Male mate choice lacking in the agile frog, Rana dalmatina

Copeia

Volumn , Issue 2, 2005, Pages 403-408

  Hettyey, Attila ^a   Török, János ^a   Hévizi, Gergely ^a  

^a EÖTVÖS LORÁND UNIVERSITY   (Hungary)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; FECUNDITY; FROG; MALE BEHAVIOR; MATE CHOICE;

ANURA; BUFO BUFO; RANA DALMATINA;

EID: 18644371766     PISSN: 00458511     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1643/CE-04-115R2     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. AMUNDSEN, T., AND E. FORSGREN. 2003. Male preference for colourful females affected by male size in a marine fish. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 54:55-64.
2. ANDERSSON, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
3. ARAK, A. 1983. Male-male competition and mate choice in anuran amphibians, p. 181-210. In: Mate Choice. P. Bateson (ed.). Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.
4. ARNTZEN, J. W. 1999. Sexual selection and male mate choice in the common toad, Bufo bufo. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 11:407-414.
5. BATEMAN, A. J. 1948. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349-368.
6. BERGEN, K., R. D. SEMLITSCH, AND H.-U. REYER. 1997. Hybrid female matings are directly related to the availability of Rana lessonae and Rana esculenta males in experimental populations. Copeia 1997:275-283.
7. BERVEN, K. A. 1981. Mate choice in the wood frog, Rana sylvatica. Evolution 35:707-722.
8. BUSH, S. L., M. L. DYSON, AND T. R. HALLIDAY. 1996. Selective phonotaxis by males in the Majorcan midwife toad. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263:913-917.
9. BYRNE, G., AND J. D. ROBERTS. 2004. Intrasexual selection and group spawning in quacking frogs (Crinia georgiana). Behav. Ecol. 15:872-882.
10. DARWIN, C. 1871. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. John Murray, London, UK.
11. DAVIES, N. B., AND T. R. HALLIDAY. 1977. Optimal mate selection in the toad Bufo bufo. Nature 269:56-58.
12. ELMBERG, J. 1991. Factors affecting male yearly mating success in the common frog, Rana temporaria. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 28:125-131.
13. ENGELER, B., AND H.-U. REYER. 2001. Choosy females and indiscriminate males: mate choice in mixed populations of sexual and hybridogenetic waterfrogs (Rana lessonae, Rana esculenta). Behav. Ecol. 12:600-600.
14. GERGUS, E. W. A., K. B. MALMOS, AND B. K. SULLIVAN. 1999. Natural hybridization among distantly related toads (Bufo alvarius, Bufo cognatus, Bufo woodhousii) in central Arizona. Copeia 1999:281-286.
15. GOLLMANN, G., C. BAUMGARTNER, B. GOLLMANN, AND A. WARINGER- LÖSCHENKOHL. 1999. Breeding phenology of syntopic frog populations, Rana dalmatina and Rana temporaria, in suburban Vienna. Verh. Ges. Ökol. 29:357-361.
16. GUTIÉRREZ, G., AND H. LÜDDECKE. 2002. Mating pattern and hatching success in a population of the Andean frog Hyla labialis. Amph.-Rept. 23:281-292.
17. GWYNNE, D. T. 1981. Sexual difference theory: mormon crickets show role reversal in mate choice. Science 213:779-780.
18. HALLIDAY, T. 1983a. Do frogs and toads choose their mates? Nature 306:226-227.
19. _. 1983b. The study of mate choice, p. 3-32. In: Mate Choice. P. Bateson (ed.). Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.
20. _, AND M. TEJEDO. 1995. Intrasexual selection and alternative mating behaviour, p. 419-468. In: Amphibian biology, vol 2: Social Behaviour. H. Heatwole and B. K. Sullivan (eds.). Surrey Beatty, Chipping Norton, New SouthWales, Australia.
21. HARTEL, T. 2003. The breeding biology of the frog Rana dalmatina in Târnava Mare Valley, Romania. Russ. J. Herp. 10:169-175.
22. HETTYEY, A., AND P. B. PEARMAN. 2003. Social environment and reproductive success in the frog Rana latastei. Behav. Ecol. 14:294-300.
23. HORTON, D. R. 1995. Statistical considerations in the design and analysis of paired-choice assays. Environ. Entomol. 24:179-192.
24. HOWARD, R. D. 1978. The evolution of mating strategies in bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana. Evolution 32:850-871.
25. _. 1984. Alternative mating behaviors of young male bullfrogs. Am. Zool. 24:397-406.
26. KRUPA, J. J. 1995. How likely is male mate choice among anurans? Behaviour 132:643-664.
27. LESBARRÈRES, D., AND T. LODÉ. 2002. Variations in male calls and responses to an unfamiliar advertisement call in a territorial breeding anuran, Rana dalmatina: evidence for a "dear enemy" effect. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 14:287-295.
28. LODÉ, T., AND D. LESBARRÈRES. 2004. Multiple paternity in Rana dalmatina, a monogamous territorial breeding anuran. Naturwissenschaften 91:44-47.
29. LOMAN, J., AND T. MADSEN. 1988. Reproductive tactics of large and small male toads Bufo bufo. Oikos 46:57-61.
30. MARCO, A., AND M. LIZANA. 2002. The absence of species and sex recognition during mate search by male common toads, Bufo bufo. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 14:1-8.
31. _, J. M. KIESECKER, D. P. CHIVERS, AND A. R. BLAUSTEIN. 1998. Sex recognition and mate choice by male western toads, Bufo boreas. Anim. Behav. 55:1631-1635.
32. MARQUEZ, R., AND J. BOSCH. 1997. Male advertisement call and female preference in sympatric and allopatric midwife toads. Anim. Behav. 54:1333-1345.
33. NÖLLERT, A., AND C. NÖLLERT. 1992. Dic Amphibien Europas: Bestimmung, Gefährdung, Schutz. Franckli-Kosmos Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.
34. PARKER, G. A. 1983. Mate quality and mating decisions, p. 181-210. In: Mate Choice. P. Bateson (ed.). Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.
35. _, AND L. W. SIMMONS. 1996. Parental investment and the control of sexual selection: predicting the direction of sexual competition. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263:315-321.
36. PFENNIG, K. S. 2000. Female spadefoot toads compromise on mate quality to ensure conspecific matings. Behav. Ecol. 11:220-227.
37. READING, C. J. 1984. Interspecific spawning between Common frogs (Rana temporaria) and Common toads (Bufo bufo). J. Zool., Lond. 203:95-101.
38. RIDLEY, M. 1983. The Explanation of Organic Diversity: the Comparative Method and Adaptations for Mating. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.
39. ROBERTS, J. D., R. J. STANDISH, P. G. BYRNE, AND P. DOUGHTY. 1999. Synchronous polyandry and multiple paternity in the frog Crinia georgiana (Anura: Myobatrachidae). Anim. Behav. 57:721-726.
40. RYAN, M. J., J. H. FOX, J. WILCZYNSKI, AND A. S. RAND. 1990. Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature 343:66-67.
41. SARGENT, R. C., M. R. GROSS, AND E. P. VAN DEN BERGHE. 1986. Male mate choice in fishes. Anim. Behav. 34:545-550.
42. SHINE, R., B. PHILLIPS, H. WAYE, M. LEMASTER, AND R. T. MASON. 2003. The lexicon of love: what cues cause size-assortative courtship by male garter snakes? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 53:234-237.
43. SOFIANIDOU, S. TH., AND P. KYRIAKOPOULOU-SKLAVOUNOU. 1983. Studies on the biology of the frog Rana dalmatina Bonaparte during the breeding season in Greece (Amphibia: Anura: Ranidae). Amph.-Rept. 4:125-136.
44. SZENTESI, Á, AND T. JERMY. 1999. A preferencia értékelésének problémái. Áll. Közl. 84:3-19.
45. TRIVERS, R. L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection, p. 136-179. In: Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871-1971. B. Campbell (ed.). Aldine, Chicago, USA.
46. WELLS, K. D. 1977. The social behaviour of anuran amphibians. Anim. Behav. 25:666-693.
47. WERNER, N. Y., AND A. LOTEM. 2003. Choosy males in a haplochromine cichlid: first experimental evidence for male mate choice in a lekking species. Anim. Behav. 66:293-298.