Breeding habitat and microhabitat choices by male and female frogs: Are there differences between sexes and seasons?

Herpetologica

Volumn 64, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 397-405

  Eterovick, Paula C ^a   Ferreira, Arquimedes D M ^a  

^a PONTIFICAL CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF MINAS GERAIS   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Male female comparison; Microhabitat use; Scinax gr. catharinae; Seasonal patterns

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; BREEDING SITE; ECOSYSTEM RESPONSE; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEM; FROG; HABITAT SELECTION; HABITAT USE; MICROHABITAT; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SEASONAL VARIATION; SEX-RELATED DIFFERENCE; SURVIVORSHIP;

ANURA; SCINAX;

EID: 67149125480     PISSN: 00180831     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1655/08-025R1.1     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. AFONSO, L. G., AND P. C. ETEROVICK. 2007. Microhabitat choice and differential use by anurans in forest streams in southeastern Brazil. Journal of Natural History 41:937-948.
2. AYRES, M., M. AYRES, JR., D. L. AYRES, AND A. S. SANTOS. 2005. BioEstat. Versão 4.0. Sociedade Civil Mamirauá , MCT-CNPq, Belém, Pará , Brazil.
3. BINCKLEY, C. A., AND W. J. RESETARITS, JR. 2002. Reproductive decisions under threat of predation: squirrel treefrog (Hyla squ irella) responses to banded sunfish (Enneacanthus obesus). Oecologia 130:157-161.
4. CARDOSO, A. J., AND C. F. B. HADDAD. 1992. Diversidade e turno de vocalizaçõ es de anuros em comunidade neotropical. Acta Zoologica Lilloana 41:93-105.
5. CARDOSO, A. J., AND J. E. MARTINS. 1987. Diversidade de anuros durante o turno de vocalizaçõ es, em comunidade neotropical. Papé is Avulsos de Zoologia 36:279-285.
6. DRUMMOND, G. M., C. S. MARTINS, A. B. M. MACHADO, F. A. SEBAIO, AND Y. ANTONINI (Eds.). 2005. Biodiversidade em Minas Gerais: um Atlas para sua Conservação, 2nd ed. Fundação Biodiversitas, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
7. DUELLMAN, W. E., AND L. TRUEB. 1994. Biology of Amphibians. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, U.S.A.
8. DUTILLEUL, P. 1993. Spatial heterogeneity and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecology 74:1646-1658.
9. ETEROVICK, P. C., AND I. M. BARATA. 2006. Distribution of tadpoles within and among Brazilian streams: the influence of predators, habitat size and heterogeneity. Herpetologica 62:365-377.
10. ETEROVICK, P. C., AND G. W. FERNANDES. 2002. Why do breeding frogs colonize some puddles more than others? Phyllomedusa 1:31-40.
11. ETEROVICK, P. C., A. C. O. Q. CARNAVAL, D. M. BORGESNOJOSA, D. L. SILVANO, M. V. SEGALLA, AND I. SAZIMA. 2005. Amphibian declines in Brazil: an overview. Biotropica 37:166-179.
12. FAIVOVICH, J. 2002. A cladistic analysis of Scinax (Anura: Hylidae). Cladistics 18:367-393.
13. GILLESPIE, G. R., D. LOCKIE, M. P. SCROGGIE, AND D. T. ISKANDAR. 2004. Habitat use by stream-breeding frogs in south-east Sulawesi, with some preliminary observations on community organization. Journal of Tropical Ecology 20:439-448.
14. GOTELLI, N. J., AND G. L. ENTSMINGER. 2005. EcoSim: Nullmodels software for ecology. Version 7.7.2. Acquired Intelligence Inc. and Kesey-Bear. Available at http://homepages.together.net/,gentsmin/ ecosim.htm.
15. HANSKI, I. 1998. Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41-49.
16. JACOBS, J. 1974. Quantitative measurement of food selection: a modification of the forage ration and Ivlev's electivity index. Oecologia 14:413-417.
17. LARDNER, B., AND M. LAKIM. 2002. Tree-hole frogs exploit resonance effects. Nature 420:475.
18. LIMERICK, S. 1980. Courtship behavior and oviposition of the poison-arrow frog Dendrobates pumilio. Herpetologica 36:69-71.
19. MARTINS, M. 1988. Biologia reprodutiva de Leptodactylus fuscus em Boa Vista, Roraima (Amphibia: Anura). Revista Brasileira de Biologia 48:969-977.
20. MITTERMEIER, R. A., N. MYERS, P. R. GIL, AND C. G. MITTERMEIER. 1999. Hotspots. Earth's biologically richest and most endangered ecoregions. CEMEX/Agrupación Sierra Madre, Mexico City.
21. MURPHY, P. J. 2003. Context-dependent reproductive site choice in a Neotropical frog. Behavioral Ecology 14:626-633.
22. PIANKA, E. R. 1973. The structure of lizard communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:53-74.
23. RESETARITS, W. J., JR. 1996. Oviposition site choice and life history evolution. American Zoologist 36:205-215.
24. RESETARITS, W. J., JR., AND H. M. WILBUR. 1989. Oviposition site choice in Hyla chrysoscelis: role of predators and competitors. Ecology 70:220-228.
25. RESETARITS, W. J., JR., AND H. M. WILBUR. 1991. Calling site choice by Hyla chrysoscelis: effect of predators, competitors, and oviposition sites. Ecology 72:778-786.
26. RICE, W. R. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223-225.
27. SPIELER, M., AND K. E. LINSENMAIR. 1997. Choice of optimal oviposition sites by Hoplobatrachus occipitalis (Anura: Ranidae) in an unpredictable and patchy environment. Oecologia 109:184-199.
28. TOWNSEND, D. S. 1989. The consequences of microhabitat choice for male reproductive success in a tropical frog (Eleutherodactylus coqui). Herpetologica 45:451-458.
29. WELLS, K. D. 1977. The social behavior of anuran amphibians. Animal Behaviour 25:666-693.
30. WELLS, K. D., AND J. J. SCHWARTZ. 1982. The effect of vegetation on the propagation of calls in the neotropical frog Centrolenella fleischmanni. Herpetologica 38:449-455.
31. ZIMMERMAN, B. L., AND D. SIMBERLOFF. 1996. An historical interpretation of habitat use by frogs in a Central Amazonian Forest. Journal of Biogeography 23:27-46.