Article

Svetlana G. Meshcheryagina, Junior Researcher of the Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ural Branch of RAS (620144, Russia, Ekaterinburg, 8 Marta Street, 202); iD ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8974-6332; e-mail: meshcheryagina_sg@ipae.uran.ru;
Alexey S. Opaev, Dr. Sc., Senior Researcher of the A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the RAS (119071, Russia, Moscow, Leninsky Prospekt, 33); iD ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4594-1459; e-mail: aleksei.opaev@gmail.com

Meshcheryagina S.G., Opaev A.S. 2023. Structural-functional characteristics of two song types in Phylloscopus humei (Phylloscopidae). Nature Conservation Research 8(1): 96–107. https://dx.doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2023.009

Several songbird species use two singing modes, which are functionally different. The first mode is preferentially used at the beginning of the breeding cycle, and serves to attract females, while the second mode is used later in the season as well as during territorial countersigning. The two singing modes are well known in many Parulidae species from North America. The repeat mode (type I songs) comprises repetitions of a single song type. The serial mode (type II songs) consists of several song types sung in a versatile sequence. In Eurasia, a similar acoustic behaviour is known in several Phylloscopus species. However, these data are still scarce. Additionally, it is not yet fully understood whether the song structure per se or the song bout organisation (e.g. song-type diversity) plays a primary role in communication of the aforementioned songbirds. In this respect, it could be useful to analyse acoustic behaviour of Phylloscopus humei because its males have only two song types, namely song type I and song type II. These song types differ greatly in structure. In this study, we used playback experiments to ask whether these song types differ in their function. The study has been conducted in 2019–2021 in the federal State Nature Sanctuary «Posarym» (Republic of Khakassia, Russia) at the beginning of the breeding cycle of Phylloscopus humei. While singing spontaneously, males predominantly use song type I. The use of song type II is increased immediately after playback presentation. In contrast, males did not increase the rate of song type II during the playback. Instead, they produced two call types at that time, which apparently serves as an aggressive signal. Our study has shown that the use of two song types is different. Song type I is predominately used for advertising the territory and attracting a female. In contrast, song type II is more often used in countersigning between neighbouring males, although not at a time of direct aggression, i.e. during the playback. Noteworthy, we also found that males can share song type II but not song type I from their repertoires. In turn, the song sharing is thought to play a role in male-male interaction.

birdsong, communication, leaf-warbler, playback experiment, song sharing

Received: 03.08.2022. Revised: 19.11.2022. Accepted: 21.11.2022.

Baker T., Wilson D., Mennill D. 2012. Vocal signals predict attack during aggressive interactions in Black-capped Chickadees. Animal Behaviour 84(4): 965–974. DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.07.022
Bates D., Mächler M., Bolker B., Walker S. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Beebee M.D. 2002. Song Sharing by Yellow Warblers Differs Between two Modes of Singing: Implications for Song Function. Condor. 104(1): 146–155. DOI: 10.1093/condor/104.1.146
Beecher M.D. 2021. Why are no animal communication systems simple languages? Frontiers in Psychology 12: 602635. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.602635
Beecher M.D., Brenowitz E.A. 2005. Functional aspects of song learning in songbirds. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(3): 143–149. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.01.004
Bergmann H.H. 2008. Bioakustik des Tienschan-Laubsängers Phylloscopus humei (Brooks) – ein ungewöhnlicher Vogelgesang in sonagraphischer Analyse. Vogelkundliche Berichte aus Niedersachsen 40: 149–155.
Byers B.E., Kroodsma D.E. 2009. Female mate choice and songbird song repertoires. Animal Behaviour 77(1): 13–22. DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.10.003
Catchpole C.K., Slater P.J.B. 2008. Bird Song: Biological Themes and Variations. 2^nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 335 p.
Ficken M.S., Ficken R.W. 1965. Comparative ethology of the Chestnut-sided Warbler, Yellow Warbler, and American Redstart. Wilson Bulletin 77(4): 363–375.
Forstmeier W., Balsby T.J.S. 2002. Why mated dusky warblers sing so much: territory guarding and male quality announcement. Behaviour 139(1): 89–111. DOI: 10.1163/15685390252902300
Irwin D., Alström P., Olsson U., Benowitz-Fredericks Z.M. 2001. Cryptic species in the genus Phylloscopus (Old World leaf warblers). Ibis 143(2): 233–247. DOI: 10.1111/j.1474-919X.2001.tb04479.x
Ivanitskii V.V., Marova I.M. 2021. The syntactic organization of a bird song. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal 100(10): 1145–1158. DOI: 10.31857/S0044513421100068 [In Russian]
Ivanitskii V.V., Marova I.M., Malykh I.M. 2011. Contrasts in syntax of the advertising songs of closely related warbler species (Phylloscopus, Sylviidae). Doklady Biological Sciences 438(1): 171–174. DOI: 10.1134/S0012496611030094
Kovshar A.F., Gavrilov E.I., Rodionov E.F. 1974. On the biology of Hume's Leaf-Warbler Phylloscopus inornatus humei. Ornithologia 11: 253–267. [In Russian]
Lemon R.E., Cotter R., MacNally R.C., Monette S. 1985. Song repertoires and song sharing by American redstart. Condor 87(4): 457–470. DOI: 10.2307/1367942
Lyu N., Li J., Sun Y.H. 2016. Can simple songs express useful signals for mate choice?. Avian Research 7(1): 10. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-016-0045-2
MacNally R.C., Lemon R.E. 1985. Repeat and serial singing modes in American Redstarts (Setophaga ruticilla): a test of functional hypotheses. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 69(3): 191–202. DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1985.tb00146.x
Marova I.M. 1990. Reproductive biology and spatial structure of Hume's Leaf-Warbler settlements in the West Tannu-Ola. Ornithologia 24: 128–130. [In Russian]
Martens J. 2010. A preliminary review of the leaf warbler genera Phylloscopus and Seicercus. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 72: 41–116.
Nagle L., Couroux C. 2000. The influence of song mode on responses of male American redstarts. Ethology 106(12): 1049–1055. DOI: 10.1046/j.1439-0310.2000.00609.x
Opaev A.S. 2012. Bird song: if changes in signal structures always results in transformation in their function? Ethology and Zoopsychology 2(6): 1–14. [In Russian]
Opaev A.S. 2021. The communicative value of complex singing in passerine birds. Povolzhskiy Journal of Ecology 2: 191–229. DOI: 10.35885/1684-7318-2021-2-191-229 [In Russian]
Opaev A.S., Kolesnikova Yu.A., Antonov А.I. 2019. Expression of territorial aggression in the singing of leaf warlbers (Phylloscopus). Bulletin of Tver State University. Series: Biology and Ecology 1(53): 133–147. DOI: 10.26456/vtbio57 [In Russian]
Price T., Jamdar N. 1991. Breeding biology of the yellowbrowed leaf warbler Phylloscopus inornatus in Kashmir. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 88(1): 1–16.
R Core Team. 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from https://www.R-project.org/
Searcy W.A., Beecher M.D. 2009. Song as an aggressive signal in songbirds. Animal Behaviour 78(6): 1281–1292. DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.08.011
Slater P.J.B. 1989. Bird song learning: causes and consequences. Ethology, Ecology and Evolution 1(1): 19–46. DOI: 10.1080/08927014.1989.9525529
Spector D.A. 1991. The singing behaviour of yellow warblers. Behaviour 117(1/2): 23–53. DOI: 10.1163/156853991X00111
Spector D.A. 1992. Wood-warblers songs systems: a review of paruline singing behaviors. In: D.M. Power (Eds.): Current Ornithology. Vol. 9. Boston, MA: Springer. P. 199–238. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4757-9921-7_6
Weary D.M., Lemon R.E., Perreault S. 1994. Different responses to different song types in American Redstarts. Auk 111: 730–734.