In forests reverberations have probably detrimental and beneficial effects on avian communication. They constrain signal discrimination by masking fast repetitive sounds and they improve signal detection by elongating sounds. This ambivalence of reflections for animal signals in forests is similar to the influence of reverberations on speech or music in indoor sound transmission. Since comparisons of sound fields of forests and concert halls have demonstrated that reflections can contribute in both environments a considerable part to the energy of a received sound, it is here assumed that reverberations enforce also birdsong in forests. Song elements have to be long enough to be superimposed by reflections and therefore longer signals should be louder than shorter ones. An analysis of the influence of signal length on pure tones and on song elements of two sympatric rainforest thrush species demonstrates that longer sounds are less attenuated. The results indicate that higher sound pressure level is caused by superimposing reflections. It is suggested that this beneficial effect of reverberations explains interspecific birdsong differences in element length. Transmission paths with stronger reverberations in relation to direct sound should favor the use of longer signals for better propagation.
REFERENCES
1.
C.
Chappius
, “Un example de l’influence du millieu sur les emissions vocals des oiseaux: L‘evolution des chants en fôret equatorial
,” Terre Vie
2
, 183
–202
(1971
).2.
A.
Jilka
and B.
Leisler
, “Die Einpassung dreier Rohrsänger (Acrocephalus schoenobaenus, A. scirpaceus, A. arundinaceus) in ihre Lebensräume in Bezug auf das Frequenzspektrum ihrere Reviergesänge
,” J. Orn.
115
, 192
–212
(1974
).3.
E. S.
Morton
, “Ecological sources of selection in avian sounds
,” Am. Nat.
109
, 17
–43
(1975
).4.
K.
Marten
and P.
Marler
, “Sound transmission and its significance for animal vocalizations. 1. Temperate Habitats
,” Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.
2
, 271
–290
(1977
).5.
P. M.
Waser
and M. S.
Waser
, “Experimental studies of primate vocalizations: Specializations for long-distance propagation
,” Z. Tierpsychol
43
, 239
–263
(1977
).6.
R. H.
Wiley
and D. G.
Richards
, “Physical constraints on the evolution on acoustic communication in the atmosphere: Implications for the evolution of animal vocalizations
,” Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.
3
, 69
–94
(1978
).7.
D. G.
Richards
and R. H.
Wiley
, “Reverberations and amplitude fluctuations in the propagation of sound in a forest: Implications for animal communication
,” Am. Nat.
126
, 87
–100
(1980
).8.
H.
Slabbekoorn
, J.
Ellers
, and T. B.
Smith
, “Birdsong and sound transmission: The benefits of reverberations
,” Condor
104
, 564
–573
(2002
).9.
L.
Beranek
, Concert Halls and Opera Houses, How They Sound
(Acoustical Society of America
, New York, 1996
).10.
H.
Sakai
, S.
Sato
, and Y.
Ando
, “Orthogonal acoustical factors of sound fields in a forest compared with those in a concert hall
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
104
, 1491
–1497
(1998
).11.
H.
Sakai
, S.
Shibato
, and Y.
Ando
, “Orthogonal acoustical factors of a sound field in a bamboo forest
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
109
, 2827
–2830
(2001
).12.
J.
Holland
, T.
Dabelsteen
, J. S. B.
Pedersen
, and A. L.
Paris
, “Potential ranging cues contained within the energetic pauses of transmitted wren song
,” Bioacoustics
12
, 2
–20
(2002
).13.
R. S.
Ridgely
and G.
Tudor
, The Birds of South America. Volume I. The Oscines Passerines
(Oxford U. P.
, Oxford, 1989
).14.
J. W.
Hardy
and T. A.
Parker
III, Voices of the New World Thrushes
(ARA Records
, Gainesville, 1992
).15.
E.
Nemeth
, H.
Winkler
, and T.
Dabelsteen
, “Differential degradation of antbird songs in a neotropical rainforest: Adaptation to perch height?
” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
110
, 3263
–3274
(2001
).16.
P.
Boesman
, Birds of Venezuela
(Bird Songs International
, Enschede, 1999
).17.
T.
Dabelsteen
, O. N.
Larsen
, and S. B.
Pedersen
, “Habitat-induced degradation of sound signals: Quantifying the effects of communication sounds and bird location on blur ratio excess attenuation and signal-to noise ratio in blackbird song
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
93
, 2206
–2230
(1993
).18.
K. H.
Kutruff
, “Sound in enclosures
,” in Handbook of Acoustics
, edited by M. J.
Crocker
(Wiley
, New York, 1998
), pp. 925
–938
.19.
N.
Mathevon
, T.
Dabelsteen
, and S. H.
Blumenrath
, “Are high perches in the blackcap Sylvia atricapilla song or listening posts? A sound transmission study
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
117
, 442
–449
(2005
).20.
M. J.
Ryan
and E. A.
Brenowitz
, “The role of phylogeny, and ambient noise in the evolution of bird song
,” Am. Nat.
126
, 87
–100
(1985
).21.
P. K.
McGregor
and T.
Dabelsteen
, “Communication Networks
,” in Ecology and Evolution of Acoustic Communication in Birds
, edited by D. E.
Kroodsma
and E. H.
Miller
(Cornell U. P.
, Ithaca, NY, 1996
), pp. 409
–426
.22.
J. E.
Endler
, “Evolutionary implications of the interaction between animal signals and their environment
,” in Animal Signals
, edited by Y.
Espmark
, T.
Amundsen
, and G.
Rosenqvist
(Tapir Academic
, Trondheim, 2000
), pp. 11
–46
.23.
E. S.
Morton
, “Predictions from the ranging hypothesis for the evolution of long distance signals in birds
,” Behaviour
99
, 65
–86
(1986
).24.
N.
Mathevon
, T.
Aubin
, T.
Dabelsteen
, and J. M. E.
Vielliard
, “Are communication activities shaped by environmental constraints in reverberating and absorbing forest habitat?
” An. Acad. Bras. Ciênc.
76
, 259
–263
(2004
).25.
T.
Aubin
, N.
Mathevon
, M. L.
Silvia
, J. M. E.
Vielliard
, and F.
Sebe
, “How a simple and stereotyped signal transmits individual information: The song of the white-browed warbler Basileuterus leucoblepharus
,” An. Acad. Bras. Ciênc.
76
, 335
–344
(2004
).26.
N.
Seddon
, “Ecological adaptation and species recognition drives vocal evolution in Neotropical Suboscine birds
,” Evolution (Lawrence, Kans.)
59
, 200
–215
(2005
).27.
A. V.
Badyaev
and E. S.
Leaf
, “Habitat associations and song characteristics in Phylloscopus and Hippolais Warblers
,” Auk
114
, 40
–46
(1997
).28.
M. G.
Palacios
and P. L.
Tubaro
, “Does beak size influence acoustic frequencies in woodcreepers?
” Condor
102
, 553
–560
(2000
).29.
J.
Podos
, “Correlated evolution of morphology and vocal signal structure in Darwin’s finches
,” Nature (London)
(London) 409
, 185
–188
(2001
).30.
R. J.
Dooling
, “Temporal summation of pure tones in birds
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
65
, 1058
–1060
(1979
).31.
R. J.
Dooling
and M. H.
Searcy
, “Temporal integration of acoustic signals by the Budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus)
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
77
, 1917
–1920
(1985
).32.
G. M.
Klump
, “Bird communication in a noisy world
,” in Ecology and Evolution of Acoustic Communication in Birds
(Cornell U. P.
, Ithaca, NY, 1996
), pp. 321
–338
.33.
R. H.
Wiley
, “Associations of song properties with habitats for territorial oscine birds of eastern North America
,” Am. Nat.
138
, 973
–993
(1991
).34.
H.
Slabbekoorn
and T. B.
Smith
, “Habitat-dependent song divergence in the little greenbul: An analysis of environmental selection pressures on acoustic signals
,” Evolution (Lawrence, Kans.)
56
, 1849
–1858
(2002
).35.
D.
Wallschläger
, “Correlation of song frequency and body weight in passerine birds
,” Experientia
36
, 412
(1990
).36.
J. B.
Dunning
, “Body masses of birds of the world
,” in CRC Handbook on Body Masses
, edited by J. B.
Dunning
(CRC
, Boca Raton, FL, 1993
), pp. 3
–312
.© 2006 Acoustical Society of America.
2006
Acoustical Society of America
You do not currently have access to this content.
