Proximity-dependent Response to Variably Complex Mating Signals in Túngara Frogs (Physalaemus pustulosus)

Ethology

Volumn 116, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1138-1145

  Akre, Karin L ^a   Ryan, Michael J ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b SMITHSONIAN TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Panama)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; COURTSHIP; EVOLUTIONARY THEORY; FITNESS; FROG; HORMONE; PREDATION RISK; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNAL;

ANIMALIA; ANURA; PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULOSUS;

EID: 78349293393     PISSN: 01791613     EISSN: 14390310     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01825.x     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Akre, K. L. & Ryan, M. J. 2010: Complexity increases working memory for mating signals. Curr. Biol. 20, 502-505.
2. Baugh, A. T. & Ryan, M. J. 2010: Mate choice in response to dynamic presentation of male advertisement signals in túngara frogs. Anim. Behav. 79, 145-152.
3. Beckers, O. M. & Schul, J. 2004: Phonotaxis in Hyla versicolor (Anura, Hylidae): the effect of absolute call amplitude. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 190, 869-876.
4. Bernal, X. E., Rand, A. S. & Ryan, M. J. 2006: Acoustic preferences and localization performance of blood-sucking flies (Corethrella Coquillett) to túngara frog calls. Behav. Ecol. 17, 709-715.
5. Bernal, X. E., Akre, K. L., Baugh, A. T., Rand, A. S. & Ryan, M. J. 2009: Female and male behavioral response to advertisement calls of graded complexity in túngara frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63, 1269-1279.
6. Bertram, S. M., Orozco, S. X. & Bellani, R. 2004: Temporal shifts in conspicuousness: mate attraction displays of the Texas field cricket, Gryllus texensis. Ethology 110, 963-975.
7. Booksmythe, I., Detto, T. & Backwell, P. R. Y. 2008: Female fiddler crabs settle for less: the travel costs of mate choice. Anim. Behav. 76, 1775-1781.
8. Bourne, G. R., Collins, A. C., Holder, A. M. & McCarthy, C. L. 2001: Vocal communication and reproductive behavior of the frog Colostethus beebei in Guyana. J. Herpetol. 35, 272-281.
9. Brenowitz, E. A., Wilczynski, W. & Zakon, H. H. 1984: Acoustic communication in spring peepers, environmental and behavioral aspects. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 155, 585-592.
10. Brumm, H. & Slater, P. J. B. 2006: Animals can vary signal amplitude with receiver distance: evidence from zebra finch song. Anim. Behav. 72, 699-705.
11. Capranica, R. R. 1976: Morphology and physiology of the auditory system. In: Frog Neurobiology (Llinas, R. & Precht, W., eds). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 552-575.
12. Castellano, S., Rosso, A. & Giacoma, C. 2004: Active choice, passive attraction and the cognitive machinery of acoustic preferences. Anim. Behav. 68, 323-329.
13. Doolan, J. M. & Gerald, S. P. 1985: Phonotactic specificity of the cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus: intensity-dependent selectivity for temporal parameters of the stimulus. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 157, 223-233.
14. Farris, H. E., Forrest, T. G. & Hoy, R. R. 1997: The effects of calling song spacing and intensity on the attraction of flying crickets (Orthoptera: Goryllidae: Nemobiinae). J. Insect Behav. 10, 639-653.
15. Gerhardt, H. C. 1976: Significance of two frequency bands in long distance vocal communication in the green treefrog. Nature 261, 692-694.
16. Gerhardt, H. C. & Schul, J. 1999: A quantitative analysis of behavioral selectivity for pulse rise-time in the gray treefrog, Hyla versicolor. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 185, 33-40.
17. Gridi-Papp, M., Rand, A. S. & Ryan, M. J. 2006: Animal communication: complex call production in the túngara frog. Nature 441, 38.
18. How, M. J., Zeil, J. & Hemmi, J. M. 2007: Differences in context and function of two distinct waving displays in the fiddler crab, Uca perplexa (Decapoda: Ocypodidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62, 137-148.
19. How, M. J., Hemmi, J. M., Zeil, J. & Peters, R. 2008: Claw waving display changes with receiver distance in fiddler crabs, Uca perplexa. Anim. Behav. 75, 1015-1022.
20. Jennions, M. D. & Petrie, M. 1997: Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. 72, 283-327.
21. Lindström, J., Pike, T. W., Blount, J. D. & Metcalfe, N. B. 2009: Optimization of resource allocation can explain the temporal dynamics and honesty of sexual signals. Am. Nat. 174, 515-525.
22. Lynch, K. S., Crews, D., Ryan, M. J. & Wilczynski, W. 2006: Hormonal state influences aspects of female mate choice in the túngara frog (Physalaemus pustulosus). Horm. Behav. 49, 450-457.
23. MacLaren, R. D. 2006: The effects of male proximity, apparent size, and absolute size on female preference in the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna. Behaviour 143, 1457-1472.
24. Marquez, R., Bosch, J. & Eekhout, X. 2008: Intensity of female preference quantified through playback setpoints: call frequency versus call rate in midwife toads. Anim. Behav. 75, 159-166.
25. Marten, K. & Marler, P. 1977: Sound transmission and its significance for animal vocalization I. Temperate habitats. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2, 271-290.
26. Marten, K. Q., Quine, D. B. & Marler, P. 1977: Sound transmission and its significance for animal vocalization II. Tropical forest habitats. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2, 291-302.
27. Morton, E. S. 1975: Ecological sources of selection on avian sounds. Am. Nat. 109, 17-34.
28. Murphy, C. G. 2008: Assessment of distance to potential mates by female barking treefrogs (Hyla gratiosa). J. Comp. Psychol. 122, 264-273.
29. Murphy, C. G. & Floyd, S. B. 2005: The effect of call amplitude on male spacing in choruses of barking treefrogs, Hyla gratiosa. Anim. Behav. 69, 419-426.
30. Naguib, M. & Wiley, R. H. 2001: Estimating the distance to a source of sound: mechanisms and adaptations for long-range communication. Anim. Behav. 62, 825-837.
31. Owen, P. C. & Gordon, N. M. 2005: The effect of perceived intruder proximity and resident body size on the aggressive responses of male green frogs, Rana clamitans (Anura: Ranidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 58, 446-455.
32. Patricelli, G. L. & Krakauer, A. H. 2010: Tactical allocation of effort among multiple signals in sage grouse: an experiment with a robotic female. Behav. Ecol. 21, 97-106.
33. Ryan, M. J. 1985: The Túngara Frog, a Study in Sexual Selection and Communication. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
34. Ryan, M. J. & Rand, A. S. 1995: Female responses to ancestral advertisement calls in túngara frogs. Science 269, 390-392.
35. Ryan, M. J. & Rand, A. S. 2003a: Mate recognition in túngara frogs: a review of some studies of brain, behavior, and evolution. Acta Zool. Sinica 49, 713-726.
36. Ryan, M. J. & Rand, A. S. 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.
37. Ryan, M. J., Tuttle, M. D. & Rand, A. S. 1982: Bat predation and sexual advertisement in a neotropical anuran. Am. Nat. 119, 136-139.
38. Ryan, M. J., Fox, J. H., Wilczynski, W. & Rand, A. S. 1990: Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature 343, 66-67.
39. Ryan, M. J., Akre, K. L. & Kirkpatrick, M. 2007: Mate choice. Curr. Biol. 17, R313-R316.
40. Sullivan, M. S. 1994: Mate choice as an information gathering process under time constraint - Implications for behavior and signal-design. Anim. Behav. 47, 141-151.
41. Titus, R. C. 1998: Short-range and long-range songs: use of two acoustically distinct song classes by dark-eyed juncos. The Auk 115, 386-393.
42. Wells, K. D. & Schwartz, J. J. 1984: Vocal communication in a neotropical treefrog, Hyla ebraccata: aggressive calls. Behaviour 91, 128-145.
43. Wiley, R. H. & Richards, D. G. 1978: Physical constraints on acoustic communication in the atmosphere: implications for the evolution of animal vocalizations. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 3, 69-94.
44. Wyttenbach, R. A. & Farris, H. E. 2004: Psychophysics in insect hearing. Microsc. Res. Tech. 63, 375-387.