Female mate choice and the potential for ornament evolution in túngara frogs Physalaemus pustulosus

Current Zoology

Volumn 56, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 343-357

  Ryan, Michael J ^a,b   Bernal, Ximena E ^c   Stanley Rand, A ^b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b SMITHSONIAN TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Panama)

^c TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Posthumous publication   (United States)

Author keywords

Mate choice; Ornament evolution; Physalaemus pustulosus; Tungara frogs

Indexed keywords

ANURA; PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULOSUS;

EID: 77952838944     PISSN: 00017302     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/czoolo/56.3.343     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Andersson MB, 1982. Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widow bird. Nature 299: 818-820.
2. Andersson MB, 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
3. Basolo AL, 1990. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 250: 808-810.
4. Basolo AL 1995. A further examination of a preexisting bias favoring a sword in the genusXiphophorus. Anim. Behav. 50: 365-375.
5. Bernal XE, Page RA, Rand AS, Ryan MJ, 2007. Cues for eavesdroppers: Do frog calls indicate prey density and quality? Am. Nat. 169: 409-415.
6. Bernal XE, Page RA, Ryan MJ, Argo IV TF, Wilson PS, 2009a. Acoustic radiation patterns of mating calls of the túngara frog Physalaemus pustulosus: Implications for multiple receivers. J. Acous. Soc. Am. 126: 2757-2767.
7. Bernal XE, Akre KL, Baugh AT, Rand AS, Ryan MJ, 2009b. Female and male behavioral response to advertisement calls of variable complexity in túngara frogs Physalaemus pustulosus. Behav. Ecol.n Sociobiol. 63: 1269-1279.
8. Bernal XE, Rand AS, Ryan MJ, 2006. Acoustic preferences and localization performance of blood-sucking flies Corethrella coquillett to túngara frog calls. Behav. Ecol. 17: 709-715.
9. Bosch J, Rand AS, Ryan MJ, 2000. Signal variation and call preferences for whine frequency in the túngara frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 49: 62-66.
10. Boul KE, Funk WC, Darst CR, Cannatella DC, Ryan MJ, 2007. Sexual selection drives speciation in an Amazonian frog. Proc. R.Soc. B 274: 399-406.
11. Boul KE, Ryan MJ, 2004. Population variation of complex advertisement calls in Physalaemus petersi and comparative laryngeal morphology. Copeia 2004: 624-631.
12. Brooks R, Hunt J, Blows MW, Smith MJ, Bussiere LF et al., 2005. Experimental evidence for multivariate stabilizing sexual selection. Evolution 59: 871-880.
13. Burley NT, 1985. The organization of behavior and the evolution of sexually selected traits. Ornithol. Monog. 37: 22-44.
14. Burley NT, 1986.Comparison of the band-colour preferences of two species of estrildid finches. Anim. Behav. 34: 1732-1741.
15. Burley NT, Krantzberg G, 1982. Influence of colour-banding on the conspecific preferences of zebra finches. Anim. Behav. 30: 444-455.
16. Burley NT, 2006. An eye for detail: Selective sexual imprinting in zebra finches. Evolution 60: 1076-1085.
17. Burley NT, Symanski R, 1998. A taste for the beautiful: Latent aesthetic mate preferences for white crests in two species of Australian grassfinches. Am. Nat. 152: 792-802.
18. Cannatella DC, Hillis DM, Chippindale PT, Weigt L, Rand AS et al., 1998. Phylogeny of frogs of the Physalaemus pustulosus species group, with an examination of data incongruence. Syst. Biol. 47: 311-355.
19. Capranica RR, 1977. Auditory processing in anurans. Fed. Proc. 37: 2324-2328.
20. Couldridge VCK, Alexander GJ, 2002. Color patterns and species recognition in four closely related species of Lake Malawi cichlid. Behav. Ecol. 13: 59-64.
21. Darwin C, 1859. On the Origin of Species. London: Murray.
22. Dawson E, Ryan MJ, 2009. Early experience leads to changes in the advertisement calls of male Physalaemus pustulosus. Copeia 2009: 221-226.
23. Dominey WJ, 1984. Effects of sexual selection and life history on speciation: Species flocks in African cichlids and Hawaiian Drosophila. In: Echelle AA, Kornfield I ed. Evolution of Fish Species Flocks. Orono, Maine: University of Maine Press, 231-249.
24. Drewery G, Heyer WR, Rand AS, 1982. A functional analysis of the complex call of the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Copeia 1982: 636-645.
25. Elias DO, Hebets EA, Hoy RR, 2006. Female preference for complex/ novel signals in a spider. Behav. Ecol. 17: 765-771.
26. Endler JA, Basolo AL, 1998. Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13: 415-420.
27. Endler JA, Westcott DA, Madden JR, Robson T, 2005. Animal visual systems and the evolution of color patterns: Sensory processing illuminates signal evolution. Evolution 59: 1795-1818.
28. Enquist M, Arak A, 1993. Selection of exaggerated male traits by female aesthetic senses. Nature 361: 446-448.
29. Farris HE, Rand AS, Ryan MJ, 2005. The effects of time, space and spectrum on auditory grouping in túngara frogs. J.Comp. Physiol. A 191: 1173-1183.
30. Farris HE, Rand AS, Ryan MJ, 2002. The effects of spatially separated call components on phonotaxis in túngara frogs: Evidence for auditory grouping. Brain Behav. Evol. 60: 181-188.
31. Funk WC, Caldwell JP, Peden CE, Padial JM, De la Riva I et al., 2007. Tests of biogeographic hypotheses for diversification in the Amazonian forest frog Physalaemus petersi. Mol. Phylog. Evol. 44: 825-837.
32. Gerhardt HC, Schwartz JJ, 2001. Auditory tunings and frequency preferences in anurans. In: Ryan MJ ed. Anuran Communication. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.: 73-85.
33. Gerhardt HC, Brooks R, 2009. Experimental analysis of multivariate female choice in gray treefrogs Hyla versicolor: Evidence for directional and stabilizing selection. Evolution 63: 2504-2512.
34. Goutee S, Kime NM, Argo TF IV, Ryan MJ 2010. Calling strategies of male túngara frogs in response to dynamic playback. Behaviour 147: 65-83.
35. Gridi-Papp M, Rand AS, Ryan MJ, 2006. Complex call production in the túngara frog. Nature 441: 38.
36. Hindmarsch MB, Jefferies DJ, 1984. On the motions of the offset impact oscillators. J. Phys. A 17: 1791-1804.
37. Houde AE, 1997. Sex, Color, and Mate Choice in Guppies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
38. Johnson K, Dalton R, Burley NT, 1993. Preferences of female American goldfinches Cardulis tristis for natural and artificial male traits. Behav. Ecol. 4: 138-143.
39. Jones IL, Hunter FM, 1998. Heterospecific mating preferences for a feather ornament in least auklets. Behav. Ecol. 9: 187-192.
40. Kaneshiro KY, 1980. Sexual isolation, speciation and the direction of evolution. Evolution 34: 437-444.
41. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ, 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350: 33-38.
42. Lewis BA, Whiting MJ, Stapley J, 2007. Male flat lizards prefer females with novel scents. Afric. Zool. 42: 91-96.
43. Márques R, Bosch, J, 1997. Female preference in complex acoustical environments in the midwife toads Alytes obstetricans and Alytes cisternasii. Behav. Ecol. 8: 588-594.
44. Martin WR, 1972. Evolution of vocalizations in the genus Bufo. In: Blair WF ed. Evolution of the Genus Bufo. Austin: University of Texas Press, 279-308.
45. Maynard Smith J, Burian R, Kauffman SA, Alberch PA, Campbell J et al., 1985. Developmental constraints and evolution: A perspective from the Mountain Lake conference on development and evolution. Quart. Review Biol. 60: 265-287.
46. McClintock WJ, Uetz GW, 1996. Female choice and pre-existing bias: Visual cues during courtship in two Schizocosa wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae). Anim. Behav. 52: 167-181.
47. Morton ES, 1975. Ecological sources of selection on avian sounds. Am. Nat. 109: 17-34.
48. Pippard AB, 2007. The driven anharmonic vibrator, subharmonics, stability. In: Pippard AB ed. The Physics of Vibration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1: 247-252.
49. Price T, 1998. Sexual selection and natural selection in bird speciation. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Ser. B. 353: 251-260.
50. Price T, 2008. Speciation in Birds. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Roberts & Company Publishers.
51. Ptacek MB, Travis J, 1997. Mate choice in the sailfin molly Poecilia latipinna. Evolution 51: 1217-1231.
52. Rand AS, Ryan MJ, 1981. The adaptive significance of a complex vocal repertoire in a neotropical frog. Z. Tierpsychol 57: 209-214.
53. Ron SR, 2008. The evolution of female mate choice for complex calls in túngara frogs. Anim. Behav. 76: 1783-1794.
54. Ron SR, Coloma LA, Cannatella DC, 2005. A new, cryptic species of Physalaemus (Anura: Leptodactylidae) from Western Ecuador with comments on the call structure of the P. pustulosus species group. Herpetologica 61: 178-198.
55. Ryan MJ, 1980. Female mate choice in a Neotropical frog. Science 209: 523-525.
56. Ryan MJ, 1985. The Túngara Frog: A Study in Sexual Selection and Communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
57. Ryan MJ, 1990. Sexual selection, sensory systems and sensory exploitation. Oxf. Surv. Evol. Biol. 7: 157-195.
58. Ryan MJ, in press. The túngara frog: A model for sexual selection and communication. In: Breed MD, Moore J ed. Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior. Oxford: Academic Press.
59. Ryan MJ, Drewes CD, 1990. Vocal morphology of the Physalaemus pustulosus species group (Family Leptodactylidae): Morphological response to sexual selection for complex calls. Biol. J. Linn Soc. 40: 37-52.
60. Ryan MJ, Fox JH, Wilczynski W, Rand AS, 1990. Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature 343: 66-67.
61. Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A, 1992. Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am. Nat. 139: S4-S35.
62. 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.
63. Ryan MJ, Rand AS, 1993a. Sexual selection and signal evolution: The ghost of biases past. Phil. Trans. Royal. Soc. Ser. B. 340: 187-195.
64. Ryan MJ, Rand AS, 1993b. Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution 47: 647-657.
65. Ryan MJ, Rand AS, 1995. Female responses to ancestral advertisement calls in túngara frogs. Science 269: 390-392.
66. Ryan MJ, Rand AS, 2003a. Mate recognition in túngara frogs: A review of some studies of brain, behavior, and evolution. Acta Zool. Sinica 49: 713-726.
67. Ryan MJ, Rand AS, 2003b. Sexual selection in female perceptual space: How female túngara frogs perceive and respond to complex population variation in acoustic mating signals. Evolution 57: 2608-2618.
68. Ryan MJ, Turtle MD, Rand AS, 1982. Bat predation and sexual advertisement in a Neotropical anuran. Am. Nat. 119: 136-139.
69. Schlupp I, Waschulewski M, Ryan MJ, 1999. Female preferences for naturally-ocurring novel male traits. Behaviour 136: 519-527.
70. Sibley CG, 1957. The evolutionary and taxonomic significance of sexual dimorphism and hybridization in birds. The Condor 59: 166-191.
71. Stelkens RB, Seehausen O, 2009. Phenotypic divergence but not genetic distance predicts assortative mating among species of a cichlid fish radiation. J. Evol. Biol. 22: 1679-1694.
72. Tinbergen L, 1953. The Social Behavior of Animals. London: Butler and Tanner, Ltd.
73. Tournat V, Gusev VE, Castagnède B, 2004. Subharmonics and noise excitation in transmission of acoustic wave through unconsolidated granular medium. Physics Letters A 326: 340-348.
74. West-Eberhard MJ, 1983. Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Quart. Review Biol. 58: 155-183.
75. Wilczynski W, Rand AS, Ryan MJ, 1995. The processing of spectral cues by the call analysis system of the túngara frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Anim. Behav. 49: 911-929.
76. Wilczynski W, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 1999. Female preferences for temporal order of call components in the túngara frog: A Bayesian analysis. Anim. Behav. 58: 841-851.
77. Witte K, Curio E, 1999. Sexes of a monomorphic species differ in preferences for mates with a novel trait. Behav. Ecol. 10: 15-21.
78. Witte K, Hirschler U, Curio E, 2000. Sexual imprinting on a novel adornment influences mate preferences in the Javanese mannikin Lochura leucogastroides. Ethology 106: 349-363.