PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Alexander N. G. Kirschel
AU  - Zacharo Zanti
AU  - Zachary T. Harlow
AU  - Edgar E. Vallejo
AU  - Martin L. Cody
AU  - Charles E. Taylor
TI  - Females don’t always sing in response to male song, but when they do, they sing to males with higher pitched songs
AID  - 10.1101/860882
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - bioRxiv
PG  - 860882
4099  - http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/05/860882.short
4100  - http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/05/860882.full
AB  - The long-held view that bird song is exclusively a male trait has been challenged recently by a number of studies and reviews highlighting the prevalence of female song. In spite of that, there remains a lack of knowledge on the function of female song, with most evidence thus far focusing on females performing duets with males in courtship displays, typically for joint territory defence or mate guarding purposes. Here we show in a tracheophone suboscine passerine Formicarius moniliger, a sexually monomorphic species in which both sexes sing, that females may participate in both intrasexual and intersexual territory defence. Females sing more in response to females than to males, suggesting they consider females more of a threat to their territory. Yet, females also demonstrate an unexpected pattern of singing back to playback of males singing higher frequency song than themselves. Unlike males, who respond indiscriminately to playback of any song performed by either sex, females appear to discern not only the sex, but perhaps also the size of the presumed intruder. There is a strong negative relationship between body mass and frequency, and females responding only to higher frequency male song suggests they will only engage in territory defence with males when they expect those males to be weaker than they are. While our results are consistent with expectations of a shared ancestral function of song in territory defence, they also suggest females may suffer greater costs in engaging in territorial disputes and thus limit their vocal contribution according to the perceived threat.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.