Sexual selection in female perceptual space: How female túngara frogs perceive and respond to complex population variation in acoustic mating signals

Evolution

Volumn 57, Issue 11, 2003, Pages 2608-2618

  Ryan, Michael J ^a,b   Rand, A Stanley ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b SMITHSONIAN TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Panama)

Author keywords

Animal communication; Mate recognition; Perception; Physalaemus pustulosus; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

CALLING BEHAVIOR; FROG; MATE CHOICE; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNAL;

ANIMALIA; ANURA; PHYSALAEMUS; PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULOSUS;

EID: 0345526404     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb01503.x     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
2. Basolo, A. L. 1990. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 250:808-810.
3. Bradbury, J. W., and S. L. Vehrencamp. 1998. Principles of animal communication. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
4. Catchpole, C. K., B. Leisler, and J. Dittani. 1986. Sexual differences in the responses of captive great reed warblers (Acrocephalus arundinaceus) to variation in song structure and size. Ethology 73:69-77.
5. Cohen, J. 1984. Sexual selection and the psychophysics of female choice. Z. Tierpsychol. 64:1-8.
6. Conner, W. E., T. Eisner, R. K. Vander Meer, A. Guerrero, and J. Meinwald. 1981. Precopulatory sexual interaction in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Role of a pheromone derived from dietary alkaloids. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 9:227-235.
7. Cronin, H. 1991. The ant and the peacock: altruism and sexual selection from Darwin to today. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.
8. David, H. A. 1988. The method of paired comparisons. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
9. Darwin, C. 1859. On the origin of species. Murray, London.
10. _. 1871. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Murray, London.
11. Drewry, G., H. W. R. Heyer, and A. S. Rand. 1982. A functional analysis of the complex call of the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Copeia 1982:636-645.
12. Dudley, R., and A. S. Rand. 1991. Sound production and vocal sac inflation in the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus (Leptodactylidae). Copeia 1991:460-470.
13. Gerhardt, H. C. 1978. Discrimination of intermediate sounds in a synthetic call continuum by female green tree frogs. Science 199:1089-1091.
14. Gerhardt, H. C., and F. Huber. 2002. Acoustic communication in insects and anurans. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
15. Gerhardt, H. C., and J. Schul. 1999. A quantitative analysis of behavioral selectivity for pulse rise-time in the gray treefrog, Hyla versicolor. J. Comp. Physiol. 185:33-40.
16. Greenfield, M. D. 2002. Signalers and receivers: mechanisms and evolution of arthropod communication. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
17. Gwynne, D. T. 2001. Katydids and bush-crickets: reproductive behavior and evolution of the Tettigoniidae. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY.
18. Hauser, M. D. 1996. The evolution of communication. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
19. Holland, B., and W. R. Rice. 1988. Perspective: chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52: 1-7.
20. Iwasa, Y., and A. Pomiankowski. 1994. The evolution of mate preferences for multiple sexual ornaments. Evolution 48: 853-867.
21. Jang, Y., and M. D. Greenfield. 1998. Absolute versus relative measures of sexual selection: assessing the contributions of ultrasonic signal characters to mate attraction in lesser wax moths, Achroia grisella (Leptidopters: Pyralidae). Evolution 52: 1383-1393.
22. Kaneshiro, K. Y. 1988. Speciation in the Hawaiian Drosophila. Bioscience 38:258-263.
23. Kime, N. M., A. S. Rand, M. Kapfer, and M. J. Ryan. 1998. Consistency of female choice in the túngara frog: a permissive preference for complex characters. Anim. Behav. 55:641-649.
24. Kruskal, J. B., and M. Wish. 1978. Multidimensional scaling. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
25. Liedloff, A. 1999. Mantel nonparametric calculator. Vers. 2.0. Available from the author via e-mail at: adam.liedloff@terc.csiro.au.
26. Marques, R., and J. Bosch. 2001. Communication and mating in the midwife toads (Alytes obstetricans and Alytes cisternassi). Pp 220-231 in M. J. Ryan, ed. Anuran communication. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
27. McLennan, D. A., and M. J. Ryan. 1999. Interspecific recognition and discrimination based upon olfactory cues in swordtails. Evolution 53:880-888.
28. Murphy, C. G., and H. C. Gerhardt. 2000. Mating preference functions of individual female barking treefrogs, Hyla gratiosa, for two properties of male advertisement calls. Evolution 54: 660-669.
29. Nelson, D. A., and P. Marler. 1990. The perception of birdsong and an ecological concept of signal space. Pp. 443-478 in W. C. Stebbins and M. A. Berkeley, eds. Comparative perception: complex signals. John Wiley, New York.
30. Rand, A. S., M. J. Ryan, and W. Wilczynski. 1992. Signal redundancy and receiver permissiveness in acoustic mate recognition by the túngara frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Am. Zool. 32: 81-90.
31. Ritchie, M. G. 1996. The shape of female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:14628-14631.
32. Rosenthal, G. G. 2000. The behavioral ecology of visual signaling in swordtails. Ph.D. diss. Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin, TX.
33. Ryan, M. J. 1980. Female mate choice in a Neotropical frog. Science 209:523-525.
34. _. 1985. The túngara frog: a study in sexual selection and communication. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
35. Ryan, M. J., and A. S. Rand. 1999. Phylogenetic inference and the evolution of communication in túngara frogs. Pp. 535-557 in M. K. Hauser, ed. The design of animal communication. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
36. _. 2001. Feature weighting in signal recognition and discrimination by the túngara frog. Pp. 86-101 in M. J. Ryan, ed. Anuran communication. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.
37. Ryan, M. J., and W. E. Wagner, Jr. 1987. Asymmetries in mating preferences between species: female swordtails prefer heterospecific males. Science 236:595-597.
38. Ryan, M. J., J. H. Fox, W. Wilczynski, and A. S. Rand. 1990. Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature 343:66-67.
39. Schul, J. 1998. Song recognition by temporal cues in a group of closely related bush cricket species (genus Tettigonia). J. Comp. Physiol. 184:401-410.
40. Schul, J., and S. L. Bush. 2002. Non-parallel coevolution of sender and receiver in the acoustic communication system of treefrogs Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 269:1847-1852.
41. Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. W.H. Freeman, New York.
42. Tinbergen, N. 1969. The study of instinct. Clarendon Press, Oxford, U.K.
43. Wagner, W. E., Jr. 1998. Measuring female mating preferences. Anim. Behav. 55:1029-1042.
44. Welch, A. M., R. D. Semlitsch, and H. C. Gerhardt. 1998. Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science. 280:1928-30.
45. Wilczynski, W., A. S. Rand, and M. J. Ryan. 1995. The processing of spectral cues by the call analysis system of the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Anim. Behav. 49:911-929.
46. Wilczynski, W., A. S. Rand, and M. J. Ryan. 1999. Female preferences for temporal order of call components in the túngara frog: a Bayesian analysis. Anim. Behav. 58:841-851.
47. Wilkinson, L. 1996. Systat 10. SPSS Inc., Chicago, II.
48. Zuk, M., D. Lignon, and R. Thornhill. 1992. Effects of experimental manipulation of male secondary sex characters on female mate preference in red jungle fowl. Anim. Behav. 44:999-1006.
49. Zuk, M., R. Thornhill, J. D. Ligon, K. Johnson, S. Austad, S. H. Ligon, N. W. Thornhill, and C. Costin. 1990. The role of male ornaments and courtship behavior in female mate choice of red jungle fowl. Am. Nat. 136:459-473.