| Literature DB >> 26084455 |
Conny Bartsch1, Michael Weiss2, Silke Kipper3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sexual ornamentation may be related to the degree of paternal care and the 'good-parent' model predicts that male secondary characters honestly advertise paternal investment. In most birds, males are involved in bringing up the young and successful reproduction highly depends on male contribution during breeding. In passerines, male song is indicative of male attributes and for few species it has been shown that song features also signal paternal investment to females. Males of nightingales Luscinia megarhynchos are famous for their elaborate singing but so far there is only little knowledge on the role of male song in intersexual communication, and it is unknown whether male song predicts male parenting abilities.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26084455 PMCID: PMC4471916 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-015-0390-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Fig. 1Example songs of nightingale song categories. The acoustic patterns that constitute categories are underlined in grey. (a): whistle song, characterized by a homotype series of repeated elements with a narrow frequency band and little or no frequency modulation. (b): trill song, characterized by a rapid broad-band trill consisting of repeated elements with little frequency modulation but covering a large frequency range. (c): buzz song, characterized by a long, non-repeated buzz element produced by a very fast repetition of sound units in a narrow and rather low frequency range
Fig. 2Male variability in feeding behavior. Shown are individual feeding rates of all males (n = 20) during the recording period. Variability between males is higher than within males. For statistics see text
Fig. 3Relation between actual and predicted male feeding rates. Using the support vector machine algorithm we were able to reliably predict male feeding rates on the basis of the combination of four different song features (average shortest path length, buzz, whistle and trill repertoire size). This is indicated by the strong correlation of the actual feeding rates observed in the field and the rates predicted by the algorithm (calculation based on 20 males). For statistics see text
Overview on nightingale song measures
| Measure | Definition | Mean ± SD | CV |
|---|---|---|---|
| Repertoire size | Number of different song types | 181 ± 35 | 0.19 |
| Whistle repertoire size | Number of whistle song types in the repertoire | 28 ± 5 | 0.18 |
| Whistle song occurrence | Number of whistle songs (independent of types) in the song sample | 74 ± 17 | 0.23 |
| Trill repertoire size | Number of trill song types in the repertoire | 20 ± 4 | 0.2 |
| Trill song occurrence | Number of trill songs in the song sample | 64 ± 10 | 0.15 |
| Buzz repertoire size | Number of buzz song types in the repertoire | 5 ± 1 | 0.33 |
| Buzz song occurrence | Number of buzz songs in the song sample | 14 ± 4 | 0.3 |
| Shortest path | Network measure: the path connecting two nodes with the minimal number of nodes in between | 4.66 ± 0.84 | 0.18 |
| Transitivity | Network measure: a measure for the probability that adjacent nodes of a given node are connected as well | 0.18 ± 0.03 | 0.17 |
Name, description, and mean values for song features under study. All measures refer to song samples of 533 consecutive songs. Mean values are shown for 20 males. Both network measures were calculated and then averaged for all possible nodes or pairs of nodes in a network