–1150.Google Scholar
  34. Kroodsma, D.E. and Byers, B.E. 1991. The function(s) of bird song. Amer. Zool., 31, 318–328. Kroodsma, D.E. and Miller, E.H. (Eds.). 1982. Acoustic Communication in Birds. Ibis I and II. Academic Press; New York.Google Scholar
  35. Lambrechts, M.M. 1988. Great tit song output is determined both by motivation and by constraints in singing ability: a reply to Weary et al. Anim. Behay., 36, 1244–1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lambrechts, M.M. and Dhondt, A.A. 1986. Male quality, reproduction, and survival in the great tit (Parus major). Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., 19, 57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lambrechts, M.M. and Dhondt, A.A. 1987. Differences in singing performance between male great tits. Ardea, 75, 43–52.Google Scholar
  38. Lambrechts, M.M. and Dhondt, A.A. 1988a. The anti-exhaustion hypothesis: a new hypothesis to explain song performance and song switching in the great tit. Anim. Behay., 36, 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lambrechts, M.M. and Dhondt, A.A. 1988b. Male quality and territory quality in the great tit Parus major. Anim. Behay., 36, 596–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leonard, M.L. and Picman, J. 1988. Mate choice by marsh wrens: the influence of male and territory quality. Anim. Behay., 36, 517–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lewis, R.A. 1986. Aggressiveness, incidence of singing, and territory quality of male blue grouse. Can. J. Zool., 64, 1426–1429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McGregor, P.K. 1988. Song length and “male quality” in the chiffchaff. Anim. Behay.,36 606–608. McGregor, P.K. and Horn, A.G. 1991. Strophe length and response to playback in great tits. Anim. Behan, in press.Google Scholar
  43. McGregor, P.K. and Krebs, J.R. 1982. Song types in a population of great tits (Parus major): their distribution, abundance, and acquisition by individuals. Behaviour, 79, 126–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McGregor, P.K., Krebs, J.R. and Perrins, C.M. 1981. Song repertoires and lifetime reproductive success in the great tit (Parus major). Amer. Nat., 118, 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moller, A.P. 1991. Parasite load reduces song output in a passerine bird. Anim. Behay., 41, 723–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morton, E.S. 1982. Grading, discreteness, redundancy, and motivation-structural rules. In: Evolution and Ecology of Acoustic Communication in Birds.Google Scholar
  47. W.I. (Ed. by D.E. Kroodsma, E.H. Miller and H. Ouellet), pp. 183–212. Academic Press; New York.Google Scholar
  48. Mountjoy, D.J. and Lemon, R.E. 1991. Song as an attractant for male and female European starlings and the influence of song complexity on their response. Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., 28, 97–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Norris, K.J. and Blakey, J.K. 1989. Evidence for cuckoldry in the great tit Parus major. Ibis, 131, 436–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nottebohm, F.S., Kasparian, S. and Pandazis, C. 1981. Brain space for a learned task. Brain Res., 213, 99–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Radesater, T., Jakobsson, S., Andbjer, N., Bylin, A. and Nystrom, K. 1987. Song rate and pair formation in the willow warbler, Phylloscopus trochilus. Anim. Behay., 35, 1645–1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Reid, M.L. 1987. Costliness and reliability in the singing vigour of Ipswich sparrows. Anim. Behay., 35, 1735–1743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rothstein, S.I. and Fleischer, R.C. 1987. Vocal dialects and their possible relation to honest signalling in the brown-headed cowbird. Condor, 89, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Searcy, W.A. 1979. Sexual selection and body size in male red-winged blackbirds. Evolution, 33, 649–661. Searcy, W.A. 1984. Song repertoire size and female preferences in song sparrows. Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., 14, 281–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Searcy, W.A. and Andersson, M. 1986. Sexual selection and the evolution of song. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 17, 507–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Searcy, W.A., McArthur, P.D., Peters, S.S. and Marier, P. 1981. Response of male song and swamp sparrows to neighbor, stranger and self songs. Behaviour, 77, 152–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Searcy, W.A. and Yasukawa, K. 1983. Sexual selection and red-winged blackbirds. Amer. Sci., 71, 166–174.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Weary, D.M. 1990. Categorization of song notes in great tits: which acoustic features are used and why? Anim. Behay., 39, 450–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weary, D.M. 1991. How great tits use song-note and whole-song features to categorize their songs. Auk, 108, 187–189.Google Scholar
  60. Weary, D.M., Krebs J.R., Eddyshaw, R., McGregor, P.K. and Horn, A. 1988. Decline in song output by great tits: exhaustion or motivation? Anim. Behay., 36, 1242–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weary, D.M., Lambrechts, M.M. and Krebs, J.R. 1991. Does singing exhaust male great tits? Anim. Behay., 41, 540–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weary, D.M., Norris, K.J. and Falls, J.B. 1990. Song features birds use to identify individuals. Auk, 107, 623–625.Google Scholar
  63. Wells, K.D. and Taigen, T.L. 1986. The effect of social interaction on calling energetics in the gray treefrog Hyla versicolor. Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., 19, 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. West, M.J., King, A.P. and Eastzer, D.H. 1981. Validating the female bioassay of cowbird song. Relating differences in song potency to mating success. Anim. Behay., 29, 490–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wiley, R.H. and Richards, D.G. 1982. Adaptations for acoustic communication in birds: Sound transmission and signal detection. In: Evolution and Ecology of Acoustic Communication in Birds. Ibl.l. (Ed. by D.E. Kroodsma, E.H. Miller and H. Ouellet ), pp. 131–181. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yasukawa, K. 198la. Song repertoires in the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus): a test of the Beau Geste hypothesis. Anim. Behay., 29, 114–125.Google Scholar
  67. Yasukawa, K. 1981b. Male quality and female choice of mate in the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Ecology, 62, 922–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yasukawa, K., Blank, J.L. and Patterson, C.B. 1980. Song repertoires and sexual selection in the red-winged blackbird. Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., 7, 233–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcel M. Lambrechts
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of Antwerp, UIAWilrijkBelgium
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations