| Literature DB >> 28273111 |
Abstract
Mutual interactions between sexes have multiple signalling functions. Duet singing in songbirds is related to mutual mate guarding, joint resource defence, and signalling commitment. Coordinated visual displays of mating pairs are thought to perform similar functions, but are less well understood. The current study evaluated mutual interactions in an Estrildid species to explore the relative importance of duet dancing and male singing in mating success of pairs in a first encounter. When Java sparrows (Lonchura oryzivora) court prospective mates, only males sing. However, both males and females perform courtship dances, often in a duet-like manner. These dances are typically terminated by female copulation solicitation displays (CSDs). In the current study, we observed higher mating success when courtship dances were mutually exchanged, and when males sang. However, the sex initiating the courtship did not affect mating success. Most females produced CSDs after duet dancing but before hearing the entire song, indicating that duet dancing played a crucial role in mating. This finding highlights an unexplored aspect of duetting behaviour in the process of mutual mate choice. These results conflict with the majority of past songbird research, which has interpreted songs as primary behavioural sexual signals.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28273111 PMCID: PMC5342200 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172655
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Schematic view of the Java sparrow courtship.
Courtship of the Java sparrow includes male song and dancing by both sexes. (A) Songs are composed of introductory notes, sparse repetition of single notes with low amplitude, and a main song phrase that is characterised by a variety of notes. (B, C) Dance includes bill wiping and hopping. (D, E) Courtship can be initiated by either a male or a female, often followed by dance response of the partner bird. When any dance components (bill wiping or hopping) were mutually exchanged, the behaviour was considered duet dancing. The courting phase was considered to span from the start of the courtship until female CSDs or until the end of courting behaviours in cases without CSDs. Mating success was determined based on the presence of CSD, mounting and copulation that followed the courting phase.
Effects of behavioural interactions between paired birds on mating success (occurrence of CSD, mounting, and copulation) in all courtship episodes (A) and initial courtship episode of each pair (B).
As the subject birds experienced multiple pairing tests with different partners, test order was included as an explanatory variable to control for it (A, B). As some pairs engaged in multiple courtships in a test, the order of courtship episodes was also included as an explanatory variable (A).
| CSD | Mounting | Copulation | |||||||||||||||
| Explanatory variable | (category / scale) | Coef | SE | z | p | Coef | SE | z | p | Coef | SE | z | p | ||||
| Intercept | -4.51 | 1.08 | -4.17 | < 0.001 | -6.66 | 1.67 | -3.99 | < 0.001 | -5.55 | 1.84 | -3.01 | 0.003 | |||||
| Initiating sex | ( | -0.02 | 0.34 | -0.07 | 0.941 | -0.12 | 0.41 | -0.29 | 0.775 | -0.01 | 0.47 | -0.02 | 0.987 | ||||
| Dance | ( | 3.42 | 0.62 | 5.50 | 4.13 | 0.96 | 4.32 | 3.13 | 0.99 | 3.15 | |||||||
| Song | (0, 1, 2) | 0.87 | 0.31 | 2.83 | 0.82 | 0.30 | 2.75 | 1.00 | 0.37 | 2.70 | |||||||
| Episode order | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.30 | 0.762 | -0.03 | 0.07 | -0.44 | 0.660 | -0.14 | 0.09 | -1.45 | 0.146 | |||||
| Male test order | 0.36 | 0.17 | 2.14 | 0.12 | 0.29 | 0.41 | 0.682 | 0.06 | 0.35 | 0.18 | 0.859 | ||||||
| Female test order | 0.19 | 0.19 | 1.02 | 0.309 | 0.83 | 0.32 | 2.55 | 0.30 | 0.36 | 0.84 | 0.403 | ||||||
| CSD | Mounting | Copulation | |||||||||||||||
| Explanatory variable | (category / scale) | Coef | SE | z | p | Coef | SE | z | p | Coef | SE | z | p | ||||
| Intercept | -5.78 | 2.42 | -2.39 | 0.017 | -7.12 | 2.64 | -2.70 | 0.007 | -9.10 | 3.58 | -2.54 | 0.011 | |||||
| Initiating sex | ( | -0.91 | 1.01 | -0.91 | 0.365 | 0.32 | 0.98 | 0.33 | 0.744 | 1.46 | 1.18 | 1.23 | 0.219 | ||||
| Dance | ( | 3.91 | 1.26 | 3.12 | 3.06 | 1.22 | 2.51 | 2.74 | 1.32 | 2.07 | |||||||
| Song | (0, 1, 2) | 0.95 | 0.60 | 1.59 | 0.113 | 1.24 | 0.62 | 1.98 | 2.44 | 1.35 | 1.81 | 0.070 | |||||
| Male test order | 0.25 | 0.46 | 0.54 | 0.592 | 0.14 | 0.45 | 0.30 | 0.762 | 0.38 | 0.47 | 0.81 | 0.419 | |||||
| Female test order | 0.50 | 0.45 | 1.12 | 0.264 | 0.83 | 0.46 | 1.81 | 0.071 | 1.10 | 0.55 | 1.98 | ||||||
*1: Estimated coefficients were for the categories shown with bold (female and duet).
*2: 0, male produced no song during the courting phase; 1, male produced introductory notes but not the main song during the courting phase; 2, male produced at least part of the main song during the courting phase.
Each coefficient was estimated from GLMM or GLM with binomial error distribution, and the significance of explanatory variables is indicated with
*: p < 0.05 or
†: p < 0.1.
Fig 2Effects of duet dance and male song on mating success.
Mating success is plotted as the probability of occurrence (%) of CSD (A), mounting (B), or copulation (C) per observed episodes, depending on male’s singing behaviour during courtship phase and the presence of duet dancing. Solo dance means absence of duet dance (i.e., only one of the paired birds showed dance). Each number in (A) shows the sample size (the number of courtship episodes), which was consistent in (B) and (C).