Female spadefoot toads compromise on mate quality to ensure conspecific matings

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 220-227

  Pfennig, Karin S ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Mate choice; Mate quality recognition; Scaphiopus couchii; Spea bombifrons; Spea multiplicata; Species recognition

Indexed keywords

MATING BEHAVIOR; RECOGNITION; TOAD;

AMPHIBIA; ANURA; PELOBATIDAE; REPTILIA; SCAPHIOPUS COUCHII; SPEA BOMBIFRONS; SPEA MULTIPLICATA;

EID: 0034050627     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/11.2.220     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Andersson M, 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
2. Basolo AL, 1990. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 250:808-810.
3. Berrigan D, Locke SJ, 1991. Body size and male reproductive performance in the flesh fly, Neobellieria bullata. J Insect Physiol 37:575-581.
4. Bevier CR, 1997. Utilization of energy substrates during calling activity in tropical frogs. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41:343-352.
5. Butlin RK, Hewitt GM, Webb SF, 1985. Sexual selection for intermediate optimum in Chorthippus brunneus (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Anim Behav 33:1281-1292.
6. Cherry MI, 1993. Sexual selection in the raucous toad, Bufo rangeri. Anim Behav 45:359-373.
7. Dyson ML, Bush SL, Halliday TR, 1998. Phonotaxis by female Majorcan midwife toads, Alytes muletensis. Behaviour 135:213-230.
8. Gerhardt HC, 1982. Sound pattern recognition in some North American treefrogs (Anura: Hylidae): implications for mate choice. Am Zool 22:581-595.
9. Gerhardt HC, 1987. Evolutionary and neurobiological implications of selective phonotaxis in the green treefrog, Hyla cinerea. Anim Behav 35:1479-1489.
10. Gerhardt HC, 1988. Acoustic properties used in call recognition by frogs and toads. In: The evolution of the amphibian auditory system (Fritzsch B, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, Hethington TE, Walkowiak W, eds). New York: Wiley; 455-483.
11. Gerhardt HC, 1991. Female mate choice in treefrogs: static and dynamic acoustic criteria. Anim Behav 42:615-635.
12. Gerhardt HC, 1994. Reproductive character displacement of female mate choice in the grey treefrog, Hyla chrysoscelis. Anim Behav 47: 959-969.
13. Gerhardt HC, Klump GM, 1988. Masking of acoustic signals by the chorus background noise in the green tree frog: a limitation on mate choice. Anim Behav 36:1247-1249.
14. Grafe TU, 1996. Energetics of vocalization in the African reed frog (Hyperolius marmoratus). Comp Biochem Physiol A 114:235-243.
15. Jones IL, Hunter FM, 1998. Heterospecific mating preferences for a feather ornament in least auklets. Behav Ecol 9:187-192.
16. Kroodsma DE, 1989. Suggested experimental designs for song playbacks. Anim Behav 37:600-609.
17. Kyriacou CP, Hall, JC, 1982. The function of courtship song rhythms in Drosophila. Anim Behav 30:794-801.
18. Lopez PT, Narins PM, 1991. Mate choice in the neotropical frog, Eleutherodactylus coqui. Anim Behav 41:757-772.
19. Markow TA, 1981. Courtship behavior and control of reproductive isolation between Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonensis. Evolution 35:1022-1026.
20. Marquez R, Bosch J, 1997. Male advertisement call and female preference in sympatric and allopatric midwife toads. Anim Behav 54: 1333-1345.
21. McClintock WJ, Uetz GW, 1996. Female choice and pre-existing bias: visual cues during courtship in two Schizocosa wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae). Anim Behav 52:167-181.
22. Møller AP, 1990. Effects of a haematophagous mite on the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica): a test of the Hamilton and Zuk hypothesis. Evolution 44:771-784.
23. Moodie GEE, 1982. Why asymmetric mating preferences may not show the direction of evolution. Evolution 36:1096-1097.
24. Morris GK, Fullard JH, 1983. Random noise and congeneric discrimination in Conocephalus (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). In: Orthopteran mating systems: sexual competition in a diverse group of insects (Gwynne DT, Morris GK, eds). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press; 73-96.
25. Nace GW, Culley DD, Emmons MB, Gibbs EL, Hutchison VH, McKinnell RG, 1974. Amphibians: guidelines for the breeding, care, and management of laboratory animals. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
26. Noor MA, 1995. Speciation driven by natural selection in Drosophila. Nature 375:674-675.
27. Passmore NI, Bishop PJ, Caithness N, 1992. Calling behavior influences mating success in male painted reed frogs, Hyperolius marmoratus. Ethology 92:227-241.
28. Petrie M, 1994. Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate trains. Nature 371:598-599.
29. Pfennig KS, 1998. The evolution of mate choice and the potential for conflict between species and mate-quality recognition. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1743-1748.
30. Pfennig DW, Mabry A, Orange D, 1991. Environmental causes of correlations between age and size at metamorphosis in Scaphiopus multiplicatus. Ecology 72:2240-2248.
31. Pitnick S, Markow TA, 1994. Large-male advantages associated with costs of sperm production in Drosophila hydei, a species with giant sperm. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:9277-9281.
32. Prestwich KN, Brugger KE, Topping M, 1989. Energy and communication in three species of hylid frogs: power input, power output and efficiency. J Exp Biol 144:53-80.
33. Rand AS, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, 1992. Signal redundancy and receiver permissiveness in acoustic mate recognition by the Túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Am Zool 32:81-90.
34. Ratcliffe LM, Grant PR, 1983. Species recognition in Darwin's finches (Geospiza, Gould). II. Geographic variation in mate preference. Anim Behav 31:1154-1165.
35. Reynolds JD, Gross MR, 1992. Female mate preference enhances offspring growth and reproduction in a fish, Poecilia reticulata. Proc R Soc Lond B 250:57-62.
36. Ridley M, 1996. Evolution, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Blackwell Scientific.
37. Robertson JGM, 1990. Female choice increases fertilization success in the Australian frog, Uperoleia laeuigata. Anim Behav 39:639-645.
38. Ryan MJ, 1980. Female mate choice in a Neotropical frog. Science 209:523-525.
39. Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A, 1992. Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am Nat 139:S4-S35.
40. Ryan MJ, Rand AS, 1993. Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution 47:647-657.
41. Ryan MJ, Wagner WE Jr, 1987. Asymmetries in mating preferences between species: female swordtails prefer heterospecific males. Science 236:595-597.
42. Semlitsch RD, Schmiedehausen, S, 1994. Parental contributions to variation in hatchling size and its relationship to growth and metamorphosis in tadpoles of Rana lessonae and Rana esculenta. Copeia 1994:406-412.
43. Sherman PW, Reeve HK, Pfennig DW, 1997. Recognition systems. In: Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, 4th ed (Krebs JR, Davies NB, eds). London: Blackwell; 69-96.
44. Simovich MA, 1985. Analysis of a hybrid zone between the spadefoot toads Scaphiopus mulliplicatus and Scaphiopus bombifrons (PhD dissertation). Riverside: University of California.
45. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ, 1995. Biometry, 3rd ed. New York: W. H. Freeman.
46. Sullivan BK, 1983. Sexual selection in Woodhouse's toad (Bufo woodhousei) II. female choice. Anim Behav 31:1011-1017.
47. Sullivan BK, Sullivan EA, 1985. Variation in advertisement calls and male mating success of Scaphiopus bombifrons, S. couchi and S. multiplicatus (Pelobatidae). Southwest Nat 30: 349-355.
48. Taigen TL, Wells KD, 1985. Energetics of vocalization by an anuran amphibian (Hyla versicolor). J Comp Physiol B 155:163-170.
49. Tinsley RC, 1990. The influence of parasite infection on mating success in spadefoot toads, Scaphiopus couchii. Am Zool 30:313-324.
50. Waage JK, 1975. Reproductive isolation and the potential for character displacement in the damselflies, Calopteryx maculata and C. aequabilis (Odonata: Calopterygidae). Syst Zool 24:24-36.
51. Wagner WE Jr, Sullivan BK, 1995. Sexual selection in the gulf coast toad, Bufo valliceps: female choice based on variable characters. Anim Behav 49:305-319.
52. Welch AM, Semlitsch RD, Gerhardt HC, 1998. Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280: 1928-1930.
53. Wollerman L, 1999. Acoustic interference limits call detection in a Neotropical frog Hyla ebraccata. Anim Behav 57:529-536.
54. Woodward BD, 1986. Paternal effects on juvenile growth in Scaphiopus mullipicatus (the New Mexico spadefoot toad). Am Nat 128:58-65.