The communicative value of complex singing in passerine birds

Birdsong is one of the most complex signals in the animal world, as it may consist of many different sounds grouped according to certain rules. Singing acts as a distant signal, indicating, e.g., the species and gender identity of the singer. However, territorial songbirds also use singing as an interactive social signal during territorial disputes, as well while interacting with female. In these contexts, males vary the type and timing of their songs to convey graded information about their motivational state, and those variations can play a role in communication. In this review, we considered how male songbirds vary their singing in territorial context. To study such variations, researchers usually simulated territorial intrusion by broadcasting conspecific singing in territories, including singing modified in a manner necessary for the researcher. For comparison, we considered briefly how singing vary in intersexual context. The author of the paper focuses on the role of singing complexity in communication. Therefore, not all known context-dependent changes in singing are considered, but only those related to “complexity”: the diversity of song/sound types and the transitional patterns of different song/sound types in the course of singing. Our review has shown that males change their singing when they detect environmental changes such as the appearance of a female or a competitor as follows: 1) song rate increases, 2) syllable rate increases, 3) song-type switching rate increases, 4) song-type diversity increases (i.e., the observed repertoire size), and 5) longer and more complex songs are predominantly used. In some species, the song bout organization may also change, but the data is still scarce. Typically, one or more, but not all the aforementioned acoustic behaviors have been found in a given song-bird species. All these behaviors (tactics) come down to a single strategy, namely: maximizing the acoustic diversity over a short period of time (e.g., several minutes), that is, increasing the number of different song and/or note types. The proximate causes of how the increased acoustic diversity work in the territorial competition context might lie in a sensory, or perceptual bias of the receiver. Namely, habituation should occur to repeated presentation of the same song type faster than to presentation of different song types. Therefore, by vocalizing more diversely, males more effectively influence the signal recipient’s behavior.

1. Boeme I. R., Goretskaia M. Ya. Pesni ptits (uchebnoe posobie) [Songs of Birds (textbook)]. Moscow, KMK Scientific Press Ltd., 2013. 78 p. (in Russian).

2. Boeme I. R., Goretskaia M. Ya. Female song in Passeriformes: An exception or the rule? Zhurnal Obshchei Biologii, 2016, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 239–246 (in Russian).

3. Volkov S. V., Koblik E. A. Birds of the World: Recommended Russian Names. Moscow, Zoological Museum of Lomonosov Moscow State University Publ., 2017. 170 p. Available at: https://zmmu.msu.ru/spec/publikacii/neserijnye-izdaniya/ (accessed 2 February 2021) (in Russian).

4. Goretskaia M. I. The song structure variability in passerine birds: Random variation or direct informative changes. Zoologicheskii zhurnal, 2013, vol. 92, no. 6, pp. 718–730 (in Russian).

5. Ivanitskii V. V. Bird songs as a microcosm of modern science: Between bioacoustics and linguistics. XIV International Ornithological Conference of Northern Eurasia. II. Oral presentations. Almaty, Menzbier Ornithological Society Publ., 2015, pp. 418–435 (in Russian).

6. Ivanitskii V. V., Bochkareva E. N., Marova I. M. At the boundary between continuous and discontinuous songs: Advertising vocalization of the black-browed reed warbler (Acrocephalus bistrigiceps, Sylviidae). Zoologicheskii zhurnal, 2008, vol. 87, no. 11, pp. 1348–1360 (in Russian).

7. Ivanitskii V. V., Marova I. M. Syntactic organization of bird song. Zoologicheskii zhurnal, 2021, vol. 100, no. 10, pp. 1098–1112 (in Russian).

8. Ivanitskii V. V., Marova I. M., Malykh I. M. Contrasts in syntax of the advertising songs of closely related warbler species (Phylloscopus, Sylviidae). Doklady Biological Sciences, 2011, vol. 438, no. 1, pp. 171–174.

9. Ivanitskii V. V., Marova I. M., Antipov V. A. Сonstruction principles and differentiation features in song of the trush nightingale (Luscinia luscinia, Turdidae) in Moscow population. Zoologicheskii zhurnal, 2013, vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 206–220 (in Russian).

10. Kolesnikova Yu. A. The Meaning of Complex Song Cycles in the Communication of Some Types of Warblers. Thesis Diss. Cand. Sci. (Biol.). Moscow, 2020. 24 p. (in Russian).

11. Opaev A. S. Bird song: If changes in signal structures always results in transformation in their function? Etologiia i zoopsikhologiia, 2012, no. 2 (6), pp. 1–14 (in Russian).

12. Opaev A. S. Song of Passerine Birds (Passeri): Structure, Evolution, and Role in Communication. Thesis Diss. Dr. Sci. (Biol.). Moscow, 2021. 44 p. (in Russian).

13. Opaev A. S., Kolesnikova Yu. A. The role of song rate and song bout’s complexityin the territorial behavior of radde’s warbler (Phylloscopus schwarzi). Zoologicheskii zhurnal, 2019, vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 319–331 (in Russian).

14. Opaev A. S., Kolesnikova Yu. A., Antonov A. I. Expression of territorial aggression in the singing of leaf warblers (Phylloscopus). Gerald of Tver State University, Ser. Biology and Ecology, 2019, iss. 1, pp. 133–147 (in Russian).

15. Panov E. N. Mekhanizmy kommunikatsii u ptits [Mechanisms of Communication in Birds]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1978. 306 p. (in Russian).

16. Panov E. N. The True Shrikes (Laniidae) of the World: Ecology, Behavior and Evolution. Moscow, KMK Scientific Press Ltd., 2008. 650 p. (in Russian).

17. Panov E. N., Nepomnyashchikh V. A., Rubtsov A. S. Organization of song in the tree pipit (Anthus trivialis, Motacillidae). Zoologicheskii zhurnal, 2006, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 84–100 (in Russian).

18. Shishkina E. M., Opaev A. S. Changes in radde’s warber (Phylloscopus schwarzi) male vocalizations during several days. Zoologicheskii zhurnal, 2020, vol. 99, no. 4, pp. 450–458 (in Russian).

19. Akçay K., Porsuk Y. K., Avşar A., Çabuk D., Bilgin C. C. Song overlapping, noise, and territorial aggression in great tits // Behavioral Ecology. 2020. Vol. 31, iss. 3. P. 807 – 814.

20. Ammer F. K., Capp M. S. Song versatility and social context in the Bobolink // Condor. 1999. Vol. 101, № 3. P. 686 – 688.

21. Baker T., Wilson D., Mennill D. Vocal signals predict attack during aggressive interactions in Black-capped Chickadees // Animal Behaviour. 2012. Vol. 84. P. 965 – 974.

22. Balaban E. Bird song syntax : learned inrtraspecific variation in meaningful // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 1988. Vol. 85. P. 3657 – 3560.

23. Ballentine B. The ability to perform physically challenging songs predicts age and size in male swamp sparrow, Melospiza georgiana // Animal Behaviour. 2009. Vol. 77. P. 973 – 978.

24. Ballentine B., Hyman J., Nowicki S. Vocal performance influences female response to male bird song : An experimental test // Behavioural Ecology. 2004. Vol. 15, iss. 1. P. 163 – 169.

25. Balsby T. J. S., Dabelsteen T. The meaning of song repertoire size and song length to male whitethroats Sylvia communis // Behavioral Processes. 2001. Vol. 52, iss. 2 – 3. P. 75 – 84.

26. Beecher M. D., Brenowitz E. A. Functional aspects of song learning in songbirds // Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 2005. Vol. 20, iss. 3. P. 143 – 149.

27. Bremond J. C. Recherches sur la semantique et les elements vecteurs d’information dans les signaux acoustiques du rouge-gorge Erithacus rubecula // La Terre et la Vie. 1968. Vol. 2. P. 109 – 220.

28. Briefer E., Rybak F., Aubin T. Does true syntax or simple auditory object support the role of skylark song dialect? // Animal Behaviour. 2013. Vol. 86. P. 1131 – 1137.

29. Byers B. E. Chestnut-sided warblers use rare song types in extreme aggressive context // Animal Behaviour. 2017. Vol. 125. P. 33 – 39.

30. Byers B. E., Kroodsma D. E. Female mate choice and songbird song repertoires // Animal Behaviour. 2009. Vol. 77. P. 13 – 22.

31. Cardoso G. C., Atwell J. W., Ketterson E. D., Price T. D. Inferring performance in the songs of dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis) // Behavioral Ecology. 2007. Vol. 18, iss. 6. P. 1051 – 1057.

32. Cardoso G. C., Hu Y. Birdsong performance and the evolution of simple (rather than elaborate) sexual signals // American Naturalist. 2011. Vol. 178, № 5. P. 679 – 686.

33. Cardoso G. C., Atwell J. W., Hu Y., Ketterson E. D., Price T. D. No correlation between three selected trade-offs in birdsong performance and male quality for a species with song repertoires // Ethology. 2012. Vol. 118, iss. 6. P. 584–593.

34. Catchpole C. K. Sexual selection and the evolution of complex song among European warbler of the genus Acrocephalus // Behaviour. 1980. Vol. 74, № 1 – 2. P. 149 – 166.

35. Catchpole C. K. Responses of Male Sedge Warblers to playback of different repertoire sizes // Animal Behaviour. 1989. Vol. 37. P. 1046 – 1047.

36. Catchpole C. K., Dittami J., Leisler B. Differential responses to male song repertoires in female songbirds implanted with estradiol // Nature. 1984. Vol. 312. P. 563–564.

37. Catchpole C. K., McGregor P. K. Sexual selection, song complexity and plumage dimorphism in European buntings of the genus Emberiza // Animal Behaviour. 1985. Vol. 33. P. 1378–1380.

38. Catchpole C. K., Slater P. J. B. Bird Song : Biological Themes and Variations. 2nd ed. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2008. 335 p.

39. Chapman F. M. Life in an Air Castle : Nature Studies in the Tropics. New York ; London : D. Appleton-Century Company, 1938. 250 p.

40. Cholewiak D. M., Cerchio S., Jacobsen J. K., Urbán-R. J., Clark C. W. Songbird dynamic under the sea : Acoustic interaction between humpback whales suggest song mediates male interaction // Royal Society Open Science. 2018. Vol. 5, iss. 2. Article number 171298.

41. Ciaburri I., Williams H. Context-dependent variation of house finch song syntax // Animal Behaviour. 2019. Vol. 147. P. 33 – 42.

42. Collins S. A. Is female preference for male repertoires due to sensory bias? // Proceedings of the Royal Society B : Biological Sciences. 1999. Vol. 266. P. 2309 – 2314.

43. Collins S. A. Vocal fighting and flirting : The functions of birdsong // Nature’s Music : The Science of Birdsong / eds. P. Marler, H. Slabbekoorn. Amsterdam : Elsevier Academic Press, 2004. P. 39 – 79.

44. Cramer E. R. A., Price J. J. Red-winged blackbirds Agelaius phoeniceus respond differently to song types with different performance levels // Journal of Avian Biology. 2007. Vol. 38, iss. 1. P. 122 – 127.

45. Darolová A., Krištofík J., Knauer F., Hoi H. Behavioural response of Eurasian Blackcaps to acoustically simulated conspecific and heterospecific male intruders // Journal of Ornithology. 2020. Vol. 161, iss. 2. P. 447 – 458.

46. Demartsev V., Kershenbaum A., Ilany A., Barocas A., Ziv E. B., Koren L., Geffen E. Male hyraxes increase song complexity and duration in the presence of alert individuals // Behavioral Ecology. 2014. Vol. 25, iss. 6. P. 1451 – 1458.

47. Deoniziak K., Osiejuk T. S. Song-type switching rate in the chaffinch carries a message during simulated intrusion // Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 2020. Vol. 74, iss. 4. Article number 47.

48. Derrickson K. C. Yearly and situational changes in the estimate of repertoire size in northern mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos) // Auk. 1987. Vol. 104, № 2. P. 198 – 207.

49. DuBois A. L., Nowicki S., Searcy W. A. Swamp sparrows modulate vocal performance in an aggressive context // Biology Letters. 2009. Vol. 5, iss. 2. P. 163 – 165.

50. Fishbein A. R., Idsardi W. J., Ball G. F., Dooling R. J. Sound sequences in birdsong : How much do birds really care? // Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 2019. Vol. 375, iss. 1789. Article number 20190044.

51. Flower T. P., Gribble M., Ridley A. R. Deception by flexible alarm mimicry in an African bird // Science. 2014. Vol. 344. P. 513 – 516.

52. Garamszegi L. Z., Møller A. P. Extrapair paternity and the evolution of bird song // Behavioral Ecology. 2004. Vol. 15, iss. 3. P. 508 – 519.

53. Geberzahn N., Hultsch H. Long-time storage of song types in birds: evidence from interactive playbacks // Proceedings of the Royal Society B : Biological Sciences. 2003. Vol. 270. P. 1085 – 1090.

54. Geberzahn N., Aubin T. How a songbird with a continuous singing style modulates its song when territorially challenged // Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 2014. Vol. 68, iss. 1. P. 1 – 12.

55. Goodwin S. E., Podos J. Team of rivals : Alliance formation in territorial songbirds is predicted by vocal signal structure // Biology Letters. 2014. Vol. 10, iss. 2. Article number 20131083.

56. Grieβmann B., Naguib M. Song sharing in neighboring and non-neighboring thrush nightingales (Luscinia luscinia) and its implication for communication // Ethology. 2002. Vol. 108, iss. 5. P. 377 – 388.

57. Hartshorne C. The monotony-threshold in singing birds // Auk. 1956. Vol. 73, no. 2. P. 176 – 192.

58. Hartshorne C. Born to Sing : An Interpretation and World Survey of Bird Song. Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 1973. 304 p.

59. Hedley R. W., Denton K. K., Weiss R. E. Accounting for syntax in analyses of countersinging reveals hidden vocal dynamics in a songbird with a large repertoire // Animal Behaviour. 2017. Vol. 131. P. 23 – 32.

60. Hedley R. W., Logue D. M., Benedict L., Mennill D. J. Assessing the similarity of song-type transitions among birds : Evidence for interspecies variation // Animal Behaviour. 2018. Vol. 140. P. 161 – 170.

61. Hesler N., Mundry R., Dabelsteen T. Does song repertoire size in Common Blackbirds play a role in an intra-sexual context? // Journal of Ornithology. 2011. Vol. 152, iss. 3. P. 591 – 601.

62. Hill S. D., Brunton D. H., Anderson M., Ji W. Fighting talk : Complex song elicits more aggressive responses in a vocally complex songbird // Ibis. 2018. Vol. 160, iss. 2. P. 257 – 268.

63. Holland J., Dabelsteen T., Paris A. P. Coding in the song of the wren : Importance of rhythmicity, syntax and element structure // Animal Behaviour. 2000. Vol. 60, iss. 4. P. 463 – 470.

64. Hõrak P., Saks L., Karu U., Ots I., Surai P. F., McGraw K. J. How coccidian parasites affect health and appearance of greenfinches // Journal of Animal Ecology. 2004. Vol. 73, № 5. P. 935 – 947.

65. del Hoyo J., Collar N. J. HBW and BirdLife International Checklist of the Birds of the World. Barcelona : Lynx Edicions, 2016. 1013 p.

66. Hultsch H., Todt D. Rules of parameter variation in homotype series of birdsong can indicate a ‘sollwert’ significance // Behavioural Processes. 1996. Vol. 38, iss. 2. P. 175 – 182.

67. Illes A. E., Hall M. L., Vehrencamp S. L. Vocal performance influences male receiver response in the banded wren // Proceedings of the Royal Society B : Biological Sciences. 2006. Vol. 273. P. 1907 – 1912.

68. Ivanitskii V. V., Marova I. M., Malykh I. M. Between order and chaos : Contrasting syntax in the advertising song of Dusky (Phylloscopus fuscatus) and Radde’s (Ph. schwarzi) Warblers // Journal of Ornithology. 2012. Vol. 153, iss. 2. P. 337 – 347.

69. Ivanitskii V. V., Marova I. M., Antipov V. A. Sequential organization in the song of thrush nightingale (Luscinia luscinia) : Clustering and sequential order of the song types // Bioacoustics. 2017. Vol. 26, iss. 2. P. 199 – 215.

70. Kershenbaum A., Blumstein D. T., Roch M. A., Akcay C., Backus G., Bee M. A., Bohn K., Cao Y., Carter G., Casar C., Coen M., DeRuiter S. L., Doyle L., Edelman S., Ferrer I. C. R., Freeberg T. M., Garland E. C., Gustison M., Harley H. E., Huetz C., Hughes M., Hyland Bruno J., Ilany A., Jin D. Z., Johnson M., Ju C., Karnowski J., Lohr B., Manser M. B., McCowan B., Mercado E., Narins P. M., Piel A., Rice M., Salmi R., Sasahara K., Sayigh L., Shiu Y., Taylor C., Vallejo E. E., Waller S., Zamora-Gutierrez V. Acoustic sequences in non-human animals : A tutorial review and prospectus // Biological Reviews of Cambridge Philosophical Society. 2016. Vol. 91, iss. 1. P. 13 – 52.

71. Kipper S., Kiefer S. Age-related changes in birds’ singing styles : On fresh tunes and fading voices? // Advances in the Study of Behavior. 2010. Vol. 41. P. 77 – 118.

72. Kipper S., Mundry R., Hultsch H., Todt D. Long-term persistence of song performances rules in nightingales (Luscinia megarhynchos) : A longitudinal field study on repertoire size // Behaviour. 2004. Vol. 141, № 3. P. 371 – 390.

73. Kolesnikova Y., Opaev A. How spontaneous singing influences the singing during simulated intrusion : A comparative study on three closely-related warbler species // Behavioral Processes. 2021. Vol. 193.

74. Kolesnikova Yu., Liu M., Kang Z., Opaev A. Song does not function as a signal of direct aggression in two Leaf-warbler species // Ornithological Science. 2019. Vol. 18, iss. 2. P. 17 – 26.

75. Kramer H. G., Lemon R. E., Morris M. J. Song switching and agonistic stimulation in the song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) : Five tests // Animal Behaviour. 1985. Vol. 33, iss. 1. P. 135 – 149.

76. Krebs J., Ashcroft R., Webber M. Song repertoires and territory defence in the great tit // Nature. 1978. Vol. 271. P. 539 – 542.

77. Kroodsma D. E. Correlates of song organization among North American wrens // American Naturalist. 1977. Vol. 111, № 981. P. 995 – 1008.

78. Kroodsma D. Birdsong performance studies : A contrary view // Animal Behaviour. 2017. Vol. 125. P. 1 – 16.

79. Kroodsma D. E., Verner J. Complex singing behaviors among Cistothorus wrens // Auk. 1978. Vol. 95, № 4. P. 703 – 716.

80. Lambrechts M. M. Organization of birdsong and constraints on performance // Ecology and Evolution of Acoustic Communication in Birds / eds. D. Kroodsma, E. Miller. New York : Comstock Publ., 1996. P. 305 – 320.

81. Langmore N. E. Song switching in monandrous and polyandrous dunnocks, Prunella modularis // Animal Behaviour. 1997. Vol. 53, iss. 4. P. 757 – 766.

82. Lawson S. L., Fishbein A. R., Prior N. H., Dooling R. J., Ball G. F. Relative salience of syllable structure and syllable order in zebra finch song // Animal Cognition. 2018. Vol. 21, iss. 4. P. 467 – 480.

83. Leitão A., ten Cate C., Riebel K. Within-song complexity in a songbird is meaningful to both male and female receivers // Animal Behaviour. 2006. Vol. 71, iss. 6. P. 1289 – 1296.

84. Linhart P., Slabbekoorn H., Fuchs R. The communicative significance of song frequency and song length in territorial chiffchaffs // Behavioral Ecology. 2012. Vol. 23, iss. 6. P. 1338 – 1347.

85. Linhart P., Jaška P., Petrusková T., Petrusek A., Fuchs R. Being angry, singing fast? Signalling of aggressive motivation by syllable rate in a songbird with slow song // Behavioural Processes. 2013. Vol. 100. P. 139 – 145.

86. Liu I. A., Soha J. A., Nowicki S. Song type matching and vocal performance in territorial signaling by male swamp sparrows // Animal Behaviour. 2018. Vol. 139. P. 117 – 125.

87. McGregor P. K., Horn A. D. Strophe length and response to playback in great tit // Animal Behaviour. 1992. Vol. 43, iss. 4. P. 667 – 676.

88. Moseley D. L., Lahti D. C., Podos J. Responses to playback vary with the vocal performance of both signal senders and receiver // Proceedings of the Royal Society B : Biological Sciences. 2013. Vol. 280, iss. 1768. Article number 20131401.

89. Nelson D. A. Feature weighting in species song recognition by the field sparrow (Spizella pusilla) // Behaviour. 1988. Vol. 106, № 1 – 2. P. 158 – 181.

90. Odum K. J., Hall M. L., Riebel K., Omland K. E., Langmore N. E. Female song is widespread and ancestral in songbirds // Nature Communication. 2014. Vol. 5. Article number 3379.

91. Opaev A. Relationships between repertoire size and organization of song bouts in the Greycrowned Warbler (Seicercus tephrocephalus) // Journal of Ornithology. 2016. Vol. 157, iss. 4. P. 949 – 960.

92. Opaev A. Vocal performance and the usage of song types in pale-legged leaf-warbler Phylloscopus tenellipes – a contradictory study // Ethology Ecology & Evolution. 2021. Vol. 33, iss. 4. https://doi.org/10.1080/03949370.2021.1949752

93. Opaev A., Kolesnikova Y. Lack of habitat segregation and no interspecific territoriality in three syntopic cryptic species of the Golden-spectacled Warblers Phylloscopus (Seicercus) burkii complex // Journal of Avian Biology. 2019. Vol. 50, iss. 11. P. 1 – 9.

94. Opaev A., Kolesnikova Yu., Liu M., Kang Z. Singing of Claudia’s Leaf-warbler (Phylloscopus claudiae) in aggressive contexts : Role of song rate, song type diversity and song type transition pattern // Journal of Ornithology. 2019. Vol. 160, iss. 2. P. 297 – 304.

95. Payne R. B. Song structure, behaviour, and sequence of song types in a population of village indigobirds, Vidua chalybeata // Animal Behaviour. 1979. Vol. 27, iss. 4. P. 997 – 1013.

96. Petrusková T., Osiejuk T. S., Linhart P., Petrusek A. Structure and complexity of perched and flight song of the tree pipit (Anthus trivialis) // Annales Zoologici Fennici. 2008. Vol. 45, № 2. P. 135 – 148.

97. Petrusková T., Kinštová A., Pišvejcová I., Laguna J. M., Cortezón A., Brinke T., Petrusek A. Variation in trill characteristics in tree pipit songs : Different trills for different use? // Ethology. 2014. Vol. 120, iss. 6. P. 586 – 597.

98. Pitt S. M. G. Why sing so many songs? Testing the function of song type repertoires in rock wrens using playback experiments and behavioral observations. Master of Science Thesis. Greeley, 2018. 116 p.

99. Podos J. A performance constraint on the evolution of trilled vocalizations in a songbird family (Passeriformes : Emberizidae) // Evolution. 1997. Vol. 51. P. 537 – 551.

100. Podos J. Correlated evolution of morphology and vocal signal structure in Darwin’s finches // Nature. 2001. Vol. 409. P. 185 – 188.

101. Podos J., Sung H.-C. Vocal performance in songbirds : From mechanisms to evolution // The Neuroethology of Birdsong / eds. J. T. Sakata, S. C. Woolley, R. R. Fay, A. N. Popper. Cham : Springer International Publ., 2020. P. 245 – 268.

102. Riebel K., Slater P. J. B. Song type switching in the chaffinch : Timing or counting? // Animal Behaviour. 1999. Vol. 57, iss. 3. P. 655 – 661.

103. Ritchison G. Song repertoires and the singing behavior of male northern cardinals // Wilson Bulletin. 1988. Vol. 100, № 4. P. 583 – 603.

104. Ryan M. J. Sexual selection, receiver biases, and the evolution of sex differences // Science. 1998. Vol. 281. P. 1999 – 2003.

105. Searcy W. A. Response to multiple song types in male song sparrows and field sparrows // Animal Behaviour. 1983. Vol. 31, iss. 3. P. 948 – 949.

106. Searcy W. A. Dual intersexual and intrasexual functions of song in the red-winged blackbirds // Proceedings of the XIX International Congress of Ornithology. Ottawa, 1988. P. 1373 – 1381.

107. Searcy W. A., Beecher M. D. Song as an aggressive signal in songbirds // Animal Behaviour. 2009. Vol. 78, iss. 6. P. 1281 – 1292.

108. Searcy W. A., Marler P. Interspecific differences in the response of female birds to song repertoires // Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie. 1984. Bd. 66, № 2. S. 128 – 142.

109. Searcy W. A., Yasukawa K. Use of the song repertoire in intersexual and intrasexual context by male red-winged blackbirds // Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 1990. Vol. 27, № 2. P. 123 – 128.

110. Searcy W. A., Nowicki S., Hogan C. Song type variants and aggressive context // Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 2000. Vol. 48, № 5. P. 358 – 363.

111. Scott-Phillips T. C. Defining biological communication // Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2008. Vol. 21, iss. 2. P. 387 – 395.

112. Sierro J., Sierro J., Slabbekoorn H. Experimental test of the communicative value of syllable diversity and syllable switching in the common chiffchaff // Animal Behaviour. 2020. Vol. 165. P. 11 – 21.

113. Stoddard P. K., Beecher M. D., Willis M. S. Response of territorial male song sparrows to song types and variations // Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 1988. Vol. 22, № 2. P. 125 – 130.

114. Szymkowiak J., Kuczyński L. Song rate as a signal of male aggressiveness during territorial context in the wood warbler // Journal of Avian Biology. 2017. Vol. 48, iss. 2. P. 275 – 283.

115. Taylor C. E., Brumley J. T., Hedley R. W., Cody M. L. Sensitivity of California thrashers (Toxostoma redivivum) to song syntax // Bioacoustics. 2017. Vol. 26, iss. 3. P. 259 – 270.

116. Todt D., Naguib M. Vocal interactions in birds : The use of song as a model in communication // Advances in the Study of Behavior. 2000. Vol. 29. P. 247 – 296.

117. Vaytina T. M., Shitikov D. A. Age-related changes in song repertoire size and song type sharing in the Whinchat Saxicola rubetra // Bioacoustics. 2019. Vol. 28, iss. 2. P. 140 – 154.

118. Vehrencamp S. L. Handicap, index, and conventional signal elements of bird song // Animal Signals : Signalling and Signal Design in Animal Communication / eds. Y. Espmark, T. Amundsen, G. Rosenqvist. Trondheim : Tapir Publ., 2000. P. 277 – 300.

119. Vehrencamp S. L., Hall M. L., Bohman E. R., Depeine C. D., Dalziell A. H. Song matching, overlapping, and switching in the banded wren : The sender’s perspective // Behavioral Ecology. 2007. Vol. 18, iss. 4. P. 849 – 859.

120. Vehrencamp S. L., Yantachka J., Hall M. L., de Kort S. R. Trill performance components vary with age, season, and motivation in the banded wren // Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 2013. Vol. 67, № 3. P. 409 – 419.

121. Weiss M., Hultsch H., Adam I., Scharff C., Kipper S. The use of network analysis to study complex animal communication systems : A study on nightingale song // Proceedings of the Royal Society B : Biological Sciences. 2014. Vol. 281. Article number 20140460.

122. Wilson D. R., Bitton P.-P., Podos J., Mennill D. J. Uneven sampling and the analysis of vocal performance constraints // American Naturalist. 2014. Vol. 183, № 2. P. 214 – 228.

123. Yasukawa K. Song and territory defense in the Red-Winged Blackbird // Auk. 1981. Vol. 98, № 1. P. 185 – 187.

124. Zsebők S., Herczeg G., Laczi M., Nagy G., Vaskuti E., Hargitai R., Hegyi G., Herényi M., Markó G., Rosivall B., Szász E., Szöllősi E., Török J., Garamszegi L. Z. Sequential organization of birdsong : Relationships with individual quality and fitness // Behavioral Ecology. 2021. Vol. 32, iss. 1. P. 82 – 93.