Extent and variation of sound enhancement inside burrows of the frog Eupsophus emiliopugini (Leptodactylidae)

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

Volumn 47, Issue 1-2, 1999, Pages 94-103

  Penna, Mario ^a   Solís, Rigoberto ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHILE   (Chile)

Author keywords

Anurans; Bioacoustics; Fossorial organisms

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC PROPERTY; AMPLIFICATION; BURROW; CALLING BEHAVIOR; FROG;

ANURA; EUPSOPHUS EMILIOPUGINI; LEPTODACTYLIDAE;

EID: 0033381064     PISSN: 03405443     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s002650050654     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Arak A (1983) Sexual selection by male-male competition in natterjack toad choruses. Nature 306:261-262
2. Bailey WJ, Roberts JD (1981) The bioacoustics of the burrowing frog Heleioporus (Leptodactylidae). J Nat Hist 15:693-702
3. Bennet-Clark HC (1970) The mechanism and efficiency of sound production in mole crickets. J Exp Biol 52:619-652
4. Bennet-Clark HC (1987) The tuned singing burrow of mole crickets. J Exp Biol 128:383-409
5. Bosch J, Marquez R (1996) Acoustic competition in male midwife toads Alytes obstetricans and Alytes cisternasii: response to neighbor size and calling rate. Implications for female choice. Ethology 102:841-855
6. Brenowitz EA (1986) Environmental influences on acoustic and electric animal communication. Brain Behav Evol 28:2-42
7. Davies NB, Halliday TR (1978) Deep croaks and fighting assessment in toads Bufo bufo. Nature 274:683-685
8. Daws AG, Bennet-Clark HC, Fletcher NH (1996) The mechanism of tuning of the mole cricket singing burrow. Bioacoustics 7:81-117
9. Formas R (1985) The voices and relationships of the chilean frogs Eupsophus migueli and E. calcaratus (Amphibia: Anura: Leptodactylidae). Proc Biol Soc Wash 98:411-415
10. Formas R, Poblete V (1996) Eupsophus emiliopugini (NCN): aggressive behavior. Herpetol Rev 27:139-140
11. Gerhardt HC (1991) Female mate choice in treefrogs: static and dynamic acoustic criteria. Anim Behav 42:615-635
12. Gerhardt HC (1993) Communication and the environment. In: Halliday TR, Slater PJB (eds) Animal Behaviour, vol 2. Communication. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 82-113
13. Kinsler LE, Frey AR, Coppens AB, Sanders JV (1982) Fundamentals of acoustics. Wiley, New York
14. Lopez PT, Narins PM, Lewis ER, Moore SW (1988) Acoustically induced call modification in the white-lipped frog. Leptodactylus albilabris. Anim Behav 36:1295-1308
15. Michelsen A (1978) Sound reception in different environments. In: Ali MA (ed) Sensory ecology. Plenum, New York, pp 345-373
16. Narins PM, Hurley DD (1982) The relationship between call intensity and function in the Puerto Rican coqui (Anura: Leptodactylidae) Herpetologica 38:287-295
17. Penna M, Solís R (1996) Influence of burrow acoustics on sound reception by frogs Eupsophus (Leptodactylidae). Anim Behav 51:255-263
18. Penna M, Solís R (1998) Frog call intensities and sound propagation in the South American temperate forest region. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 42:371-381
19. Penna M, Veloso A (1990) Vocal diversity in frogs of the South American temperate forest. J Herpetol 24:23-33
20. Prozesky-Schulze L, Prozesky OPM, Anderson F, Merwe GJJ van der (1975) Use of a self-made sound baffle by a tree cricket. Nature 255:142-143
21. Ramer JD, Jenssen TA, Hurst CJ (1983) Size-related variation in the advertisement call of Rana clamitans (Anura: Ranidae), and its effect on conspecific males. Copeia 1983:141-155
22. Robertson JGM (1986) Male territoriality, fighting and assessment of fighting ability in the Australian frog, Uperoleia rugosa. Anim Behav 34:763-784
23. Ryan MJ, Rand AS (1993) Sexual selection and signal evolution: the ghost of biases past. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 340: 187-195
24. Wagner WE Jr (1989) Fighting, assessment, and frequency alteration in Blanchard's crickel frog. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25: 429-436
25. Wells KD, Schwartz JJ (1982) The effect of vegetation on the propagation of calls in the neotropical frog Centrolenella fleischmanni. Herpetologica 38:449-455