How cricket frog females deal with a noisy world: Habitat-related differences in auditory tuning

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 571-579

  Witte, Klaudia ^a,b   Farris, Hamilton E ^a,c   Ryan, Michael J ^a   Wilczynski, Walter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b BIELEFELD UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Acoustic communication; Amphibian; Auditory filters; Cricket frog; Environmental noise

Indexed keywords

FROG; GEOGRAPHICAL VARIATION; NOISE; VOCALIZATION;

ACRIS CREPITANS; AMPHIBIA; ANURA; FEJERVARYA NICOBARIENSIS;

EID: 19344374270     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/ari032     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Bailey WJ, Bennet-Clarke HC, Fletcher NH, 2001. Acoustics of a small Australian burrowing cricket: the control of low-frequency pure tone songs. J Exp Biol 204:2827-2841.
2. Boughman JW, 2001. Divergent sexual selection enhances reproductive isolation in sticklebacks. Nature 411:944-948.
3. Bowman RI, 1983. The evolution of song in Darwin's finches. In: Patterns of evolution in the Galapagos (Bowman RI, Berson M, Leviton AE, eds). San Francisco: American Society for the Advancement of Science 237-537.
4. Brenowitz EA, 1986. Environmental influences on acoustic and electric communication. Brain Behav Evol 28:32-42.
5. Brumm H, Voss K, Koellmer I, Todt D, 2004. Acoustic communication in noise: regulation of call characteristics in a New World monkey. J Exp Biol 207:443-448.
6. Burmeister S, Konieczka J, Wilczynski W, 1999a. Agonistic encounters in a cricket frog chorus: behavioral outcomes vary with local competition and within the breeding season. Ethology 105:335-347.
7. Burmeister S, Ophir AG, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, 2002. Information transfer during cricket frog contests. Anim Behav 64:715-725.
8. Burmeister S, Wilczynski W, Ryan MJ, 1999b. Temporal call changes and prior experience affect graded signaling in the cricket frog. Anim Behav 57:611-618.
9. Capranica RR, Moffat AJM, 1983. Neurobehavioral correlates of sound communication in anurans. In: Advances in vertebrate neuroethology (Ewert JP, Capranica RR, Ingle DJ, eds). New York: Plenum Press; 710-730.
10. Cummings ME, Partridge JC, 2001. Visual pigments and optical habitats of surfperch (Embiotocidae) in the California kelp forest. J Comp Physiol A 187:875-889.
11. Ehret G, Capranica RR, 1980. Masking patterns and filter characteristics of auditory fibers in the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea). J Comp Physiol A 141:1-12.
12. Endler JA, 1991. Variation in the appearance of guppy color patterns to guppies and their predators under different light conditions. Vision Res 31:587-608.
13. Endler JA, 1992. Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution. Am Nat 139(suppl.):S125-S153.
14. Endler JA, 1995. Multiple trait coevolution and environmental gradients in guppies. Trends Ecol Evol 10:22-29.
15. Farris HE, Hoy RR, 2002. Two-tone suppression in the cricket, Eunemobius carolinus (Gryllidae, Nemobiinae). J Acoust Soc Am 111:1475-1485.
16. Finneran JJ, Schlundt CE, Carter DA, Ridgeway SH, 2002. Auditory filter shapes for the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and the white whale (Delphinapterus leucas) derived with notched noise. J Acoust Soc Am 112:322-328.
17. Fleishmann LJ, 1992. The influence of the sensory system and the environment on motion patterns in the visual display of anoline lizard and other vertebrates. Am Nat 139(suppl.):S36-S61.
18. Gerhardt HC, Klump GM, 1988. Masking of acoustic signals by the chorus background noise in the green treefrog: a limitation on mate choice. Anim Behav 36:1247-1249.
19. Gerhardt HC, Schwartz JJ, 2001. Auditory tuning and frequency preferences in anurans. In: Anuran communication (Ryan MJ, ed). Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press; 73-85.
20. Gish SL, Morton ES, 1981. Structural adaptations to local habitat acoustics in Carolina wren songs. Z Tierpsychol 56:74-84.
21. Hartmann WM, 1998. Signals, sound, and sensation. New York: AIP Press, Springer.
22. Keddy-Hector AC, Wilczynski W, Ryan MJ, 1992. Call patterns and basilar papilla tuning in the cricket frog. II. lntrapopulational variation and allometry. Brain Behav Evol 39:238-246.
23. Lall AB, Seliger HH, Biggley WH, Lloyd JE, 1980. Ecology of colors of firefly bioluminescence. Science 210:560-562.
24. Langemann U, Gauger B, Klump GM, 1998. Auditory perception in the great tit: perception of signals in the presence and absence of noise. Anim Behav 56:763-769.
25. Lardner B, bin Lakim M, 2002. Tree-hole frogs exploit resonance effects. Nature 420:475.
26. Lythgoe JN, Muntz WRA, Partridge JC, Shand J, Williams DMcB, 1994. The ecology of visual pigments of snappers (Lutjanidae) on the Great Barrier Reef. J Comp Physiol A 174:461-467.
27. Marchetti K, 1993. Dark habitats and bright birds illustrate the role of the environment in species divergence. Nature 362:149-152.
28. Marten K, Marler P, 1977. Sound transmission and its significance for animal vocalization. I. Temperate habitats. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2:291-302.
29. Moore BCJ, Peters RW, Glasberg BR, 1990. Auditory filter shapes at low center frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am 88:132-140.
30. Morton ES, 1975. Ecological sources of selection on avian sounds. Am Nat 109:17-34.
31. Narins PM, 1982. Effects of masking noise on evoked calling in the Puerto Rican coqui (Anura: Leptodactylidae). J Comp Physiol 147:439-446.
32. Narins PM, 1987. Coding of signals in noise by amphibian auditory nerve fibers. Hearing Res 26:145-154.
33. Nevo E, Capranica RR, 1985. Evolutionary origin of ethological reproductive isolation in cricket frogs, Acris. Evol Biol 19:147-214.
34. Patterson RD, Nimmo-Smith I, Weber DL, Milroy R., 1982. The deterioration of hearing with age: frequency selectivity, the critical ratio, the audiogram, and speech threshold. J Acoust Soc Am 72:1788-1803.
35. Penna M, Solis R, 1996. Influence of burrow acoustics on sound reproduction by frogs Eupsophus (Leptodactylidae). Anim Behav 51:255-263.
36. Perrill SA, Shepherd WJ, 1989. Spatial distribution and male-male communication in the Northern cricket frog, Acris crepitans blanchardi. J Herpetol 23:237-243.
37. Reimchen TE, 1989. Loss of nuptial color in threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Evolution 43:450-460.
38. Richards DG, Wiley RH, 1980. Reverberations and amplitude fluctuations in the propagation of sound in the forest: implications for animal communication. Am Nat 115:381-399.
39. Ryan MJ, Brenowitz EA, 1985. The role of body size, phylogeny, and ambient noise in the evolution of bird song. Am Nat 126:87-100.
40. Ryan MJ, Cocroft RB, Wilczynski W, 1991. The role of environmental selection in divergence of mate recognition signals in cricket frogs (Acris crepitans). Evolution 44:1869-1872.
41. Ryan MJ, Kime NM, 2003. Selection on long distance signals. In: Springer handbook of auditory research: acoustic communication (Simmons A, Fay RR, Popper A, eds). Berlin: Springer Verlag; 225-274.
42. Ryan MJ, Perrill SA, Wilczynski W, 1992. Auditory tuning and call frequency predict population-based mating preference in the cricket frog, Acris crepitans. Am Nat 139:1370-1383.
43. Ryan MJ, Sullivan BK, 1989. Transmission effects on the temporal structure of the advertisement call of two species of toads, Bufo woodhousii and Bufo valliceps. Ethology 80:182-185.
44. Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, 1988. Coevolution of sender and receiver: effect on local mate preference in cricket frogs. Science 240:1786-1788.
45. 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.
46. Slabbekoorn H, Smith TB, 2002. Habitat dependent song divergence in the little greenbul: an analysis of environmental selection pressures on acoustic signals. Evolution 56:1849-1858.
47. Sun L-X, Wilczynski W, Rand AS, Ryan MJ, 2000. Trade-off in short- and long-distance communication in túngara (Physalaemus pustulosus) and cricket (Acris crepitans) frogs. Behav Ecol 11:102-109.
48. Venator KR, 1999. The influence of signal attenuation and degradation on behavior and midbrain auditory thresholds in the cricket frog, Acris crepitans blanchardi (PhD dissertation). Austin: University of Texas.
49. Wagner WE Jr, 1990. Graded aggressive signals in Blanchard's cricket frog: vocal responses to opponent proximity and size. Anim Behav 38:1025-1038.
50. Waser PM, Waser MS, 1977. Experimental studies of primate vocalization: specialization for long-distance communication. Z Tierpsychol 43:239-263.
51. Wilczynski W, Capranica RR, 1984. The auditory system of anuran amphibians. Prog Neurobiol 22:1-38.
52. Wilczynski W, Keddy-Hector AC, Ryan MJ, 1992. Call patterns and basilar papilla tuning in cricket frogs. I. Differences among populations and between sexes. Brain Behav Evol 9:229-237.
53. Wilczynski W, Ryan MJ, 1999. Geographic variation in animal communication systems. In: Geographic variation in behavior (Foster SA, Endler JA, eds). New York: Oxford University Press; 234-261.
54. Wiley RH, Richards DG, 1978. Physical constrains on acoustic communication in the atmosphere: implications for the evolution of animal communication. Behav Evol Sociobiol 3:69-94.
55. Wiley RH, Richards DG, 1982. Adaptations for acoustic communication in birds: sound transmission and signal detection. In: Acoustic communication in birds (Kroodsma DE, Miller EH, eds). New York: Academic Press; 131-181.
56. Witte K, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, 2001. Changes in the frequency structure of a mating call decrease its attractiveness to females in the cricket frog Acris crepitans blanchardi. Ethology 107:685-699.
57. Wollerman L, Wiley H, 2002. Background noise from a natural chorus alters female discrimination of male calls in a Neotropical frog. Anim Behav 63:15-22.
58. Zakon HH, Wilczynski W, 1988. The physiology of the VIIIth nerve. In: The evolution of the amphibian auditory system (Fritsch B, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, Hetherington TE, Walkowiak W, eds). New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1225-1255.