Author
Listed:
- Wouter F. D. van Dongen
- Raoul A. Mulder
Abstract
Bird displays vary widely in their sensitivity to changes in signaler condition. Plumage ornaments are generally static and undergo minimal change. Behavioral ornaments, by contrast, are dynamic and may track signaler condition or motivation more closely. The relative importance of each trait type in signaling individual quality has been examined during female choice, but rarely in territorial defense. Male golden whistlers (Pachycephala pectoralis) display both a static plumage signal (throat patch) and a dynamic signal (song) during territorial disputes. We examined sex differences in the responses of territorial pairs to these traits during simulated territory intrusions by decoy males that had either normal or experimentally reduced throat patch sizes, in combination with low or high singing rates. Males paid attention to both categories of signals when estimating rival threat, responding for longer toward males with normal throat patches, and spending more time close to the intruder in high song rate trials. In contrast, females responded differentially only to dynamic signals. Patch size may reflect a male's long-term viability and status, whereas singing rates may correlate with willingness to escalate contests. As females participate in joint territorial defense and interactions between neighbors are sex specific, the song rates of intruding males may provide clues to their partners' motivation to escalate contests. By contrast, knowledge of an intruding male's intrasexual competitive abilities (signaled via patch size) may be unimportant to females. Differences in the signaling properties of static and dynamic signals may maintain the existence of multiple antagonistic signals in this species. Copyright 2008, Oxford University Press.
Suggested Citation
Wouter F. D. van Dongen & Raoul A. Mulder, 2008.
"Male and female golden whistlers respond differently to static and dynamic signals of male intruders,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 19(5), pages 1025-1033.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:19:y:2008:i:5:p:1025-1033
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:19:y:2008:i:5:p:1025-1033. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.