Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ekaterinburg, Russia
2.
A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Funds:
This study was performed within the frameworks of state contract with the Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ural Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences18-9-4-22
as a part of Program of the Russian Academy of Sciences 2013-2020AAAA-A18-118042690110-1[0109-2019-0003]
'Ecological and evolutionary aspects of animal behavior and communication'.Call analysis was supported by the Russian Science Foundation20-14-00058
In the last decade, enigmatic male-like cuckoo calls have been reported several times in East Asia. These calls exhibited a combination of vocal traits of both Oriental Cuckoo (Cuculus optatus) and Common Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) advertising calls, and some authors therefore suggested that the enigmatic calls were produced by either Common × Oriental Cuckoo male hybrids or Common Cuckoo males having a gene mutation. However, the exact identity of calling birds are still unknown.
Methods
We recorded previously unknown male-like calls from three captive Oriental Cuckoo females, and compared these calls with enigmatic vocalizations recorded in the wild as well as with advertising vocalizations of Common and Oriental Cuckoo males. To achieve this, we measured calls automatically. Besides, we video-recorded captive female emitting male-like calls, and compared these recordings with the YouTube recordings of calling males of both Common and Oriental Cuckoos to get insight into the mechanism of call production.
Results
The analysis showed that female male-like calls recorded in captivity were similar to enigmatic calls recorded in the wild. Therefore, Oriental Cuckoo females might produce the latter calls. Two features of these female calls appeared to be unusual among birds. First, females produced male-like calls at the time of spring and autumn migratory activity and on migration in the wild. Because of this, functional significance of this call remained puzzling. Secondly, the male-like female call unexpectedly combined features of both closed-mouth (closed beak and simultaneous inflation of the 'throat sac') and open-mouth (prominent harmonic spectrum and the maximum neck extension observed at the beginning of a sound) vocal behaviors.
Conclusions
The Cuculus vocalizations outside the reproductive season remain poorly understood. Here, we found for the first time that Oriental Cuckoo females can produce male-like calls in that time. Because of its rarity, this call might be an atavism. Indeed, female male-like vocalizations are still known in non-parasitic tropical and apparently more basal cuckoos only. Therefore, our findings may shed light on the evolution of vocal communication in avian brood parasites.
Flight performance is a fundamental factor for fitness in ecological and evolutionary contexts (Webster et al. 2002; Bauer and Hoye 2014). According to the theory of migration syndrome (Bauchinger et al. 2005; Hedenström 2008), migratory birds have evolved a suite of modifications in wing morphology and kinematics in terms of energy consumption for long-journey flight than residents (Hedenström 2008; van Oorschot et al. 2016). For example, migratory birds not only have highly efficient wings (more prolonged and narrower wings, lower wing loading) but also exhibit lowered wingbeat frequency and stroke amplitude for continuous flight avoiding additional parasite drag relative to residents (Minias et al. 2015; Grilli et al. 2017). Given that it is difficult to directly measure these parameters under the natural conditions (Zhao et al. 2017; Horton et al. 2018), little information is available on how migratory birds adjust airspeed and mechanical power relative to residents.
Considering that power consumption follows a U-shaped relationship with flight speed, fly at a speed too low or high than usual will demand an extra amount of energy and lower energy efficiency (Alerstam et al. 2007; Alerstam 2011). Theoretically, small migratory birds should fly at speed with the maximum range speed (Vmr) and maximize the efficiency of flight to meet the strategy of energy-minimization during the flight (Hedenström 2002; Tobalske et al. 2003). By contrast, residents are less constrained by the energy demand of long-distance flight, and a higher maximum speed (Vmax) can improve chasing and escaping ability (Clemente and Wilson 2016, Fig. 1).
Figure
1.
The relationship between airspeed and the aerodynamic power requirement during flight (Pennycuick 2008; Klein et al. 2015). At minimum speed (Vmin) and maximum speed (Vmax), the required aerodynamic power equals the maximum available power output. At minimum power speed (Vmp) is when the required aerodynamic power is minimal (the speed for maximum endurance). At maximum range speed (Vmr) is when the cost of transport is minimal (the speed for maximum range)
The maximum load-lifting capacity experiment (as imposed via asymptotic loading) is a quantifiable way to determine maximum flight performance and estimate maximum power available during the flight in volant animals (Marden 1987; Altshuler et al. 2010). By measuring flight-related morphology, kinematics, and maximum weight lifted during maximum load-lifting flight trials, we can calculate aerodynamic power output with aerodynamic model and estimate flight speed (Vmr and Vmax). Specifically, Vmr is calculated with flight-related morphology and optimized kinematics; Vmax is the maximal flight speed supported by maximal available output power in load-lifting flight trials (Pennycuick 2008). The minimal flight energy cost at a certain distance (Distance × Pfight/Vmr, i.e., power cost per 100 km per unit body mass) can provide a framework to investigate the airborne energy consumption of transport. Measuring the vertical speed, acceleration during load-free flight trials, and power margin (the excess available aerodynamic power for vertical ascent) can evaluate the maneuverability of birds (Altshuler et al. 2004).
Passerines (Passeriformes, Aves) are typically featured with flapping flight that have higher power requirements than those birds with other flight modes (e.g., soaring, gliding). Therefore, passerines are under more selective pressures of optimizing flight speed and energy consumption (Gavrilov 2011; Vincze et al. 2018). To test the hypothesis that migrants would enhance the energy efficiency at Vmr, and residents would have high Vmax to improve maneuverability (Chernetsov 2012). We compared the differences in flight speed and energy efficiency between two passerines with a resident species (Passer montanus, Eurasian Tree Sparrow, TRSP) and a migratory species (Fringilla montifringilla, Brambling, BRAM). We predicted that (1) BRAM would have a higher Vmr and a better flight efficiency to meet the time- and energy- minimization of migration (Alerstam 2011); (2) TRSP would flight at a higher Vmax to achieve better maneuverability for local competition and anti-predation, with a lower flight efficiency (Askew and Ellerby 2007).
Methods
Study species
The BRAM is a small passerine migrant which can migrate as far as 3600 km (Fang et al. 2008; see distribution map in Fig. 2) with comparable body size (~21 g), similar diets (seeds and invertebrates), and habitats (forests, shrublands, and artificial; Snow and Perrins 1998; Summers-Smith 2016) as the TRSP (common resident species with broad distribution range, Sun et al. 2017; Li et al. 2019).
Figure
2.
Breeding and non-breeding distribution ranges of Fringilla montifringilla (Brambling, BRAM; extracted from BirdLife International 2019)
The TRSP (n=13) and BRAM (n=8) were captured opportunistically using mist nets from March 13 to April 1, 2017, at the campus of Hebei Normal University (37°59.88ʹN, 114°31.18ʹE, elevation: 72 m), Shijiazhuang, China. Within 30 min post-capture, body mass was measured with a portable digital balance for each bird to the nearest 0.01 g and transferred to the university laboratory for determining their maximum flight capacity within 2‒4 h.
Maximum load-lifting assay and wing kinematics
Each bird was evaluated for asymptotic load-lifting capacity in a rectangular flight chamber using a maximum load-lifting approach described in detail by Sun et al. (2016) and Wang et al. (2019). In brief, one high-speed video camera (GCP100BAC, JVC Kenwood Corporation, Yokohama, Japan; operated at 250 frames-1) placed on the top of the chamber was used to obtain wingbeat frequency and stroke amplitude (Additional file 1: Movie S1). The other synchronized camera (operated at 50 frames-1) positioned laterally at a distance of 80 cm to the chamber was used to record the beads remaining on the chamber floor during the maximum load-lifting flight (Additional file 2: Movie S2).
The maximum lifted weight was calculated by the total weight of beads subtraction to the weight of remaining beads on the chamber floor when peak lifting was achieved. The sum of bodyweight gave the maximum load (total lifted load) and the maximum lifted weight. A time-averaged wingbeat frequency was determined by the interaction frequency between wing motions and the camera filming speed over the same measurement period. Wing stroke amplitude was derived from video images in which the wings were located at the extreme positions of the wingbeat within each bout of final 0.5 s of maximum load-lifting. Multiple ascending flights were recorded for each bird (mean of 4.1 flights), and the maximum weight lifted within the series was assumed to indicate the limit to load-lifting of flight performance. All birds were released after completing all measurements and flight trails (5‒6 h post-capture).
Flight-related morphology
Following load-lifting experiments, flight-related morphological traits were measured to the nearest 0.1 mm using Vernier caliper (Mitutoyo, Kawasaki, Japan). The right-wing of each bird was photographed for measurements of the total wing area S (given by twice the area of the right-wing) and wing length R using ImageJ (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA). The aspect ratio is given by 4R2/S. Wing loading was calculated by dividing the body weight by S, and maximum wing loading was provided by dividing the total maximum load by S. Mass-corrected maximum load was calculated by dividing the total maximum load by body weight.
Flight speed and energy efficiency
We measured the vertical speed for each individual based on video records of load-free flight trials in the chamber. The whole distance from the floor to the up limits of the flight trials was evenly divided by four or five parts with a length of 20 cm for each part. The maximum vertical speed and acceleration were calculated as the highest achieved speed and acceleration among all parts for each individual. Maximum power (maximum available muscle power to support the flight) during the maximum load-lifting flight was calculated using Ellington's equation (Ellington 1984) following the method described by Askew and Ellerby (2007). Theoretical Vmr, Vmax, parasite drag, Reynolds number, and the airborne energy efficiency of transport at Vmr and Vmax were calculated using computeFlightPerformance functions in "afpt" package for each individual (Klein et al. 2015) in R software (R Core Team 2018). The power margin was calculated as the difference of maximum power and minimum power required to flight as an estimate of maneuverability.
Statistical analysis
The homogeneity of variances was tested using Levene's test of equality of variances before analysis. We implemented independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests to compare all the variables between species. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics 21.0 software (IBM, New York, USA). All data are presented as mean±SEM. The significant difference was P < 0.05.
Results
The BRAM and TRSP had a comparable body mass, maximum load, and mass-corrected maximum load. However, BRAM had significantly longer and larger wings, higher aspect ratio, smaller wing loading, lower wingbeat frequency, and stroke amplitude compared with TRSP (Table 1; Fig. 3).
Table
1.
Statistical results of flight-related morphology, load-lifting capacity, flight kinematics, flight speed and energy efficiency between Fringilla montifringilla (Brambling, BRAM; n=8) and Passer montanus (Eurasian Tree Sparrow, TRSP; n=13) in independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests
Type of variable
Variable
t value
P value
Flight-related morphology
Body mass (g)
0.569
0.576
Wing lengtr (mm)
16.69
< 0.001
Wing area (cm2)
6.158
< 0.001
Wing loading (N/m2)
4.326
< 0.001
Aspect ratio
5.024
< 0.001
Load-lifting capacity
Maximum load (g)
1.321
0.202
Mass-corrected maximum load
2.040
0.056
Maximum wing loading (N/m2)
4.326
< 0.001
Flight kinematics
Wingbeat frequency (Hz)
6.627
< 0.001
Wing stroke amplitude (deg)
2.691
0.015
Flight performance
Maximum vertical speed (m/s)
0.625
0.540
Maximum vertical acceleration (m/s2)
0.171
0.866
Power margin
0.641
0.529
Maximum range speed (Vmr, m/s)
8.298
< 0.001
Maximum speed (Vmax, m/s)
8.176
< 0.001
Flight energy efficiency
Power at Vmr (W)a
5.914
< 0.001
Power at Vmax (W)
6.266
< 0.001
Mass-corrected power at Vmr (W/kg)
6.669
< 0.001
Mass-corrected power at Vmax (W/kg)
7.228
< 0.001
Parasitic drag at Vmr (N)
5.972
< 0.001
Parasitic drag at Vmax (N)
5.817
< 0.001
Reynolds number at Vmr
3.336
0.003
Reynolds number at Vmax
3.411
0.003
Mass-corrected power cost per 100 km at Vmr (Wh/kg)a
7.901
< 0.001
Mass-corrected power cost per 100 km at Vmax (Wh/kg)
9.544
< 0.001
Italic values indicate significance of P value (P < 0.05) aVariables were compared by the Mann–Whitney U test
Figure
3.
Comparisons of a wing length (mm), b wing area (cm2), c aspect ratio and wing loading (kg/m2) and d wingbeat frequency (Hz) and wing stroke amplitude (degree) during the maximum load-lifting flight of Passer montanus (Eurasian Tree Sparrow, TRSP, n=13) and Fringilla montifringilla (Brambling, BRAM, n=8). All variables differed significantly between species. All values depicted for each species are the means with standard error, * represents P < 0.05. Images of each species were taken from https://www.hbw.com/
The BRAM and TRSP had a comparable maximum vertical speed and acceleration, and power margin (Table 1). However, BRAM had a significantly lower Vmr and Vmax, power, parasitic drag, Reynolds number, and mass-corrected power cost per 100 km in both Vmr and Vmax compared with those of TRSP (Table 1; Figs. 4 and 5). Furthermore, the BRAM had lower flight power, mass-corrected flight power, and mass-corrected flight power per 100 km relative to TRSP at low- and middle-speed ranges (Fig. 5).
Figure
4.
Comparisons of a flight speed (m/s), b flight power (W), c parasite drag (N), d Reynolds number, e mass-corrected power (W/kg), and f mass-corrected power cost per 100 km (Wh/kg) at maximum range speed (Vmr) and maximum speed (Vmax) of Passer montanus (Eurasian Tree Sparrow, TRSP, n=13) and Fringilla montifringilla (Brambling, BRAM, n=8). All values depicted for each species are the means with standard error, * represents P < 0.05
Figure
5.
Comparisons of a flight power (N), b mass-corrected power (W/kg), and c mass-corrected power cost per 100 km (Wh/kg) at a range of possible speed for Passer montanus (Eurasian Tree Sparrow, TRSP, n=13) and Fringilla montifringilla (Brambling, BRAM, n=8). All points represented individuals; polynomial curves are used to fit the trends of each species
By identifying the differences in flight-related morphology, load-lifting capacity, kinematics, and theoretical flight speed and energy efficiency between BRAM and TRSP, we found a significantly lowered Vmr and Vmax in BRAM relative to TRSP due to reduced power availability (Fig. 4). The trade-off between time and energy cost during migration is influenced by body size (Zhao et al. 2017), season (Nilsson et al. 2013), distance (Schmaljohann 2018), etc. Our results suggested that migrant passerines may be favored by a higher flight efficiency to achieve an energy- minimization strategy rather than a time-minimization strategy, while residents may be favored by a higher Vmax to achieve better maneuverability. Furthermore, the flight energy efficiency was higher in BRAM with lower power requirements (or available power) when flying at any given speed relative to the TRSP, especially at low- and middle-speed ranges (Fig. 5). More importantly, our results found that it is a dilemma for birds to enhance flight speed and efficiency. Therefore, the flight ability of small passerine migrants was more constrained by energy rather than time (lower flight speed and higher energy efficiency).
The wing morphology and behavior of the wing motion of birds are crucial components of powered flight performance and energy efficiency (Alerstam 2011). Morphologically, BRAM had larger and longer wings, and lower wing loading relative to TRSP. Our results confirm that the avian wing has evolved to adapt to their various lifestyles (Dudley 1991; Lockwood 1998). In comparison, migrants had high- efficiency wings for long-journey flight, and residents had high-maneuverability wings for escaping, foraging, etc. (Minias et al. 2015; Grilli et al. 2017). Lowered wingbeat frequency and wing stroke amplitude for BRAM relative to TRSP can be an adaptation for optimizing energy efficiency since aerodynamic power output (Ellington 1984; Pennycuick 2008) and metabolic rates (Bishop et al. 2015) are declining superlinearly with the wingbeat frequency and stroke amplitude. Lowered wing loading of BRAM would require a reduced wingbeat frequency and stroke amplitude to stay airborne, which could be one of the reasons that BRAM showed higher efficiency of powered flight for long-distance migration. Our results provided evidence that the migratory passerines exhibit a higher flight energy efficiency, especially at a lower speed range, and this functional improvement is evolved through the combined adaptive features of wing morphology and kinematics.
Reduction in the flight speed resulted in decreased parasite drag, which could prevent extra flight energy consumption (Pennycuick 2008). Similarly, we found the BRAM exhibited reduced Vmr and Vmax, and their corresponding parasite drag, Reynolds number, and efficiency of transport (mass-corrected power cost per 100 km) relative to the TRSP. The BRAM had a higher energy efficiency of flight, especially at a low- and middle- speed range (Fig. 5), which may be an ecological strategy for reducing extra energy cost during taking-off and escaping flight. By contrast, the TRSP with significantly higher power may be essential to enhance the flight speed range (Askew and Ellerby 2007), since the residents cannot mitigate the competition and predation through seasonal migration. Therefore, migrant passerines enhanced flight energy efficiency not only through lowering flight speed but energy efficiency at a given speed, resulting from a suite of alternations in function-based morphology and kinematics (mentioned above) relative to residents. Our results further suggest that migrants would increase their flight efficiency without compromising flight maneuverability during takeoff since the vertical speed and power margin are comparable between migrants and residents. However, lower maximum speed for the migrants may also decrease the success rates of escape in extreme conditions compared with residents (Clemente and Wilson 2016).
Conclusions
In summary, our results indicate that migrants exhibit the feature of reduced flight power with the lower cost for flight energy and maneuverability. On the other hand, residents exhibit the opposite direction of increasing flight power that is critical for enhancing maximum flight speed and power to widen speed range for predator escaping and local competition. Our findings support the notion that migratory passerines have acquired a better airborne energy efficiency through a series of adaptive changes on flight-related morphology and kinematics. However, these morphological and kinematic adaptations are still not enough to increase both flight speed and efficiency concurrently. Migrants are under the selection of balancing time and energy consumption of the long-distance migration during their long-distance migration (energy seems more vital for BRAM). Further investigations are needed to include multiple avian taxonomies for exploring potential phylogenetic effects and their metabolic and molecular alternations to expand our understanding of evolution in the efficiency of airborne travel.
We appreciate the help of Mr. Guanqun Kou for sample and video collection.
Authors' contributions
DL and YWu conceived the ideas and designed the study; YWang, YY, ZP, YS, and JL conducted the experiment and collected the data; YWang carried out the statistical analyses with the help of CJ; DL, YWu, and GN wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Availability of data and materials
Our additional materials are available online.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
All protocols were approved by the Ethics and Animal Welfare Committee (no. 2013-6) and by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (HEBTU2013-7) of Hebei Normal University, China, and were carried out under the auspices of scientific collecting permits issued by the Department of Wildlife Conservation (Forestry Bureau) of Hebei Province, China.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Araya-Salas M, Smith-Vidaurre G. warbleR: an R package to streamline analysis of animal acoustic signals. Methods Ecol Evol. 2017;8: 184–91.
Benedetti Y, Slezak K, Møller AP, Morelli F, Tryjanowski P. Number of syllables in cuckoo Cuculus canorus calls: a test using a citizen science project. Sci Rep. 2018;8: 12872.
Boeme IR, Goretskaia MY. Female song in Passeriformes: an exception or the rule? Zh Obshch Biol. 2016;77: 239–46 (in Russian).
Brumm H, Goymann W. On the natural history of duetting in white-browed Coucals: sex-and body-size-dependent differences in a collective vocal display. J Ornithol. 2017;158: 669–78.
Cadena CD, López-Lanús B, Bates JM, Krabbe N, Rice NH, Stiles FG, et al. A rare case of interspecific hybridization in the tracheophone suboscines: Chestnut-naped Antpitta Grallaria nuchalis × Chestnut-crowned Antpitta G. ruficapilla in a fragmented Andean landscape. Ibis. 2007;149: 814–25.
Catchpole CK, Slater PJB. Bird song: biological themes and variations. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
Cramp S. Handbook or the birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. In: The birds of the Western Palearctic, vol 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1985.
Dantzker MS. Acoustic communication in the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) an examination into vocal sacs, sound propagation, and signal directionality. Doctoral Thesis. San Diego: University of California; 2015.
Davies NB. Cuckoo: cheating by nature. London: Bloomsbury Publ; 2015.
Deng Z, Lloyd H, Xia C, Li D, Zhang Y. Within-season decline in call consistency of individual male Common Cuckoos (Cuculus canorus). J Ornithol. 2019a;160: 317–27.
Deng Z, Lloyd H, Xia C, Møller AP, Liang W, Zhang Y. Components of variation in female Common Cuckoo calls. Behav Process. 2019b;158: 106–12.
Erritzøe J, Mann CF, Brammer F, Fuller RA. Cuckoos of the World. London: Christopher Helm; 2012.
Fletcher NH, Riede T, Beckers GJL, Suthers RA. Vocal tract filtering and the "coo" of doves. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;116: 3750–6.
Fuisz TI, De Kort SR. Habitat-dependent call divergence in the Common Cuckoo: is it a potential signal for assortative mating? Proc R Soc B. 2007;274: 2093–7.
Garamszegi LZ, Pavlova DZ, Eens M, Møller AP. The evolution of song in female birds in Europe. Behav Ecol. 2007;18: 86–96.
Gluschenko YuN, Korobov DV. Hybrids of the birds from Primorye territory. In: Kolyada AS, editor. Animal and plant world of the Far East, vol. 27. Vladivostok: Far Eastern Federal University; 2016. pp. 19–27 (in Russian). . Accessed 26 Jan 2019.
Gluschenko YuN, Nechaev VA, Red'kin YA. Birds of Primorsky Krai: brief review of the fauna. Moscow: KMK Scientific Press; 2016. (in Russian).
Graves GR. Diagnosis of a hybrid antbird (Phlegopsis nigromaculata × Phlegopsis erythroptera) and the rarity of hybridization among Suboscines. Proc Biol Soc Washington. 1992;105: 834–40.
Hatzinger R, Hornik K, Nagel H, Maier MJ. R: Einführung durch angewandte Statistik. 2nd ed. München: Pearson Studium; 2014.
Honza M, Taborsky B, Taborsky M, Teuschl Y, Vogl W, Moksnes A, et al. Behaviour of female Common Cuckoos, Cuculus canorus, in the vicinity of host nests before and during egg laying: a radiotelemetry study. Anim Behav. 2002;64: 861–8.
Jung WJ, Lee JW, Yoo JC. 'cu-coo': can you recognize my stepparents?—a study of host-specific male call divergence in the Common Cuckoo. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9: e90468.
Kaiser HF. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974;39: 31–6.
Kassambara A, Mundt F. Factorextra: extract and visualize the results of multivariate data analyses. R package version 1.0.5. 2017. . Accessed 15 Jan 2019.
Kim H, Lee JW, Yoo JC. Comparing vocal structures of the parasitic and nonparasitic groups in Cuculinae. Avian Res. 2017a;8: 27.
Kim H, Lee JW, Yoo JC. Characteristics of female calls of four Cuculus species breeding in Korea. Korean J Ornithol. 2017b;24: 41–7 (in Korean, abstract in English).
King B. The taxonomic status of the three subspecies of Cuculus saturatus. Bull BOC. 2005;125: 48–55.
La Touche JDD. A handbook of the birds of Eastern China, vol. II. London: Taylor and Francis; 1931–1934.
Lack D. Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. London: Methuen; 1968.
Lastukhin AA. Zapis' neobychnoj pesni kukushki iz Yuzhnogo Primor'ya (The recording of unusual cuckoo song from South Primorye). Russian J Ornithol. 2015;24: 3472–3 (in Russian).
Lee JW, Kim HN, Yoo S, Yoo JC. Common cuckoo females may escape male sexual harassment by color polymorphism. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 7515.
Li Y, Xia C, Lloyd H, Li D, Zhang Y. Identification of vocal individuality in male cuckoos using different analytical techniques. Avian Res. 2017;8: 21.
Lindholm A, Linden A. Some notes on the distribution and songs of two Oriental Cuckoo taxa, Cuculus (saturatus) saturatus and Cuculus (saturatus) optatus. Forktail. 2007;23: 12–6.
Lyon BE, Gilbert GS. Rarely parasitized and unparasitized species mob and alarm call to cuckoos: implications for sparrowhawk mimicry by brood parasitic cuckoos. Wilson J Ornithol. 2013;125: 627–30.
Maier MJ. Companion package to the Book 'R: Einfuhrung durch angewandte Statistik'. R package version 0.9.3. 2015. . Accessed 15 Jan 2019.
Marova IM, Antipov VA, Ivanitskii VV. Population and geographic variation in avian song. In: Kalyakin MV, Belousova AV, editors. Archives of the Menzbier Ornithological Society, vol. 3. Moscow: KMK Scientific Press; 2017. p. 121–37 (in Russian).
Marton A, Fülöp A, Ozogány K, Moskát C, Bán M. Host alarm calls attract the unwanted attention of the brood parasitic Common Cuckoo. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 18563.
McCarthy EM. Handbook of avian hybrids of the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
Møller AP, Morelli F, Mousseau TA, Tryjanowski P. The number of syllables in Chernobyl cuckoo calls reliably indicate habitat, soil and radiation levels. Ecol Indic. 2016;66: 592–7.
Moores N. Selected records from Socheong Island. South Korea Forktail. 2007;23: 102–24.
Moores N. Going Cuckoo. In: Birds Korea. Scientific electronic publication. 2013. Accessed 20 Jan 2016.
Moores N. "Barking Cuckoo": a short update. In: Birds Korea. Scientific electronic publication. 2015. . Accessed 30 Oct 2020.
Moskát C, Hauber ME. Sex-specific responses to simulated territorial intrusions in the Common Cuckoo: a dual function of female acoustic signaling. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2019;73: 60.
Moskát C, Elek Z, Bán M, Geltsch N, Hauber ME. Can common cuckoos discriminate between neighbors and strangers by their calls? Anim Behav. 2017;126: 253–60.
Moskát C, Hauber ME, Bán M, Fülöp A, Geltsch N, Marton A, Elek Z. Are both notes of the Common Cuckoo's call necessary for familiarity recognition? Behav Process. 2018;157: 685–90.
Moskát C, Bán M, Fülöp A, Bereczki J, Hauber ME. Bimodal habitat use in brood parasitic Common Cuckoos (Cuculus canorus) revealed by GPS telemetry. Auk. 2019;136: 019.
Moskát C, Taylor DM, Hauber ME. Effective conspecific communication with aberrant calls in the common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2021;75: 7.
Nakamura H, Miyazawa Y. Movements, space use and social organization of radio-tracked Common Cuckoos during the breeding season in Japan. Jap J Ornithol. 1997;46: 23–54.
Nakamura H, Miyazawa Y, Kashiwagi K. Behavior of radio-tracked Common Cuckoo females during the breeding season in Japan. Ornithol Sci. 2005;4: 31–41.
Odom KJ, Hall ML, Riebel K, Omland KE, Langmore NE. Female song is widespread and ancestral in songbirds. Nat Commun. 2014;5: 3379.
Opaev AS, Shishkina EM. Song amplitude and population density in two sympatric warblers Phylloscopus schwarzi and P. fuscatus. Bioacoustics. 2020. .
Panov EN. The birds of South Ussuriland: (fauna, biology, behaviour). Novosibirsk: Nauka Siberian Branch; 1973. (in Russian).
Payne RB. Behavior and songs of hybrid parasitic finches. Auk. 1980;97: 118–34.
Payne RB. The Cuckoos. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
Reichard DG, Welkin JF. On the existence and potential functions of low-amplitude vocalizations in North American birds. Auk. 2015;132: 156–66.
Riede T, Beckers GJL, Blevins W, Suthers RA. Inflation of the esophagus and vocal tract filtering in ring dove. J Exp Biol. 2004;207: 4025–36.
Riede T, Forstmeier W, Kempenaers B, Goller F. The functional morphology of male courtship display in the Pectoral Sandpiper (Calidris melanotos). Auk. 2015;132: 65–77.
Riede T, Eliason CM, Miller EH, Goller F, Clarke JA. Coos, booms, and hoots: the evolution of closed-mouth vocal behaviour in birds. Evolution. 2016;70: 1734–46.
Tobias JA, Sheard C, Seddon N, Meade A, Cotton AJ, Nakagawa S. Territoriality, social bonds, and the evolution of communal signaling in birds. Front Ecol Evol. 2016;4: 74.
Tryjanowski P, Morelli F, Osiejuk TS, Møller AP. Functional significance of cuckoo Cuculus canorus calls: responses of conspecifics, hosts and non-hosts. PeerJ. 2018;6: e5302.
Vogl W, Taborsky B, Taborsky M, Teuschl Y, Honza M. Habitat and space use of European cuckoo females during the egg laying period. Behaviour. 2004;141: 881–98.
Wei C, Jia C, Dong L, Wang D, Xia C, Zhang Y, Liang W. Geographic variation in the calls of the Common Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus): isolation by distance and divergence among subspecies. J Ornithol. 2015;156: 533–42.
Welbergen JA, Davies NB. Reed warblers discriminate cuckoos from sparrowhawks with graded alarm signals that attract mates and neighbours. Anim Behav. 2008;76: 811–22.
Williams HM, Willemoes M, Klaassen RHG, Strandberg R, Thorup K. Common Cuckoo home ranges are larger in the breeding season than in the non-breeding season and in regions of sparse forest cover. J Ornithol. 2016;157: 461–9.
Xia C, Liang W, Carey GJ, Zhang Y. Song characteristics of Oriental Cuckoo Cuculus optatus and Himalayan Cuckoo Cuculus saturatus and implications for distribution and taxonomy. Zool Stud. 2016;55: 38.
Xia C, Deng Z, Lloyd H, Møller AP, Zhao X, Zhang Y. The function of three main call types in common cuckoo. Ethology. 2019;125: 652–9.
York JE, Davies NB. Female cuckoo calls misdirect host defenses towards the wrong enemy. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017;1: 1520–5.
Yu J, Lv W, Xu H, Bibi N, Yu Y, Jiang Y, et al. Function of note strings in Japanese Tit alarm calls to the Common Cuckoo: a playback experiment. Avian Res. 2017a;8: 22.
Yu J, Xing X, Jiang Y, Liang W, Wang H, Møller AP. Alarm call-based discrimination between Common Cuckoo and Eurasian sparrowhawk in a Chinese population of great tits. Ethology. 2017b;123: 542–50.
Yu J, Lu H, Sun W, Liang W, Wang H, Møller AP. Heterospecific alarm-call recognition in two warbler hosts of Common Cuckoos. Anim Cogn. 2019;22: 1149–57.
Yu J, Mingju E, Sun W, Liang W, Wang H, Møller AP. Differently sized cuckoos pose different threats to hosts. Curr Zool. 2020;66: 247–53.
Yun S, Kim H, Moon HK, Lee JW, Yoo JC. Home range overlap and its genetic correlates in an avian brood parasite, the Lesser Cuckoo Cuculus poliocephalus. J Ethol. 2019;37: 271–81.
Zsebök S, Moskát C, Bán M. Individually distinctive vocalization in Common Cuckoos (Cuculus canorus). J Ornithol. 2017;158: 213–22.
Kou, G., Wang, Y., Ge, S. et al. Moderate mass loss enhances flight performance via alteration of flight kinematics and postures in a passerine bird. Journal of Experimental Biology, 2023, 226(24): jeb245862.
DOI:10.1242/JEB.245862
2.
Kou, G., Wang, Y., Dudley, R. et al. Coping with captivity: takeoff speed and load-lifting capacity are unaffected by substantial changes in body condition for a passerine bird. Journal of Experimental Biology, 2022, 225(14): jeb244642.
DOI:10.1242/jeb.244642
3.
Yong, D.L., Heim, W., Chowdhury, S.U. et al. The State of Migratory Landbirds in the East Asian Flyway: Distributions, Threats, and Conservation Needs. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 2021.
DOI:10.3389/fevo.2021.613172
Other cited types(0)
Catalog
Alexey Opaev
2.
A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Table
1.
Statistical results of flight-related morphology, load-lifting capacity, flight kinematics, flight speed and energy efficiency between Fringilla montifringilla (Brambling, BRAM; n=8) and Passer montanus (Eurasian Tree Sparrow, TRSP; n=13) in independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests
Type of variable
Variable
t value
P value
Flight-related morphology
Body mass (g)
0.569
0.576
Wing lengtr (mm)
16.69
< 0.001
Wing area (cm2)
6.158
< 0.001
Wing loading (N/m2)
4.326
< 0.001
Aspect ratio
5.024
< 0.001
Load-lifting capacity
Maximum load (g)
1.321
0.202
Mass-corrected maximum load
2.040
0.056
Maximum wing loading (N/m2)
4.326
< 0.001
Flight kinematics
Wingbeat frequency (Hz)
6.627
< 0.001
Wing stroke amplitude (deg)
2.691
0.015
Flight performance
Maximum vertical speed (m/s)
0.625
0.540
Maximum vertical acceleration (m/s2)
0.171
0.866
Power margin
0.641
0.529
Maximum range speed (Vmr, m/s)
8.298
< 0.001
Maximum speed (Vmax, m/s)
8.176
< 0.001
Flight energy efficiency
Power at Vmr (W)a
5.914
< 0.001
Power at Vmax (W)
6.266
< 0.001
Mass-corrected power at Vmr (W/kg)
6.669
< 0.001
Mass-corrected power at Vmax (W/kg)
7.228
< 0.001
Parasitic drag at Vmr (N)
5.972
< 0.001
Parasitic drag at Vmax (N)
5.817
< 0.001
Reynolds number at Vmr
3.336
0.003
Reynolds number at Vmax
3.411
0.003
Mass-corrected power cost per 100 km at Vmr (Wh/kg)a
7.901
< 0.001
Mass-corrected power cost per 100 km at Vmax (Wh/kg)
9.544
< 0.001
Italic values indicate significance of P value (P < 0.05) aVariables were compared by the Mann–Whitney U test
DownLoad:
Email Alerts
RSS Feeds