Localization Error and Search Costs during Mate Choice in Túngara Frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus

Ethology

Volumn 117, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 56-62

  Bonachea, Luis A ^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

ENCOUNTER RATE; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; FROG; MATE CHOICE; PREDATOR;

ANURA; PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULOSUS;

EID: 78650402417     PISSN: 01791613     EISSN: 14390310     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01843.x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Baugh, A. T. & Ryan, M. J. 2010a: Ambient light alters temporal updating behaviour during mate choice in a Neotropical frog. Can. J. Zool. 88, 448-453.
2. Baugh, A. T. & Ryan, M. J. 2010b: Mate choice in response to dynamic presentation of male advertisement signals in túngara frogs. Anim. Behav. 79, 145-152.
3. Bernal, X., Rand, A. S. & Ryan, M. J. 2006: Acoustic preferences and localization performance of blood-sucking flies (Corethrella Coquillett). Behav. Ecol. 17, 709-715.
4. Cornell, E. A. & Hailman, J. P. 1984: Pupillary responses of two Rana pipiens-complex anuran species. Herpetologica 40, 356-366.
5. Crowley, P., Travers, S. E., Linton, M. C., Cohn, S. L., Sih, A. & Sargent, R. C. 1991: Mate density, predation risk, and the seasonal sequence of mate choices: a dynamic game. Am. Nat. 137, 567-596.
6. Cummings, M. E., Bernal, X. E., Reynaga, R., Rand, A. S. & Ryan, M. J. 2008: Visual sensitivity to a conspicuous male cue varies by reproductive state in Physalaemus pustulosus females. J. Exp. Biol. 211, 1203-1210.
7. Demary, K., Michaelidis, C. I. & Lewis, S. M. 2006: Firefly courtship: behavioral and morphological predictors of male mating success in Photinus greeni. Ethology 112, 485-492.
8. Dunn, P. O. & Whittingham, L. A. 2007: Search costs influence the spatial distribution, but not the level, of extra-pair mating in tree swallows. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61, 449-454.
9. Evans, J. P., Bisazza, A. & Pilastro, A. 2004: Female mating preferences for colorful males in a population of guppies subject to high predation. J. Fish Biol. 65, 1154-1159.
10. Fan, G. L., Matthews, H. R., Cornwall, M. C. & Koutalos, Y. 2001: Adaptation in vertebrate photoreceptors. Physiol. Rev. 81, 117-151.
11. Farris, H. E., Rand, A. S. & Ryan, M. J. 2005: The effect of time, space and spectrum on auditory grouping in túngara frogs. J. Comp. Physiol. 191, 1173-1183.
12. Forster, B., Van De Ville, D., Berent, J., Sage, D. & Unser, M. 2004: Complex wavelets for extended depth-of-field: a new method for the fusion of multichannel microscopy images. Microsc. Res. Tech. 65, 33-42.
13. Karino, K., Kuwamura, T., Nakashima, Y. & Sakai, Y. 2000: Predation risk and the opportunity for mate choice in a coral reef fish. J. Ethol. 18, 109-114.
14. Kim, T. W., Christy, J. H. & Choe, J. C. 2007: A preference for a sexual signal keeps females safe. PLoS ONE 2, e422.
15. Page, R. & Ryan, M. J. 2008: The effect of signal complexity on localization performance in bats that localize frog calls. Anim. Behav. 76, 761-769.
16. Pomiankowski, A. 1987: The costs of choice in sexual selection. J. Theor. Biol. 128, 195-218.
17. Rand, A. S., Bridarolli, M. E., Dries, L. & Ryan, M. J. 1997: Light levels influence female choice in túngara frogs: predation risk assessment? Copeia 1997, 447-450.
18. Rasband, W. S. 1997-2009: ImageJ, U. S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
19. Real, L. A. 1990: Search theory and mate choice. I. Models of single-sex discrimination. Am. Nat. 136, 376-404.
20. DeRiviera, C. E., Backwell, P. R. Y., Christy, J. H. & Vehrencamp, P. R. Y. 2003: Density affects female and male mate searching in the fiddler crab, Uca beebei. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 53, 72-83.
21. Ryan, M. J. 1985: The Túngara Frog, A Study in Sexual Selection and Communication. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 230 pp.
22. Ryan, M. J. & Rand, A. S. 1993: Sexual selection and signal evolution: the ghost of biases past. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, Biol. Sci. 340, 187-195.
23. Ryan, M. J., Tuttle, M. D. & Taft, L. K. 1981: The costs and benefits of frog chorusing behavior. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 8, 273-278.
24. Ryan, M. J., Tuttle, M. D. & Rand, A. S. 1982: Sexual advertisement and bat predation in a neotropical frog. Am. Nat. 110, 136-139.
25. Ryan, M. J., Rand, A. S. & Weigt, L. 1996: Allozyme and advertisement call variation in the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Evolution 50, 2435-2453.
26. Schwartz, A. K. & Hendry, A. P. 2006: Sexual selection and the detection of ecological speciation. Evol. Ecol. Res. 8, 399-413.
27. Schwartz, A. K. & Hendry, A. P. 2007: A test for the parallel co-evolution of male colour and female preferences in Trinidadian guppies (Poecillia reticulata). Evol. Ecol. Res. 9, 71-90.
28. Su, K. F. Y. & Li, D. 2006: Female-biased predation risk and its differential effect on the male and female courtship behavior of jumping spiders. Anim. Behav. 71, 531-537.
29. Taylor, R. C., Klein, B. A., Stein, J. & Ryan, M. J. 2008: Faux frogs: multicomponent signalling and the value of robotics in animal behaviour. Anim. Behav. 76, 1089-1097.
30. Vélez, M. J. & Brockmann, H. J. 2006: Seasonal variation in female response to male calling song in the field cricket, Gryllus rubens. Ethology 112, 1041-1049.