Female túngara frogs vary in commitment to mate choice

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 1153-1159

  Baugh, Alexander T ^a   Ryan, Michael J ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b SMITHSONIAN TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Panama)

Author keywords

Body condition; Choosiness; Dynamic behavior; Individual differences; Mate choice; Phonotaxis

Indexed keywords

BIMODAL ASSOCIATION; BODY CONDITION; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; FROG; INDIVIDUALISM; MATE CHOICE;

ANURA; PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULOSUS;

EID: 70450263421     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arp120     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
2. Baker JM. 1992. Body condition and tail height in great crested newts, Triturus cristatus. Anim Behav. 43:157-159.
3. Bell AM, Hankison SJ, Laskowski KL. 2009. The repeatability of behaviour: a meta-analysis. Anim Behav. 77:771-783.
4. Bernal XE, Akre KA, Baugh AT, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2009. Female and male behavioral response to advertisement calls of graded complexity in túngara frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 63:1269-1279.
5. Castellano S, Rosso A, Doglio S, Giacomo C. 1999. Body size and calling variation in the green toad Bufo viridis. J Zool Lond. 248:83-90.
6. Coe MJ. 1974. Observations on the ecology and breeding biology of the genus Chiromantis (Amphibia: Rhacophoridae). J Zool Lond. 172:13-34.
7. Coleman SW, Patricelli GL, Borgia G. 2004. Variable female preferences drive complex male displays. Nature. 428:742-745.
8. Cotton S, Small J, Pomiankowski A. 2006. Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr Biol. 16:R755-R765.
9. Crump ML. 1974. Reproductive strategies in a tropical anuran community. Misc Publ Mus Nat Hist Univ Kansas. 61:1-68.
10. Duellman WE, Trueb L. 1986. Biology of amphibians. New York: McGraw-Hill.
11. Dyson ML, Henzi P, Passmore NI. 1994. The effect of changes in the relative timing of signals during female phonotaxis in the reed frog, Hyperolius marmoratus. Anim Behav. 48:679-685.
12. Gerhardt HC, Dyson ML, Tanner SD. 1996. Dynamic properties of the advertisement calls of gray tree frogs: patterns of variability and female choice. Behav Ecol. 7:7-18.
13. Gerhardt HC, Huber F. 2002. Acoustic communication in insects and anurans. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.
14. Green AJ. 2001. Mass/length residuals: measures of body condition or generators of spurious results? Ecology. 82:1473-1483.
15. Halliday TR, Verrel PA. 1988. Body size and age in amphibians and reptiles. J Herpetol. 22:253-265.
16. Höglund J, Alatalo RV. 1995. Leks. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
17. Howard RD, Moorman RS, Whiteman HH. 1997. Differential effects of mate competition and mate choice on eastern tiger salamanders. Anim Behav. 53:1345-1356.
18. Howard RD, Young JR. 1998. Individual variation in male vocal traits and female mating preferences in Bufo americanus. Anim Behav. 55:1165-1179.
19. Jennions MD, Backwell PRY, Passmore NI. 1994. Repeatability of mate choice: the effect of size in the African painted reed frog, Hyperolius marmoratus. Anim Behav. 49:181-186.
20. Jennions MD, Petrie M. 1997. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev. 72: 283-327.
21. Kime NM, Rand AS, Kapfer M, Ryan MJ. 1998. Repeatability of female choice in the túngara frog: a permissive preference for complex characters. Anim Behav. 55:641-649.
22. Kirkpatrick M, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2006. Mate choice rules in animals. Anim Behav. 71:1215-1225.
23. Lea JM. 2000. Aspects of the reproductive biology of the Mallorcan midwife toad (Alytes muletensis) [dissertation]. Milton Keynes (UK): The Open University.
24. Lea J, Halliday T, Dyson M. 2000. Reproductive stage and history affect the phonotactic preferences of female midwife toads, Alytes muletensis. Anim Behav. 60:423-427.
25. Leary CJ, Garcia AM, Knapp R. 2008. Density-dependent mating tactic expression is linked to stress hormone in Woodhouse's toad. Behav Ecol. 19:1103-1110.
26. Lynch KS, Rand AS, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W. 2005. Plasticity in female mate choice associated with changing reproductive states. Anim Behav. 69:689-699.
27. Moore PJ, Moore AJ. 2001. Reproductive aging and mating: the ticking biological clock in female cockroaches. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 98:9171-9176.
28. Møller AP, de Lope F. 1995. Differential costs of a secondary sexual character: an experimental test of the handicap principle. Evolution. 48:1676-1683.
29. Morris M, Nicoletto PF, Hesselman E. 2003. A polymorphism in female preference for a polymorphic male trait in the swordtail fish Xiphophorus cortezi. Anim Behav. 65:45-52.
30. Pauly GB, Bernal XE, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2006. The vocal sac increases call rate in the túngara frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Physiol Biochem Zool. 79:708-719.
31. Pope CH. 1931. Notes on amphibians from Fukien, Hainan, and other parts of China. Bull Amer Mus Nat Hist. 61:397-611.
32. Rand AS, Bridarolli ME, Dries L, Ryan MJ. 1997. Light levels influence female choice in túngara frogs: predation risk assessment? Copeia. 1997:447-450.
33. Rand AS, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W. 1992. Signal redundancy and receiver permissiveness in acoustic mate recognition by the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Am Zool. 32:15-17.
34. Ryan MJ. 1985. The Túngara frog: a study in sexual selection and communication. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.
35. Ryan MJ. 2009. Communication in frogs and toads. In: Squire LR, editor. Encyclopedia of neuroscience. Vol.2. Oxford: Academic Press. p. 1159-1166.
36. Ryan MJ, Perrill SA, Wilczynski W. 1992. Auditory tuning and call frequency predict population-based mating preferences in the cricket frog, Acris crepitans. Am Nat. 139:1370-1383.
37. Ryan MJ, Rand AS. 1990. The sensory basis of sexual selection for complex calls in the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus (sexual selection for sensory exploitation). Evolution. 44:305-314.
38. Ryan MJ, Rand AS. 2003a. Mate recognition in túngara frogs: a review of some studies of brain, behavior, and evolution. Acta Zool Sin. 49:713-726.
39. Ryan MJ, Rand AS. 2003b. Sexual selection and female preference space: how female túngara frogs perceive and respond to complex population variation n acoustic mating signals. Evolution. 57:2608-2618.
40. Ryan MJ, Rand W, Hurd PL, Phleps SM, Rand AS. 2003. Generalization in response to mate recognition signals. Am Nat. 161:380-394.
41. Ryan MJ, Tuttle MD, Rand AS. 1982. Sexual advertisement and bat predation in a neotropical frog. Am Nat. 119:136-139.
42. Schulte-Hostedde AI, Zinner B, Millar JS, Hickling GJ. 2005. Restitution of mass-size residuals: validating body condition indices. Ecology. 86:155-163.
43. Sinsch U. 1983. Waserhaushalt und tagesperiodisches verhalten von drei Europäischen rana-arten (Amphibia: Anura). [dissertation]. Germany: University of Köln.
44. Weigt AL, Crawford AJ, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2005. Biogeography of the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Mol Ecol. 14:3857-3876.