Ambient light alters temporal-updating behaviour during mate choice in a Neotropical frog

Canadian Journal of Zoology

Volumn 88, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 448-453

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b SMITHSONIAN TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Panama)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR ORNITHOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY; BREEDING SEASON; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT; FROG; LIGHT EFFECT; MATE CHOICE; MOVEMENT; NOCTURNAL ACTIVITY; PREDATION RISK; TAXIS;

AMPHIBIA; ANIMALIA; ANURA; LEPTODACTYLIDAE; PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULOSUS;

EID: 77951731236     PISSN: 00084301     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/Z10-018     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J
2. Baugh, A.T., and Ryan, M.J. 2010. Mate choice in response to dynamic presentation of male advertisement signals in túngara frogs. Anim. Behav. 79(1): 145-152. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.10.015
3. Berglund, A. 1993. Risky sex: male pipefishes mate at random in the presence of a predator. Anim. Behav. 46(1): 169-175. doi:10.1006/anbe.1993.1172.
4. Bernal, X.E., Rand, A.S., and Ryan, M.J. 2006. Acoustic preferences and localization performance of blood-sucking flies (Corethrella Coquillett) to túngara frog calls. Behav. Ecol. 17(5):709-715. doi:10.1093/beheco/arl003.
5. Bernal, X.E., Rand, A.S., and Ryan, M.J. 2007. Sexual differences in the behavioral response of túngara frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus, to cues associated with increased predation risk. Ethology, 113(8): 755-763. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2007.01374.x
6. Blaisdell, A.P., Denniston, J.C., and Miller, R.R. 1999. Posttraining shifts in the overshadowing stimulus-unconditioned stimulus interval alleviates the overshadowing deficit. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 25(1): 18-27. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.25. 1.18. PMID:9987855.
7. Cocroft, R.B. 1999. Parent-offspring communication in response to predators in a subsocial treehopper (Hemiptera: Membracidae: Umbonia crassicornis). Ethology, 105: 553-568.
8. Cummings, M.E., Bernal, X.E., Reynaga, R., Rand, A.S., and Ryan, M.J. 2008. Visual sensitivity to a conspicuous male cue varies by reproductive state in Physalaemus pustulosus females. J. Exp. Biol. 211(Pt 8): 1203-1210. doi:10.1242/jeb.012963.PMID:18375844.
9. Darwin, C. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. J. Murray, London.
10. Dill, L.M., Hedrick, A.V., and Fraser, A. 1999. Male mating strategies under predation risk: do females call the shots? Behav. Ecol. 10(4): 452-461. doi:10.1093/beheco/10.4.452
11. Forsgren, E. 1992. Predation risk affects mate choice in gobiid fish. Am. Nat. 140(6): 1041-1049. doi:10.1086/285455
12. Gerhardt, H.C., and Huber, F. 2002. Acoustic communication in insects and anurans. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
13. Goldstein, D.G., and Gigerenzer, G. 2002. Models of ecological rationality: the recognition heuristic. Psychol. Rev. 109(1): 75-90. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.75. PMID:11863042
14. Greenfield, M.D. 2002. Signalers and receivers: mechanisms and evolution of arthropod communication. Oxford University Press, Oxford
15. Hedrick, A.V., and Dill, L.M. 1993. Mate choice by female crickets is influenced by predation risk. Anim. Behav. 46(1): 193-196. doi:10.1006/anbe.1993.1176.
16. Heller, K.-G. 1992. Risk shift between males and females in the pair-forming behavior of bush crickets. Naturwissenschaften, 79(2): 89-91. doi:10.1007/BF01131812.
17. Heller, K.-G. 1995. Acoustic signalling in palaeotropical bushcrickets (Orthoptera: Tettigonioidea: Pseudophyllidae): does predation pressure by eavesdropping enemies differ in the Palaeo-and Neotropics? J. Zool. (Lond.), 237(3): 469-485. doi:10.1111/ j.1469-7998.1995.tb02775.x.
18. Jennions, M.D., and Backwell, P.R.Y. 1992. Chorus size influences on the anti-predator response of a Neotropical frog. Anim. Behav. 44(5): 990-992. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80596-2
19. Jennions, M.D., and Petrie, M. 1997. Variation in mate choiceand mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 72(2): 283-327. doi:10.1017/S0006323196005014. PMID:9155244.
20. Johnson, J.B., and Basolo, A.L. 2003. Predator exposure alters female mate choice in the green swordtail. Behav. Ecol. 14(5): 619-625. doi:10.1093/beheco/arg046.
21. Klump, G.M., and Shalter, M.D. 1984. Acoustic behaviour of birds and mammals in the predator context. I. Factors affecting the structure of alarm signals. II. The functional significance and evolution of alarm signals. Z. Tierpsychol. 66: 189-226
22. Lima, S.L., and Dill, L.M. 1990. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool. 68(4): 619-640. doi:10.1139/z90-092.
23. Magnhagen, C. 1991. Predation risk as a cost of reproduction. Trends Ecol. Evol. 6(6): 183-186. doi:10.1016/0169-5347(91)90210-O.
24. Milinksi, M., and Bakker, T.C.M. 1992. Costs influence sequential mate choice in sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2250: 229-233. doi:10.1098/rspb.1992.0153
25. Morris, G.K., Mason, A.C., Wall, P., and Belwood, J.J. 1994. High ultrasonic and tremulation signals in neotropical katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). J. Zool. (Lond.), 233(1): 129-163. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1994.tb05266.x.
26. Pauly, G.B., Bernal, X.E., Rand, A.S., and Ryan, M.J. 2006. The vocal sac increases call rate in the túngara frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 79(4): 708-719. doi:10.1086/504613. PMID:16826497.
27. Phelps, S.M., Rand, A.S., and Ryan, M.J. 2007. The mixed-species chorus as public information: túngara frogs eavesdrop on a heterospecific. Behav. Ecol. 18(1): 108-114. doi:10.1093/beheco/arl063.
28. Pocklington, R., and Dill, L.M. 1995. Predation on females or males: who pays for bright male traits? Anim. Behav. 49(4): 1122-1124. doi:10.1006/anbe.1995.0141.
29. Rand, A.S., Ryan, M.J., and Wilczynski, W. 1992. Signal redundancy and receiver permissiveness in acoustic mate recognition by the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Am. Zool. 32: 15-17
30. Rand, A.S., Bridarolli, M.E., Dries, L., and Ryan, M.J. 1997. Light levels influence female choice in túngara frogs: predation risk assessment? Copeia, 1997(2): 447-450. doi:10.2307/1447770.
31. Reynolds, J.D., and Côté, I.M. 1995. Direct selection on mate hoice: female redlip blennies pay more for better mates. Behav. Ecol. 6(2): 175-181. doi:10.1093/beheco/6.2.175.
32. Ryan, M.J. 1985. The túngara frog: a study in sexual selection and communication. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
33. Ryan, M.J., and Keddy-Hector, A. 1992. Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am. Nat. 139(s1): S4-S35. doi:10.1086/285303.
34. Ryan, M.J., and Rand, A.S. 1990. The sensory basis of sexual selection for complex calls in the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus (sexual selection for sensory exploitation). Evolution, 44(2): 305-314. doi:10.2307/2409409.
35. Ryan, M.J., and Rand, A.S. 2003. Mate recognition in túngara frogs: a review of some studies of brain, behavior, and evolution. Acta Zool. Sin. 49: 713-772.
36. Ryan, M.J., Rand, W., Hurd, P.L., Phelps, S.M., and Rand, A.S. 2003. Generalization in response to mate recognition signals. Am. Nat. 161(3): 380-394. doi:10.1086/367588. PMID:12699219
37. Schwartz, J.J., Bee, M.A., and Tanner, S.D. 2000. A behavioral and neurobiological study of the responses of gray treefrogs, Hyla versicolor, to the calls of a predator, Rana catesbiana. Herpetologica, 56: 27-37.
38. Searcy, W.A., and Nowicki, S. 2005. The evolution of animal communication: reliability and deception in signaling systems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
39. Su, K.F.Y., and Li, D. 2006. Female-biased predation risk and its differential effect on the male and female courtship behaviour of jumping spiders. Anim. Behav. 71(3): 531-537. doi:10.1016/ j.anbehav.2005.04.024.
40. Taylor, R.C., Klein, B.A., Stein, J., and Ryan, M.J. 2008. Faux frogs: multimodal signaling and the value of robotics in animal behaviour. Anim. Behav. 76(3): 1089-1097. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.01.031.
41. Tuttle, M.D., Taft, L.K., and Ryan, M.J. 1982. Evasive behaviour of a frog in response to bat predation. Anim. Behav. 30(2): 393-397. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(82)80050-X.
42. Valone, T.J., Nordell, S.E., Giraldeau, L.-A., and Templeton, J.J. 1996. The empirical question of thresholds and mechanisms of mate choice. Evol. Ecol. 10(4): 447-455. doi:10.1007/BF01237729.
43. Weigt, L.A., Crawford, A.J., Rand, A.S., and Ryan, M.J. 2005. Biogeography of the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus: a molecular perspective. Mol. Ecol. 14(12): 3857-3876. doi:10. 1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02707.x. PMID:16202101.
44. Zuk, M., Rotenberry, J.T., and Simmons, L.W. 1998. Calling songs of field crickets (Teleogryllus oceanicus) with and without phonotactic parasitoid infection. Evolution, 52(1): 166-171. doi:10. 2307/2410931.
45. Zwaan, R.A. 1996. Processing narrative time shifts. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 22(5): 1196-1207. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.22.5.1196.