Register      Login
Emu Emu Society
Journal of BirdLife Australia
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Male and female contact calls differentially influence behaviour in a cockatoo, the Galah (Eolophus roseicapillus)

Judith C. Scarl
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA; and Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA. Present address: Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA. Email: jscarl@indiana.edu

Emu 109(4) 281-287 https://doi.org/10.1071/MU08067
Submitted: 28 November 2008  Accepted: 12 October 2009   Published: 24 November 2009

Abstract

Even in species in which males and females share a repertoire of calls, subtle sex differences in vocalisations often exist, particularly in calls used for long-distance communication. However, few studies address whether birds respond differently to similar male and female calls. This study investigated whether an Australian cockatoo, the Galah (Eolophus roseicapillus), responds differentially to three types of loud calls (Double Chet, Chechet and Chewp) commonly produced by both sexes. I played back male and female vocalisations to wild Galahs in Canberra, Australia, and recorded vocal and approach responses. Galahs responded differently to at least one call type, with birds approaching male Double Chets more closely but vocalising more to female Double Chets. Males were more likely than females to vocalise to Double Chets and Chechets, regardless of stimulus sex. These results suggest that males may have to expend more effort than females in forming affiliative relationships. Although males and females exhibited different vocal behaviour, paired males and females tended to approach stimuli together, which may indicate that coordination of movement, rather than coordination of vocal behaviour, is important in maintaining the pair-bond. These experiments show that even when the sexes share a repertoire, the sender and receiver sex may influence the nature of a vocal interaction.

Additional keywords: communication, parrot, sex differences, sex, vocalisation.


Acknowledgements

The author thanks Becky Antworth, Juliann Schamel, Dan McNabney, Becky Kirby, Alyssa Totura, Laura Baird, Laura Schoenle and Diana Perry for dedicated assistance with recording calls and conducting playbacks. Rob Magrath generously provided Australian sponsorship. Francoise Vermeylen provided valuable statistical advice. Jack Bradbury, Elizabeth Adkins-Regan, Susannah Buhrman-Deever, and three anonymous reviewers provided helpful suggestions on previous drafts of this manuscript. This research was supported by grants to the author from the American Ornithologists’ Union, Sigma Xi (Cornell chapter), the Department of Neurobiology and Behaviour at Cornell University, and a National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship, and NSF grant IBN 02-29271 to Jack W. Bradbury.


References

Andersson M. (1994). ‘Sexual Selection.’ (Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.)

Balsby, T. J. S. , and Scarl, J. C. (2008). Sex-specific responses to vocal convergence and divergence of contact calls in orange-fronted conures (Aratinga canicularis). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 275, 2147–2154.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Bradbury J. W. (2003). Vocal communication in wild parrots. In ‘Animal Social Complexity: Intelligence, Culture, and Individualized Societies’. (Eds F. B. M. d. Waal and P. L. Tyack.) pp. 293–316. (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.)

Farquhar, C. C. (1993). Individual and intersexual variation in alarm calls of the white-tailed hawk. Condor 95, 234–239.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Rowley I. (1983). Remating in birds. In ‘Mate Choice’. (Ed. P. Bateson.) pp. 331–359. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.)

Rowley I. (1990). ‘Behavioural Ecology of the Galah, Eolophus roseicapillus, in the Wheatbelt of Western Australia.’ (Surrey Beatty & Sons, in association with CSIRO: Sydney.)

Rowley, I. , and Saunders, D. A. (1980). Rigid wing-tags for cockatoos. Corella 4, 1–7.
Stoddard P. K. (1996). Vocal recognition of neighbors by territorial passerines. In ‘Ecology and Evolution of Acoustic Communication in Birds’. (Eds D. E. Kroodsma and E. H. Miller.) pp. 356–374. (Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY.)

Vicario, D. S. , Raskin, J. N. , Naqvi, N. H. , Thande, N. , and Simpson, H. B. (2002). The relationship between perception and production in songbird vocal imitation: what learned calls can teach us. Journal of Comparative Physiology 188, 897–908.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |

Volodin, I. A. , Volodina, E. V. , Klenova, A. V. , and Filatova, O. A. (2005). Individual and sexual differences in the calls of the monomorphic white-faced whistling duck Dendrocygna viduata. Acta Ornithologica 40, 43–52.


Weiss, D. J. , Garibaldi, B. T. , and Hauser, M. D. (2001). The production and perception of long calls by cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus): acoustic analyses and playback experiments. Journal of Comparative Psychology 115, 258–271.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |

Wickler, W. (1980). Vocal duetting and the pair bond. I. Coyness and partner committment. A hypothesis. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 52, 201–209.


Wright, T. F. (1996). Regional dialects in the contact call of a parrot. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 263, 867–872.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Wright, T. F. , and Dorin, M. (2001). Pair duets in the Yellow-Naped Amazon (Psittaciformes : Amazona auropalliata): responses to playbacks of different dialects. Ethology 107, 111–124.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |