Trade-off in short- and long-distance communication in tungara (Physalaemus pustulosus) and cricket (Acris crepitans) frogs

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 102-109

  Sun, Lixing ^a,b   Wilczynski, Walter ^a   Rand, A Stanley ^c   Ryan, Michael J ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c SMITHSONIAN TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Panama)

Author keywords

Acris crepitans; Auditory system; Communication; Cricket frogs; Physalaemus pustulosus; Sensory biases; Sexual selection; Tungara frogs

Indexed keywords

CALLING BEHAVIOR; COMMUNICATION; FROG; TRADE-OFF; TRANSMITTANCE;

ACRIS CREPITANS; PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULOSUS;

EID: 0034055501     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/11.1.102     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Andersson M, 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
2. Beeman K, 1994. Signal. Belmont, Massachusetts: Engineering Design.
3. Blair WF, 1958. Mating call in the speciation of anuran amphibians. Am Nat 92: 27-51.
4. Bourne GR, 1993. Proximate costs and benefits of mate acquisition at leks of the frog Ololygon rubra. Anim Behav 45: 1051-1059.
5. Brenowitz EA, Wilczynski W, Zakon HH, 1984. Acoustic communication in spring peepers: Environmental and behavioral aspects. J Comp Physiol 155:585-593.
6. Capranica RR, 1976. Auditory system. In: Frog neurobiology (Llinas R, Precht W, eds). Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 551-575.
7. Capranica RR, Frischkopf LS, Nevo E, 1973. Encoding of geographic dialects in the auditory system of the cricket frog. Science 182: 1272-1275.
8. Christy JH, 1995. Mimicry, mate choice, and the sensory trap hypothesis. Am Nat 146:171-181.
9. Darwin C, 1871. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. New York: Random House.
10. Dawkins MS, Guilford T, 1996. Sensory bias and the adaptiveness of female choice. Am Nat 148: 937-942.
11. Dusenbery DB, 1992. Sensory ecology. New York: Freeman.
12. Eberhard WG. 1993. Evaluating models of sexual selection: genitalia as a test case. Am Nat 142:564-571.
13. Endler JA, 1992. Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution. Am Nat 131:S125-S153.
14. Feng AS, Hall JC, Cooler DM, 1990. Neural basis of sound pattern recognition in anurans. Prog Neurobiol 34:313-329.
15. Forrest TG, 1994. From sender to receiver: propagation and environmental effects on acoustic signals. Am Zool 34:644-654.
16. Fox JH, 1988. Possible active space optimization by the male cricket frog, Acris crepitans, through adjustment of neighbor spacing. Soc Neurosci Abstr 14:88.
17. Fox JH, 1995. Morphological correlates of auditory sensitivity in anuran amphibians. Brain Behav Evol 45:327-338.
18. Fritzsch B, Ryan M, Wilczynski W, Hetherington T, Walkowiak W (eds), 1988. The evolution of the amphibian auditory system. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
19. Gerhardt HC, 1994a. The evolution of vocalization in frogs and toads. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 25:293-324.
20. Gerhardt HC, 1994b. Selective responsiveness to long-range acoustic signals in insects and anurans. Am Zool 34:706-714.
21. Guilford T, Dawkins MS, 1993. Receiver psychology and the design of animal signals. Trends Neurosci 16:430-436.
22. Hall JC, 1994. Central processing of communication sounds in the anuran auditory system. Am Zool 34:670-680.
23. Howard RD, Whiteman HH, Schneller TI, 1994. Sexual selection in American toads: a test of a good-genes hypothesis. Evolution 48: 1286-1300.
24. Keddy-Hector, Wilczynski W, Ryan MJ, 1992. Call patterns and basilar papilla tuning in cricket frogs. II. Intrapopulational variation and allometry. Brain Behav Evol 39:238-246.
25. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ, 1991. The paradox of the lek and the evolution of mating preferences. Nature 350:33-38.
26. Littlejohn MJ, Michaud T, 1959. Mating call discrimination by females of Strecker's chorus frog (Pseudacris streckeri). Texas J Sci 11:86-92.
27. Mayr E, 1963. Animal species and evolution. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
28. Maynard SmithJ, Burian R, Kauffman S, Alberch P, Campbell J, Goodwin B, Lande R, Raap D, Wolpert L, 1985. Developmental constraints and evolution. Q Rev Biol 60:265-287.
29. McClelland BE, Wilczynski W, Rand AS, 1997. Sexual dimorphism and species differences in the neurophysiology and morphology of the acoustic communication system of two neotropical hylids. J Comp Physiol 180:451-462.
30. Nevo E, Capranica RR, 1985. Evolutionary origin of ethological reproductive isolation in cricket frogs, Acris. Evol Biol 19:147-214.
31. Rand AS, 1988. An overview of anuran acoustic communication. In: The evolution of the amphibian auditory system (Fritzsch B, Ryan M, Wilczynski W, Hetherington T, Walkowiak W, eds). New York: John Wiley and Sons; 415-431.
32. Rand AS, Ryan MJ, 1981. The adaptive significance of a complex vocal repertoire in a neotropical frog. Z Tierpsychol 57:209-214.
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. Robertson JG, 1990. Female choice increases fertilization success in the Australian frog, Uperoleia laevigata. Anim Behav 39:639-645.
35. Ryan MJ, 1980. Female mate choice in a neotropical frog. Science 209:523-525.
36. Ryan MJ, 1983. Sexual selection and communication in a neotropical frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Evolution 37:261-272.
37. Ryan MJ, 1985. The túngara frog: a study in sexual selection and communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38. Ryan MJ, 1986. Environmental bioacoustics: evaluation of a commonly-used experimental design. Anim Behav 34:931-933.
39. Ryan MJ, 1990. Sensory systems, sexual selection, and sensory exploitation. Oxford Surv Evol Biol 7:157-195.
40. Ryan MJ, 1991. Sexual selection and communication in frogs. Trends Ecol Evol 6:351-355.
41. Ryan MJ, 1994. Mechanistic studies in sexual selection. In: Behavioral chanisms in evolutionary ecology (Real L, ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 190-215.
42. Ryan MJ, 1997. Sexual selection and mate choice. In: Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach (Krebs JB, Davies NB, eds). Cambridge: Blackwell; 179-202.
43. Ryan MJ, Cocroft RB, Wilczynski W, 1990a. The role of environmental selection in intraspecific divergence of mate recognition signals in the cricket frog, Acris crepitans. Evolution 44:1869-1872.
44. Ryan MJ, Fox JH, Wilczynski W, Rand AS, 1990b. Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature 343:66-67.
45. Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A, 1992. Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am Nat 139:S4-S35.
46. Ryan MJ, Perril SA, Wilczynski W, 1992. Auditory tuning and call frequency predict population-based mating preferences in the cricket frog, Acris crepitans. Am Nat 139:1370-1383.
47. Ryan MJ, Rand AS, 1995. Female responses to ancestral advertisement calls in tungara frogs. Science 269:390-392.
48. Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, 1988. Coevolution of sender and receiver: effect on local mate preference in cricket frogs. Science 240:1786-1788.
49. Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, 1991. Evolution of intraspecific variation in the advertisement call of a cricket frog (Acris crepitans, Hylidae). Biol J Linn Soc 44:249-271.
50. Schwartz JJ, Gerhardt HC, 1998. The neuroethology of frequency preferences in the spring peeper. Anim Behav 56:55-69.
51. Shaw K, 1995. Phylogenetic tests of the sensory exploitation model of sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 10:117-120.
52. Shine R, 1979. Sexual selection and sexual dimorphism in the amphibia. Copeia 1979:297-306.
53. st-Eberhard MJ, 1979. Sexual selection, social competition, and evolution. Proc Am Phil Soc 123:222-234.
54. Wilczynski W, 1986. Sexual differences in neural tuning and their effect on active space. Brain Behav Evol 28:83-94.
55. Wilczynski W, Capranica RR, 1984. The auditory system of anuran amphibians. Prog Neurobiol 22:1-30.
56. Wilczynski W, Keddy-Hector A, Ryan MJ, 1992. Call patterns and basilar papilla tuning in cricket frogs. I. Differences among populations and between sexes. Brain Behav Evol 39:229-237.
57. Wilczynski W, McClelland BE, Rand AS, 1993. Acoustic auditory, and morphological divergence in three species of neotropical frog. J Comp Physiol 172:425-438.
58. Wilczynski W, Rand AS, Ryan MJ, 1995. The processing of spectral cues by the call analysis system of the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Anim Behav 49:911-929.
59. Wilczynski W, Ryan MJ, 1999. Geographic variation in animal communication systems. In: Geographic variation in behavior: an evolutionary perspective (Foster SA, Endler J, eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 234-261.
60. Wilczynski W, Zakon HH, Brenowitz EA, 1984. Acoustic communication in spring peepers, call characteristics and neurophysiological aspects. J Comp Physiol 155:577-584.
61. Wiley RH, Richards DG, 1978. Physical constraints on acoustic communication in the atmosphere: implications for the evolution of animal vocalizations. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 3:69-94.
62. Zakon HH, Wilczynski W, 1988. The physiology of the VIII nerve. In: The evolution of the amphibian auditory system (Fritzsch B, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, Hetherington T, Walkowiak W, eds). New York: John Wiley and Sons; 125-155.