1981
DOI: 10.1007/bf00299828
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Repertoire sharing and song-post distance in nightingales (Luscinia megarhynchos B.)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
60
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 100 publications
(60 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
60
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As a formal definition, we characterized songs as belonging to the same song type when they differed in not more than three of approximately 10 element types in the first two sections of the song and included the same repetitive sections. This did not only allow reliable comparisons within one recording, but also comparisons of the singing of different birds ( [4,28]; see the electronic supplementary material, figure S1, for illustrations). The majority of song types could be assigned to catalogue songs, new song types were indexed and added to the catalogue.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a formal definition, we characterized songs as belonging to the same song type when they differed in not more than three of approximately 10 element types in the first two sections of the song and included the same repetitive sections. This did not only allow reliable comparisons within one recording, but also comparisons of the singing of different birds ( [4,28]; see the electronic supplementary material, figure S1, for illustrations). The majority of song types could be assigned to catalogue songs, new song types were indexed and added to the catalogue.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Zero distance means that the males in comparison were recorded at the same nest box with few days apart (they were likely settled in neighboring boxes after several interaction). Todt, 1981;Laiolo and Tella, 2005;Logue and Forstmeier, 2008). Such mechanisms would predict a higher degree of similarity between males that potentially interact vocally than between males that are separated in time and space and thus have no chance to take over syllables from each other.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although previous analyses used similarity matrixes that disregarded the relative frequency of syllables (e.g. Briefer et al, 2010;Hultsch and Todt, 1981), we applied a method that considers this frequency of detection because the resulting similarity index is more relevant from the listener perspective. For instance, two males that share 50% of their syllables, but sing these shared syllables only occasionally, would be perceived by a listener as having highly different song composition.…”
Section: Association Between Males Based On Syllable Sharingmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, there is little evidence to support this hypothesis, and such a conflict may only affect species with very large song repertoires (Stoddard 1996). The conflict between repertoire size and individual recognition is thought to occur because, as conspecific repertoires increase, (1) there is a greater number of options that individuals must learn to discriminate, (2) the assignment of identity could become harder owing to potentially higher levels of song type sharing (but see Hultsch & Todt 1981), and (3) the opportunities for learning how different individuals sing each song type decrease, because singers now sing many song types a few times each instead of singing a few song types many times each (reviewed in Stoddard 1996). In spite of these arguments, large song repertoires do not seem to impair the individual song recognition abilities of European robins, Erithacus rubecula (Bremond 1968;Brindley 1991), European starlings, Sturnus vulgaris (Gentner & Hulse 1998), or thrush nightingales, Luscinia luscinia (Naguib & Todt 1998) and experiments in captivity have shown that birds have the potential to learn more songs than those to which they are exposed in natural conditions (Stoddard et al 1992).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%