Current Ornithology 1986
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4615-6784-4_3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Social Dominance, Mating and Spacing Systems, Female Fecundity, and Vocal Dialects in Captive and Free-Ranging Brown-Headed Cowbirds

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
91
0

Year Published

1987
1987
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 128 publications
(97 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
6
91
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Other than nests located within the same Phoebe territory (distance: 0 km), all other nests were 1-50 km apart, which was deemed far enough to be beyond the dimensions of the breeding range of individual female Cowbirds (*200 m diameter, following Gibbs et al 1997). This scale of minimal distances between different individual female Cowbirds' territories had also been suggested by other published work from Ithaca (Friedmann 1929), from other upstate New York study sites (Dufty 1982;Hahn et al 1999), and from other regions within the Cowbird's range (Darley 1983;Rothstein et al 1986;Raim 2000). Our sampling paradigm, therefore, implies that parasitism events in separate host nest sites were likely owing to eggs laid by different Cowbird females.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 73%
“…Other than nests located within the same Phoebe territory (distance: 0 km), all other nests were 1-50 km apart, which was deemed far enough to be beyond the dimensions of the breeding range of individual female Cowbirds (*200 m diameter, following Gibbs et al 1997). This scale of minimal distances between different individual female Cowbirds' territories had also been suggested by other published work from Ithaca (Friedmann 1929), from other upstate New York study sites (Dufty 1982;Hahn et al 1999), and from other regions within the Cowbird's range (Darley 1983;Rothstein et al 1986;Raim 2000). Our sampling paradigm, therefore, implies that parasitism events in separate host nest sites were likely owing to eggs laid by different Cowbird females.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 73%
“…In the wild, both male and female cowbirds have dominance hierarchies. In captivity, the dominant male in a cage (Dufty & Wingfield, 1986) shows mate guarding and excludes subordinate males from courting females (Rothstein et al, 1986). Females show less clearly defined dominance in captivity (Rothstein et al, 1986), possibly because the resources that they normally defend, host nests, are absent.…”
Section: Behavioral Variables Altered By Captivitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Obviously, more research is needed to isolate why we found sexspecific effects of captivity on Hp volume in M. a. obscurus despite a lack of sex-specific Hp size in wild birds of the population we studied. Future studies should consider subspecies and within-subspecies population differences as cowbird space use appears to depend on a number of habitat, habitat use, and population size dimensions (Darley, 1982(Darley, , 1983Dufty, 1982;Lowther, 1993;Rothstein, Verner, & Steven, 1984;Rothstein et al, 1986). Precedents for such within-species population differences are found in black-capped chickadees (P. atricapilla).…”
Section: Cowbird Population Differencesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We collected data that past field and laboratory research had indicated were important for effective social, vocal and reproductive functioning [29,30,40,41]. In 15 min time blocks, we occasionsampled males for vocalizations, noting each male that vocalized along with information on the social context surrounding the vocalization.…”
Section: (C) Data Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…What was more surprising, however, was that there were a variety of effects on aspects of the juvenile males' social behaviour apart from song structure. While JA juveniles developed social behaviour typical of wild cowbirds (competitive, aggressive singing bouts with other males, pair-bonding with females and monogamous mating patterns [30][31][32]), J juveniles engaged in atypical social interactions: they were not aggressive, they did not engage in many social singing interactions with males or with females, they did not pair-bond or mate-guard females and they mated promiscuously. Thus, a minor manipulation to the demographics of flocks revealed the pronounced flexibility in the vocal and social repertoires of juvenile male cowbirds.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%