Male common cuckoos use a three-note variant of their “cu-coo” call for duetting with conspecific females

Moskát, Csaba; Hauber, Márk E.

doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2021.104472

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The seemingly singular exception, the 3-note natural “cu-cu-coo” call, has an altogether different function. In turn, the natural 3-note variant of the 2-note cuckoo call is used by males for duetting with females 35 . However, this natural 3-note variant is uttered at somewhat higher frequency, elevated by about 200 Hz, and with higher speed (less pause among notes) than our experimental versions of the same (Table 3 , see details in “ Methods ”; Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another alternative is that the typical call (“cu-coo”) is uttered in long sequences in natural cases, while the natural 3-note call (“nat. cu-cu-coo”) typically occurs alone or the whole call is repeated at most once or twice 35 . Finally, a study on the Eurasian collared dove also revealed, that uttering 2-note calls instead of the 3-note calls did not cause semantic changes, except when number of notes covaried together with the length of the call 10 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As the natural 3-note calls (“nat. cu-cu-coo”) typically overlap together with females’ bubbling calls (“duetting” 35 ), we selected such calls without the bubbling calls, to broadcast clear signals. We had such natural “cu-cu-coo” calls non-overlapping with female bubble call from seven individuals, only.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, more recently, males’ calling rates showed no statistical relationship with the body weight of male cuckoos 33 . Male common cuckoos also did not use their 2-note advertisement call for mate attraction, and instead uttered a variant of this call (the 3-note “cu-cu-coo” 34 , 35 ) in male–female communication contexts. Additionally, an aberrant but still communicatively effective version of the basic “cu-coo” call (e.g., “cu-kee”) has also been reported in the literature 29 , 36 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, we predicted that male cuckoos would respond with less intensity to any form of the 3-note cuckoo calls (“cu-cu-coo”) as the natural form of the 3-note calls has a different intraspecific function, i.e. pair-bonding with female cuckoos 34 , 35 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Syntax errors do not disrupt acoustic communication in the common cuckoo

Moskát

Hauber

2022

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When acoustic communication signals are distorted, receivers may misunderstand the signal, rendering it ineffective. Common cuckoos (Cuculus canorus) are popularly known for the males’ simple, two-note advertisement calls, the “cu-coo” used for declaring the male’s breeding territories. Cuckoos do not learn their calls (vocal non-learners), so they are expected to have a limited ability to produce different acoustic signals. Nevertheless, male cuckoos appear to make syntax errors (e.g., repeated, reversed, or fragmented elements) even in their simple advertisement calls. We conducted a playback experiment with male cuckoos, broadcasting ten call types, including seven modified calls with errors (e.g. “cu-cu”, and “coo-cu”) and three natural calls used for comparisons (“cu-coo”, “cu-cu-coo”, and interspecific control). Male cuckoos responded in a manner suggesting that the presence of the first (“cu”) note of the natural 2-note “cu-coo” call in any form or combination yield effective signals. However, through the elevated frequency (by about 200 Hz) and greater speed of the “cu” note, the natural 3-note version “cu-cu-coo” call appears to have gained a novel communicative function in signalling with female cuckoos. Thus, syntax errors in calls with the “cu” element are not responsible for changing the function of the male cuckoos’ “cu-coo” call.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Syntax errors do not disrupt acoustic communication in the common cuckoo

Moskát

Hauber

2022

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Day-after impact of simulated rival encounter in the common cuckoo

Winiarska,

Jankowiak,

Tryjanowski

et al. 2024

J Ethol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies show that the common cuckoo exhibits a strong vocal response to rival playback. In this study, we aimed to assess if males would more eagerly vocally defend their home ranges a day after a simulated rival encounter. At 48 sites in Poland, we conducted a playback experiment where we played 20 calls repeated 5 times with a 5-min break between each series. Using the automatic analysis software Kaleidoscope Pro, we detected cuckoo calls in two datasets, directly after the experiment and the day after. Our results show that even though cuckoos respond to rival calls, this response is short-lived.

show abstract