title: Does age matter in song bird vocal interactions? Results from interactive playback experiments.
abstract: The song of oscines provides an extensively studied model of age-dependent behaviour changes. Male and female receivers might use song characteristics to obtain information about the age of a signaller, which is often related to its quality. Whereas most of the age-dependent song changes have been studied in solo singing, the role of age in vocal interactions is less well understood. We addressed this issue in a playback study with common nightingales (Luscinia megarhynchos). Previous studies showed that male nightingales had smaller repertoires in their first year than older males and males adjusted their repertoire towards the most common songs in the breeding population. We now compared vocal interaction patterns in a playback study in 12 one year old and 12 older nightingales (cross-sectional approach). Five of these males were tested both in their first and second breeding season (longitudinal approach). Song duration and latency to respond did not differ between males of different ages in either approach. In the cross-sectional approach, one year old nightingales matched song types twice as often as did older birds. Similarly, in the longitudinal approach all except one bird reduced the number of song type matches in their second season. Individuals tended to overlap songs at higher rates in their second breeding season than in their first. The higher levels of song type matches in the first year and song overlapping by birds in their second year suggest that these are communicative strategies to establish relationships with competing males and/or choosy females.
authors.affiliation: Institut für Biologie, Verhaltensbiologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany. sarah.kiefer@fu-berlin.de.
authors.forename: Sarah
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Kiefer
authors.forename: Constance
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Scharff
authors.forename: Silke
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Kipper
references.citation: Anim Behav. 2000 Jan;59(1):29-37
references.pmid: 10640364
references.citation: Anim Behav. 2000 Jan;59(1):21-27
references.pmid: 10640363
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 1995 Sep;10(9):374-8
references.pmid: 21237076
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2001 Jun 1;16(6):308-313
references.pmid: 11369109
references.citation: Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2009 Jul;63(9):1387-1395
references.pmid: 19554102
references.citation: J Exp Biol. 2008 Feb;211(Pt 3):317-26
references.pmid: 18203986
references.citation: Anim Behav. 1999 Nov;58(5):1061-1067
references.pmid: 10564608
references.citation: Ethology. 2008 Dec 1;114(12):1227-1238
references.pmid: 19337590
references.citation: Behav Ecol. 2007;18:849-859
references.pmid: 18392112
references.citation: Anim Behav. 1997 Dec;54(6):1535-1543
references.pmid: 9794778
references.citation: Behav Ecol. 2009 Jan;20(1):200-206
references.pmid: 19337589
references.citation: Anim Behav. 1998 Jul;56(1):256-9
references.pmid: 9710485
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Jun 22;276(1665):2315-21
references.pmid: 19324742
references.citation: Science. 1974 Feb 22;183(4126):762-3
references.pmid: 17790627
references.citation: J Evol Biol. 2003 Nov;16(6):1127-34
references.pmid: 14640404
references.citation: Am Nat. 2008 Jul;172(1):34-41
references.pmid: 18518774