Strategic male calling behavior in an Australian terrestrial toadlet (Pseudophryne bibronii)

Copeia

Volumn , Issue 1, 2008, Pages 57-63

  Byrne, Phillip Gregory ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CALLING BEHAVIOR; COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); MATE ATTRACTION; MATING SUCCESS; OCCUPATION; TOAD;

AMPHIBIA; ANIMALIA; PSEUDOPHRYNE;

EID: 41449092919     PISSN: 00458511     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1643/CE-05-294     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
2. Arak, A. 1983. Male-male competition and mate choice in anuran amphibians, p. 181-210. In: Mate Choice. P. P. G. Bateson (ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
3. Bee, M. A., S. A. Perill, and P. C. Owen. 1999. Size assessment in simulated territorial encounters between male green frogs (Rana clamitans). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 45:177-184.
4. Bradford, D. F., and R. S. Seymour. 1985. Energy conservation during the delayed-hatching period in the frog, Pseudophryne bibronii. Physiological Zoology 58:491-496.
5. Bradford, D. F., and R. S. Seymour. 1988a. Influence of water potential on growth and survival of the embryo, and gas conductance of the egg, in a terrestrial breeding frog Pseudophryne bibronii. Physiological Zoology 61:470-474.
6. 2 on embryonic oxygen consumption, rate of development, and hatching in the frog Pseudophryne bibronii. Physiological Zoology 61:475-482.
7. Byrne, P. G., J. D. Roberts, and L. W. Simmons. 2002. Sperm competition selects for increased testes mass in Australian frogs. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15:347-355.
8. Enquist, K., and O. Leimar. 1990. The evolution of fatal fighting. Animal Behaviour 39:1-9.
9. Fellers, G. M. 1979. Aggression, territoriality, and mating behavior in North American treefrogs. Animal Behaviour 27:107-119.
10. Feng, A. S., P. M. Narins, C. H. Xu, W. Y. Lin, Z. L. Yu, Q. Qiu, Z. M. Xu, and J. X. Shen. 2006. Ultrasonic communication in frogs. Nature 440:333-336.
11. Gerhardt, H. C., M. L. Dyson, S. D. Tanner, and C. G. Murphy. 1994. Female treefrogs do not avoid heterospecific calls as they approach conspecific calls. Animal Behaviour 47:1323-1332.
12. Gerhardt, H. C., and F. Huber. 2002. Acoustic Communication in Insects and Anurans: Common Problems and Diverse Solutions. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
13. Given, M. F. 1993. Male response to female vocalizations in the carpenter frog, Rana virgatipes. Animal Behaviour 46:1139-1149.
14. Grafe, T. U. 2005. Anuran choruses as communication networks, p. 277-299. In: Animal Communication Networks. P. K. McGregor (ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
15. Graften, A. 1990. Biological signals as handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology 144:517-546.
16. Halliday, T. 1998. Sperm competition in amphibians, p. 465-502. In: Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection. T. R. Birkhead and A. P. Møller (eds.). Academic Press, London.
17. Hunt, J., R. Brooks, M. D. Jennions, M. J. Smith, C. L. Bentsen, and L. F. Bussiere. 2004. High quality male field crickets invest heavily in sexual display but die young. Nature 432:1024-1027.
18. Judge, K. A., and R. J. Brooks. 2001. Chorus participation by male bullfrogs, Rana catesbiana: a test of the energetic constraint hypothesis. Animal Behaviour 62:849-861.
19. Kotiaho, J. S. 2001. Costs of sexual traits: a mismatch between theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Biological Reviews 76:365-376.
20. Lewis, E. R., P. M. Narins, K. A. Cortopassi, W. M. Yamada, E. H. Poinar, S. W. Moore, and X. Yu. 2001. Do male white-lipped frogs use seismic signals for intraspecific communication? American Zoologist 41:1185-1199.
21. Littlejohn, M. J. 1963. Frogs of the Melbourne area. Victorian Naturalist 79:296-304.
22. Lopez, P. T., P. M. Narins, E. R. Lewis, and S. W. Moore. 1988. Acoustically induced call modification in the white-lipped frog Leptodactylus albilabris. Animal Behaviour 36:1295-1308.
23. Mitchell, N. J. 2001. Males call more from wetter nests; effects of substrate water potential on reproductive behaviours of terrestrial toadlets. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London series B 268:87-93.
24. Patricelli, G. L., J. A. C. Uy, G. Walsh, and G. Borgia. 2002. Sexual selection: male displays adjusted to female's response. Nature 415:279-280.
25. Pengilley, R. K. 1971. Calling and associated behaviour of some species of Pseudophryne (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Journal of Zoology 163:73-92.
26. Pengilley, R. K. 1973. Breeding biology of some species of Pseudophryne (Anura: Leptodactylidae) of the southern highlands New South Wales. Australian Zoologist 18:15-30.
27. Pough, F. H., T. L. Taigen, and M. M. Stewart. 1983. Behavioral modification of evaporative water loss by a Puerto Rican frog. Ecology 64:244-252.
28. Prestwich, K. N. 1994. The energetics of acoustic signalling in anurans and insects. American Zoologist 34:625-643.
29. Robertson, J. G. M. 1986. Male territoriality, fighting and assessment of fighting ability in the Australian frog Uperoleia rugosa. Animal Behaviour 34:763-772.
30. Ryan, M. J., and A. S. Rand. 1990. The sensory bias of sexual selection for complex calls in the tungara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus (sexual selection for sensory exploitation). Evolution 44:305-314.
31. Schwartz, J. J., B. W. Buchanan, and H. C. Gerhardt. 2001. Female mate choice in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) in three experimental environments. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 49:443-455.
32. Tobias, M. L., S. S. Viswanathan, and D. B. Kelly. 1998. Rapping, a female receptive call, initiates male-female duets in the South African clawed frog. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95:1870-1875.
33. Wagner, W. E. J. 1989. Social correlates of variation in male calling behavior in Blanchard's cricket frog, Acris crepitans blanchardi. Ethology 82:27-45.
34. Welch, A. M., H. C. Gerhardt, and R. D. Semlitsch. 2002. Female preference strength and male call duration affect offspring fitness in gray tree frogs. Integrative and Comparative Biology 42:1333.
35. 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 280:1928-1930.
36. Wells, K. D. 1988. The effect of social interactions on anuran vocal behavior, p. 433-454. In: The Evolution of the Anuran Auditory System. B. Fritzsch, M. J. Ryan, W. Wilczynski, T. E. Hetherington, and W. Walkowiak (eds.). Wiley, New York.
37. Woodruff, D. S. 1976. Courtship, reproductive rates and mating systems in three Australian Psedophryne (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Journal of Herpetology 10:313-318.
38. Woodruff, D. S. 1977. Hybridization between two species of Pseudophryne (Anura: Leptodactylidae) in the Sydney Basin Australia. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 102:131-147.
39. Zahavi, A., and A. Zahavi. 1997. The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's Puzzle. Oxford University Press, Oxford.