Simulated Predation Risk Influences Female Choice in Túngara Frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus

Ethology

Volumn 117, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 400-407

  Bonachea, Luis A ^a   Ryan, Michael J ^b,c  

^a SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^c SMITHSONIAN TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Panama)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; FEMALE; FROG; LABORATORY METHOD; LIGHT EFFECT; MATE CHOICE; NUMERICAL MODEL; PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE; PREDATION RISK; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION; SIGNAL;

ANURA; PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULOSUS;

EID: 79953708524     PISSN: 01791613     EISSN: 14390310     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2011.01889.x     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Baugh, A. T. & Ryan, M. J. 2010: Ambient light alters temporal updating behaviour during mate choice in a Neotropical frog. Can. J. Zool. 88, 448-453.
2. Bernal, X., Rand, A. S. & Ryan, M. J. 2007: Sexual differences in the behavioral response of túngara frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus, to cues associated with increased predation risk. Ethology 113, 755-763.
3. Bonachea, L. A. & Ryan, M. J. 2011: Localization error contributes to search costs during mate choice: an analysis of spatial paths used by female Túngara frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus. Ethology 117, 56-62.
4. Cade, W. 1975: Acoustically orienting parasitoids: fly phonotaxis to cricket songs. Science 190, 1312-1313.
5. Cornell, E. A. & Hailman, J. P. 1984: Pupillary responses of two Rana pipiens: complex anuran species. Herpetologica 40, 356-366.
6. Cummings, M. E., Rosenthal, G. G. & Ryan, M. J. 2003: A private ultraviolet channel in visual communication. Proc. Biol. Sci. 270, 897-904.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Fan, G. L., Matthews, H. R., Cornwall, M. C. & Koutalos, Y. 2001: Adaptation in vertebrate photoreceptors. Physiol. Rev. 81, 117-151.
12. Gridi-Papp, M., Rand, A. S. & Ryan, M. J. 2006: Complex call production in túngara frogs. Nature 441, 38.
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. Lima, S. L. & Dill, L. M. 1990: Behavioral decisions made under risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool. 68, 619-640.
16. Marsh, D. M., Rand, A. S. & Ryan, M. J. 2000: Effects of inter-pond distance on breeding ecology of túngara frogs. Oecologia 122, 505-513.
17. Phelps, S. M., Rand, A. S. & Ryan, M. J. 2006: A cognitive framework for mate choice and species recognition. Am. Nat. 167, 28-42.
18. Phelps, S. M., Rand, A. S. & Ryan, M. J. 2007: The mixed-species chorus as public information: Túngara frogs eavesdrop on a heterospecific. Behav. Ecol. 18, 108-114.
19. 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.
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. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago. 230 pp.
22. Ryan, M. J., Tuttle, M. D. & Taft, L. K. 1981: The costs and benefits of frog chorusing behavior. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 8, 273-278.
23. Schwartz, A. K. & Hendry, A. P. 2006: Sexual selection and the detection of ecological speciation. Evol. Ecol. Res. 8, 399-413.
24. 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). Evolution Ecology Res. 9, 71-90.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. Zuk, M. & Kolluru, G. R. 1998: Exploitation of sexual signals by predators and parasitoids. Q. Rev. Biol. 73, 415-438.