Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Limits to reliability in avian aggressive signals

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Behaviour

Early game theory models of aggressive signaling predicted that aggressive signals would be unreliable because all signalers would be selected to exaggerate their signals regardless of their aggressive intentions. Recently some signals have been shown to convey reliable information about aggressive intentions, but in all cases reliability is limited. Here we test whether limits to reliability are due to exaggeration of aggressive intentions, or ‘bluffing’, as originally envisioned. Our earlier work on two related songbird species, song sparrows (Melospiza melodia) and swamp sparrows (M. georgiana), has shown that low intensity ‘soft song’ is the signal that best predicts attack in both cases. Here we test two predictions of the bluffing hypothesis: (1) that the distribution of the number of soft songs given per signaler should be skewed towards high values because of widespread exaggeration and (2) that unreliability should arise from over-signaling (giving many displays and not attacking) rather than from under-signaling (giving few or no displays and attacking). Neither prediction is upheld in either species. We propose that the surprising prevalence of under-signaling can be explained by the opportunity costs of aggressive signaling.

Affiliations: 1: aDepartment of Biology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA; 2: bDepartment of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; 3: cDepartment of Biology, University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA, USA


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Behaviour — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation