4.2 Article

Acoustic convergence and divergence in two sympatric burrowing nocturnal seabirds

期刊

BIOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
卷 96, 期 1, 页码 115-134

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2008.01104.x

关键词

call signatures; communication strategy; mate identification; shearwaters; vocal sex recognition

资金

  1. CNRS and the UE Life project [LIFE03NAT/F000105]
  2. Big Mat
  3. Institut Universitaire de France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Shearwaters are nocturnal burrowing seabirds. They return to their colony at dusk and exhibit high vocal activity, underlining the usefulness of acoustic cues to nocturnal communication. The present study aimed to test whether acoustic communication systems of two sympatric shearwater species, the Yelkouan shearwater Puffinus yelkouan and the Mediterranean Cory's shearwater Calonectris diomedea diomedea, converge to similar strategies. Inter-annual mate fidelity and incubation relays led us to focus on sex and individual acoustic signatures. We first characterized those two signatures by analysing the major call emitted by incubating birds. Second, we performed playback experiments to assess ability of birds to vocally discriminate between sexes and mate versus non-mate. The results obtained show that both species use a reliable sex vocal signature supported by frequency and energy features, enabling sex identification of the emitter. By responding only to conspecific same-sex calls, birds may ensure burrow and mate guarding. Conversely, individual vocal signature was mainly supported by temporal parameters, and was more reliable in the Cory's shearwater. Moreover, this species uses vocal exchanges to identify the mate during incubation relays, whereas Yelkouan shearwaters probably need additional cues. In conclusion, we observe an evolutionary convergence in intra-sex communication process but a divergence in mate greeting strategy. (C) 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 96, 115-134.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据