| Literature DB >> 25426158 |
Mathieu Giraudeau1, Paul M Nolan2, Caitlin E Black3, Stevan R Earl4, Masaru Hasegawa5, Kevin J McGraw6.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Urbanization can considerably impact animal ecology, evolution, and behavior. Among the new conditions that animals experience in cities is anthropogenic noise, which can limit the sound space available for animals to communicate using acoustic signals. Some urban bird species increase their song frequencies so that they can be heard above low-frequency background city noise. However, the ability to make such song modifications may be constrained by several morphological factors, including bill gape, size, and shape, thereby limiting the degree to which certain species can vocally adapt to urban settings. We examined the relationship between song characteristics and bill morphology in a species (the house finch, Haemorhous mexicanus) where both vocal performance and bill size are known to differ between city and rural animals.Entities:
Keywords: Bill shape; Noise pollution; Singing behavior; Urban impacts; Vocal communication
Year: 2014 PMID: 25426158 PMCID: PMC4243808 DOI: 10.1186/s12983-014-0083-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Zool ISSN: 1742-9994 Impact factor: 3.172
Characteristics of the sites at which we studied house finches in Maricopa County, USA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Phoenix | Tempe | Mesa | Gilbert | Chandler | Phoenix | Phoenix | Goodyear |
|
| 33°27’N 112°03’W | 33°25’N 111°55’W | 33° 27’N 111° 49’W | 33° 19’N 111°43’ W | 33° 18’N 111°55’ W | 33°27’N 111°57’W | 33°21’N 112°4’W | 33° 25’N 112°25’ W |
|
| 7291 | 10385 | 4600 | 17175 | 3948 | 50 | 1001 | 11 |
|
| 23 | 20 | 21 | 23 | 22 | 21 | 22 | 20 |
|
| 9 | 10 | - | 11 | 10 | 13 | 10 | |
|
| 2162 (47), 6573 (206), 4411 (234) | 2137 (55), 6446 (137), 4310 (188) | - | 1844 (43), 5890 (195), 4045 (199) | 2008 (60), 6212 (182), 4205 (202) | 1968 (24), 6720 (112), 4752 (125) | - | 1858 (60), 6806 (182), 4949 (200) |
|
| 9.84 (0,076), 8.16 (0.043), 7.26 (0.041) | 9.85 (0,062), 8.00 (0.037), 7.17 (0.040) | 9.71 (0.072), 8.12 (0.044), 7.22 (0.047) | 10.04 (0.072), 8.06 (0,059), 7.09 (0.055) | 10.05 (0,083), 8.04 (0.042), 7.07 (0.041) | 9.71 (0.056), 8.17 (0.050), 7.28 (0.042) | 9.76 (0.057), 8.14 (0.046), 7.28 (0.070) | 9.44 (0.073), 8.14 (0.047), 7.29 (0.043) |
|
| ||||||||
|
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 3.44 | 9.07 | 0.67 | 8.05 | 0.05 | 1.11 |
|
| 57.55 | 38.79 | 48.72 | 40.28 | 59.53 | 9.01 | 17.26 | 1.73 |
|
| 0.78 | 1.01 | 4.5 | 1.2 | 5.47 | 1.99 | 1.81 | 0.67 |
|
| 30.11 | 48.38 | 22.51 | 21.31 | 20.82 | 18.64 | 7.85 | 2.87 |
|
| 10.55 | 9.56 | 14.45 | 12.05 | 10 | 57.45 | 68.89 | 67.44 |
|
| 1.01 | 2.25 | 6.37 | 3.32 | 3.47 | 3.16 | 4.12 | 3.62 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.97 | 0.04 | 1.68 | 0.03 | 22.55 |
Figure 1Relationship between (A) the average bill width and length at each of our eight study sites for which we gathered data on bill traits (±SE) and (B) the average bill length and the urbanization PC1 scores at each of our eight study sites for which we gathered data on bill traits (±SE).
Figure 2Relationship between the average song lowest frequency and the highest frequency of the background noise at the six study sites for which we gathered song data (±SE).
Figure 3Relationship between the song highest frequency and the average bill length at the six study sites for which we gathered data on both song and bill traits (±SE).
Figure 4Relationship between the song frequency range and the average bill length at the six study sites for which we gathered data on both song and bill traits.