Table 3 Results of phylogenetically controlled analyses of mating behaviors and song characteristics

From: Polygyny is linked to accelerated birdsong evolution but not to larger song repertoires

 

Syllable repertoire

Syllables per song

Song repertoire

Intersong interval

Song duration

Song rate

Song continuity

Mating system

  # of species

96

133

145

95

177

91

91

PhylANOVA

  p-Value

0.25

0.0597

0.063

0.579

0.899

0.0698

0.221

  Min; Max

0.342; 0.236

0.028; 0.084

0.048; 0.078

0.76; 0.496

0.952; 0.874

0.696; 0.58

0.35; 0.1632

  Jackknife resampling

None significant

7/32 families

p < 0.05

5/32 families

p < 0.05

None significant

None significant

2/24 families

p = 0.04

None significant

Brownie

  p-Value

0.0056

0.4248

0.1478

0.4881

0.0075

0.0266

0.3985

  Rate higher in

Polygyny

N/A

N/A

N/A

Monogamy

Polygyny

N/A

  Min; Max

0.014; 0.008

0.042; 0.159

0.088; 0.127

0.007; 0.646

0.024; 0.007

0.373; 0.535

0.465; 0.384

  Jackknife resampling

25/25 families

p < 0.05

2/32 families

p < 0.05

None significant

None significant

43/45 families: p < 0.05

Icteridae: p = 0.066

Fringillidae: p = 0.053

19/24 families p < 0.05

None significant

EPP

  # of species

57

67

72

45

64

45

45

PhylANOVA

  p-value

0.001

0.02

0.566

0.045

0.329

0.714

0.052

  Min; Max

0.004; 0.004

0.048; 0.036

0.334; 0.656

0.098; 0.052

0.22; 0.398

0.772; 0.518

0.064; 0.053

  Jackknife resampling

24/24 families

p ≤ 0.015

24/25 families

p < 0.05

None significant

6/17 families

p < 0.05

None significant

None significant

6/17 families

p < 0.05

Brownie

  p-Value

0.1156

0.2764

0.3792

0.3650

0.1590

0.5785

0.3898

  Rate higher in

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

  Min; Max

0.121; 0.166

0.477; 0.187

0.532; 0.220

0.026; 0.408

0.142; 0.075

0.018; 0.056

0.291; 0.421

  Jackknife resampling

None significant

None significant

None significant

None significant

1/25 families

p < 0.05

None significant

None significant

  1. We tested whether song characteristics were significantly different between polygynous and monogamous species and between high and low EPP species (phylANOVA). We also tested whether song characteristics evolved faster in polygynous vs. monogamous lineages or in high vs. low EPP lineages. For each analysis, we assessed the robustness of our findings by testing whether the minimum and maximum values of song characteristics from the literature yielded the same results (Min; Max). In addition, we removed each avian family from the analysis in turn and repeated the analyses (Jackknife resampling), summarized here but reported in full in Supplementary Data 2–3. If the removal of any family led to significant results at the 0.05 level, we note the number of families that met this threshold out of the total number tested
Back to article page