Assessing acoustic signal variability and the potential for sexual selection and social recognition in boreal chorus frogs (Pseudacris maculata)

Ethology

Volumn 116, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 564-576

  Bee, Mark A ^a   Cook, Jenna M ^a   Love, Elliot K ^a   O'Bryan, Lisa R ^a   Pettitt, Beth A ^a   Schrode, Katrina ^a   Vélez, Alejandro ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BODY CONDITION; BODY SIZE; FROG; GEOGRAPHICAL VARIATION; INTRASPECIFIC COMPETITION; MALE BEHAVIOR; MATE CHOICE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NATURE CONSERVATION; RECOGNITION; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNALING;

ANURA; PSEUDACRIS MACULATA;

EID: 77953782170     PISSN: 01791613     EISSN: 14390310     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01773.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Baker J M R. Body condition and tail height in great crested newts, Triturus cristatus. Anim. Behav. 1992, 43:157-159.
2. Bee M A. A test of the 'dear enemy effect' in the strawberry dart-poison frog (Dendrobates pumilio). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2003, 54:601-610.
3. Bee M A. Within-individual variation in bullfrog vocalizations: implications for a vocally mediated social recognition system. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2004, 116:3770-3781.
4. Bee M A, Gerhardt H C. Neighbour-stranger discrimination by territorial male bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana): I. Acoustic basis. Anim. Behav. 2001a, 62:1129-1140.
5. Bee M A, Gerhardt H C. Neighbour-stranger discrimination by territorial male bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana): II. Perceptual basis. Anim. Behav. 2001b, 62:1141-1150.
6. Bee M A, Kozich C E, Blackwell K J, Gerhardt H C. Individual variation in advertisement calls of territorial male green frogs, Rana clamitans: implications for individual discrimination. Ethology 2001, 107:65-84.
7. Bradbury J W, Vehrencamp S L. Principles of Animal Communication 1998, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA
8. Bretagnolle V, McGregor P K. Using bird vocalisations as individual tags: prospects for the conservation of threatened species in counts, survival rates and population structure. J. Ornithol. 2006, 147:66-66.
9. Bush S L, Gerhardt H C, Schul J. Pattern recognition and call preferences in treefrogs (Anura: Hylidae): a quantitative analysis using a no-choice paradigm. Anim. Behav. 2002, 63:7-14.
10. Davis M S. Acoustically mediated neighbor recognition in the North American bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1987, 21:185-190.
11. Feng A S, Riede T, Arch V S, Yu Z L, Xu Z M, Yu X J, Shen J X. Diversity of the vocal signals of concave-eared torrent frogs (Odorrana tormota): evidence for individual signatures. Ethology 2009, 115:1015-1028.
12. Gasser H, Amézquita A, Hödl W. Who is Calling? Intraspecific call variation in the aromobatid frog Allobates femoralis. Ethology 2009, 115:596-607.
13. Gerhardt H C. Sound pressure levels and radiation patterns of vocalizations of some North American frogs and toads. J. Comp. Physiol. 1975, 102:1-12.
14. Gerhardt H C. Female mate choice in treefrogs: static and dynamic acoustic criteria. Anim. Behav. 1991, 42:615-635.
15. Gerhardt H C, Bee M A. Recognition and localization of acoustic signals. Hearing and Sound Communication in Amphibians 2007, 113-146. Narins P M, Feng A SFay R RPopper A N. eds, Springer, New York, pp
16. Gerhardt H C, Doherty J A. Acoustic communication in the gray treefrog, Hyla versicolor: evolutionary and neurobiological implications. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 1988, 162:261-278.
17. Gerhardt H C, Huber F. Acoustic Communication in Insects and Anurans: Common Problems and Diverse Solutions 2002, Chicago University Press, Chicago
18. Gerhardt H C, Schul J. A quantitative analysis of behavioral selectivity for pulse rise-time in the gray treefrog, Hyla versicolor. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 1999, 185:33-40.
19. Grava T, Mathevon N, Place E, Balluet P. Individual acoustic monitoring of the European eagle owl Bubo bubo. Ibis 2008, 150:279-287.
20. Höglund J, Alatalo R V. Leks 1995, Princeton University Press, Princeton
21. Jones D L, Ratnam R. Blind location and separation of callers in a natural chorus using a microphone array. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2009, 126:895-910.
22. Lemmon E M, Lemmon A R, Collins J T, Lee-Yaw J A, Cannatella D C. Phylogeny-based delimitation of species boundaries and contact zones in the trilling chorus frogs (Pseudacris). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2007, 44:1068-1082.
23. Moriarty E C, Cannatella D C. Phylogenetic relationships of the North American chorus frogs (Pseudacris: Hylidae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2004, 30:409-420.
24. Peake T M, McGregor P K, Smith K W, Tyler G, Gilbert G, Green R E. Individuality in corncrake Crex crex vocalizations. Ibis 1998, 140:120-127.
25. Platz J E. Speciation within the chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata: Morphometric and mating call analyses of the boreal and western subspecies. Copeia 1989, 1989:704-712.
26. Platz J E, Forester D C. Geographic variation in mating call among the four subspecies of the chorus frog: Pseudacris triseriata (Wied). Copeia 1988, 1988:1062-1066.
27. Ryan M J, Keddy-Hector A. Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am. Nat. 1992, 139:S4-S35.
28. Semlitsch R D. Amphibian Conservation 2003, Smithsonian, Washington DC
29. STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 7.1. 2006, http://www.statsoft.com
30. Temeles E J. The role of neighbors in territorial systems: when are they dear enemies? Anim. Behav. 1994, 47:339-350.
31. Terry A M R, McGregor P K. Census and monitoring based on individually identifiable vocalizations: the role of neural networks. Anim. Conserv. 2002, 5:103-111.
32. Terry A M R, Peake T M, McGregor P K. The role of vocal individuality in conservation. Front. Zool. 2005, 2:10.
33. Titus K, Mosher J A, Williams B K. Chance-corrected classification for use in discriminant-analysis: ecological applications. Am. Midl. Nat. 1984, 111:1-7.
34. Wells K D. The social behavior of anuran amphibians. Anim. Behav. 1977, 25:666-693.