Female túngara frogs elicit more complex mating signals from males

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 846-853

  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

communication; display strategy; elicitation behavior; female choice; proceptive behavior; sexual selection

Indexed keywords

DISPLAY BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; FROG; MALE; MATE CHOICE; MATING BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNAL;

ANURA; PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULOSUS;

EID: 79959381905     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arr065     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Adkins-Regan E. 2005. Hormones and animal social behavior. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
2. Akre KL, Ryan MJ. 2010a. Complexity increases working memory for mating signals. Curr Biol. 20:502-505.
3. Akre KL, Ryan MJ. 2010b. Proximity-dependent response to variably complex mating signals in túngara frogs (Physalaemus pustulosus). Ethology. 116:1138-1145.
4. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
5. Arnqvist G, Rowe L. 2005. Sexual conflict. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
6. Balsby TJS, Dabelsteen T. 2002. Female behaviour affects male courtship in whitethroats, Sylvia communis: an interactive experi¬ment using visual and acoustic cues. Anim Behav. 63:251-257.
7. Beach FA. 1976. Sexual attractivity, proceptivity, and receptivity in female mammals. Horm Behav. 7:105-138.
8. Bernal XE, Akre KL, Baugh AT, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2009. Female and male behavioral response to advertisement calls of graded complex¬ity in túngara frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 63:1269-1279.
9. Bernal XE, Page RA, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2007. Cues for eavesdroppers: do frog calls indicate prey density and quality? Am Nat. 169:412-415.
10. Bertram SM, Orozco SX, Bellani R. 2004. Temporal shifts in conspic-uousness: mate attraction displays of the Texas field cricket, Gryllus texensis. Ethology. 110:963-975. (Pubitemid 40033295)
11. Bond AB. 1989. Toward a resolution of the paradox of aggressive displays: II. Behavioral efference and the communication of inten¬tions. Ethology. 81:235-249.
12. Booksmythe I, Detto T, Backwell PRY. 2008. Female fiddler crabs settle for less: the travel costs of mate choice. Anim Behav. 76:1775-1781.
13. Bourne GR, Collins AC, Holder AM, McCarthy CL. 2001. Vocal com¬munication and reproductive behavior of the frog Colostethus beebei in Guyana. J Herpetol. 35:272-281. (Pubitemid 32532949)
14. Bronson FA, Desjardins C. 1982. Endocrine responses to sexual arousal in male mice. Endocrinology. 111:1286-1291.
15. Bucher TL, Ryan MJ, Bartholomew GW. 1982. Oxygen consumption during resting, calling and nest building in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Physiol Zool. 55:10-22.
16. Cheng M. 2008. The role of vocal self-stimulation in female responses to males: implications for state-reading. Horm Behav. 53:1-10. (Pubitemid 350309364)
17. Clutton-Brock T. 2007. Sexual selection in males and females. Science. 318:1882-1885.
18. Cox CR, Le Boeuf BJ. 1977. Female incitation of male competition: a mechanism in sexual selection. Am Nat. 111:317-335.
19. Crews D. 1998. The evolutionary antecedents to love. Psychoneuroen- docrinology. 23:751-764. (Pubitemid 29049292)
20. Crews D. 2002. Diversity and evolution of hormone-behavior relations in reproductive behavior. In: Becker JB, Breedlove SM, Crews D, McCarthy CL, editors. Behavioral endocrinology. Cambridge (MA): Bradford Books, MIT Press. p. 223-287.
21. Cummings ME, Bernal XE, Reynaga R, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2008. Visual sensitivity to a conspicuous male cue varies by reproductive state in Physalaemus pustulosus females. J Exp Biol. 211:1203-1210. (Pubitemid 351747327)
22. Darwin C. 1871. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: Murray.
23. Dill LM, Hedrick AV, Fraser A. 1999. Male mating strategies under predation risk: do females call the shots? Behav Ecol. 10:452-461. (Pubitemid 29456153)
24. Endler JA. 1978. A predator's view of animal color patterns. Evol Biol. 11:319-364.
25. Evans JP, Kelley JL, Ramnarine IW, Pilastro A. 2002. Female behavior mediates male courtship under predation risk in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 52:496-502. (Pubitemid 36087212)
26. Gautier P, Barroca M, Bertrand S, Eraud C, Gaillard M, Hamman M, Motreuil S, Sorci G, Faivre B. 2008. The presence of females mod¬ulates the expression of a carotenoid-based sexual signal. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 62:1159-1166.
27. Goutte S, Kime NM, Argo TF, Ryan MJ. 2010. Calling strategies of male túngara frogs in response to dynamic playback. Behaviour. 147:65-83.
28. Gowaty PA. 1997. Sexual dialectics, sexual selection, and variation in reproductive behavior. In: Gowaty PA, editor. Feminism and evolu¬tionary biology: boundaries, intersections, and frontiers. New York: Chapman & Hall. p. 351-384.
29. Gridi-Papp M, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2006. Animal communication: com¬plex call production in the tungara frog. Nature. 441:38.
30. Holland B, Rice WR. 1988. Perspective: chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution. 52:1-7.
31. How MJ, Hemmi JM, Zeil J, Peters R. 2008. Claw waving display changes with receiver distance in fiddler crabs, Uca perplexa. Anim Behav. 75:1015-1022. (Pubitemid 351273157)
32. Jackson RR, Walker MW, Pollard SD, Cross FR. 2006. Influence of seeing a female on the male-male interactions of a jumping spider, Hypoblemum albovittatum. J Ethol. 24:231-238. (Pubitemid 44060438)
33. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ. 1991. The paradox of the lek and the evolu¬tion of mating preferences. Nature. 350:33-38. (Pubitemid 21926110)
34. Kluge AG. 1981. The life history, social organization, and parental behavior of Hyla rosenbergi Boulenger, a nest-building Gladiator Frog. Misc Pubs Mus Zool Univ Mich. 160:1-170.
35. Lehrman DS. 1965. Interaction between internal and external environ¬ments in the regulation of the reproductive cycle of the ring dove. In: Beach FA, editor. Sex and behavior. New York: Wiley. p. 344-380.
36. Lindström J, Pike TW, Blount JD, Metcalfe NB. 2009. Optimization of resource allocation can explain the temporal dynamics and honesty of sexual signals. Am Nat. 174:515-525.
37. Magnhagen C. 1991. Predation risk as a cost of reproduction. Trends Ecol Evol. 6:183-186. (Pubitemid 121002634)
38. Maynard Smith J. 1982. Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39. Otter KA, Ratcliffe L. 2005. Enlightened decisions: female assessment and communication networks. In: McGregor PK, editor. Animal communication networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 133-151.
40. Ovaska K, Rand AS. 2001. Courtship and reproductive behavior of the frog Eleutherodactylus diastema (Anura: Leptodactylidae) in Gamboa, Panama. J Herpetol. 35:44-50. (Pubitemid 32417886)
41. Owen PC, Tucker JK. 2006. Courtship calls and behavior in two species of chorus frogs, genus Pseudacris (Anura: Hylidae). Copeia. 2006: 137-144. (Pubitemid 43385896)
42. Patricelli GL, Krakauer AH. 2010. Tactical allocation of effort among multiple signals in sage grouse: an experiment with a robotic fe¬male. Behav Ecol. 21:97-106.
43. Patricelli GL, Uy JAC, Borgia G. 2004. Female signals enhance the efficiency of mate assessment in satin bowerbirds (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus). Behav Ecol. 15:297-304. (Pubitemid 38492733)
44. Payne RJH, Pagel M. 1996. When is false modesty a false economy? An optimality model of escalating signals. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 263: 1545-1550. (Pubitemid 26400224)
45. Phelps SM, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2007. The mixed-species chorus as public information: túngara frogs eavesdrop on a heterospecific. Behav Ecol. 18:108-114. (Pubitemid 46026319)
46. Pocklington R, Dill LM. 1995. Predation on females or males: who pays for bright male traits? Anim Behav. 49:1122-1124.
47. Rohwer S. 1975. The social significance of avian winter plumage var¬iability. Evolution. 29:593-610.
48. Ryan MJ. 1985. The túngara frog, a study in sexual selection and communication. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.
49. Ryan MJ, Rand AS. 1981. The adaptive significance of a complex vocal repertoire in a neotropical frog. Z Tierpsychol. 57:209-214.
50. Ryan MJ, Rand AS. 2003. Sexual selection in female perceptual space: how female túngara frogs perceive and respond to complex popu¬lation variation in acoustic mating signals. Evolution. 57:2608-2618. (Pubitemid 37502562)
51. Ryan MJ, Tuttle MD, Rand AS. 1982. Bat predation and sexual adver¬tisement in a neotropical anuran. Am Nat. 119:136-139.
52. Tobias ML, Viswanathan SS, Kelley DB. 1998. Rapping, a female re¬ceptive call, initiates male-female duets in the South African clawed frog. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 95:1870-1875. (Pubitemid 28103486)
53. Trivers RL. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell BG, editor. Sexual selection and the descent of man, the Darwinian pivot. New Brunswick (NJ): Transaction Publishers. p. 136-179.
54. Watkins GG. 1997. Inter-sexual signalling and the functions of female coloration in the tropidurid lizard Microlophus occipitalis. Anim Be-hav. 53:843-852.
55. West MJ, King AP. 1988. Female visual displays affect the development of male song in the cowbird. Nature. 334:244-246.
56. Wilczynski W, Lynch KS, O'Bryant EL. 2005. Current research in am¬phibians: studies integrating endocrinology, behavior, and neurobi-ology. Horm Behav. 48:440-450. (Pubitemid 41457359)
57. Wingfield JC. 2006. Communicative behaviors, hormone-behavior in¬teractions, and reproduction in vertebrates. In: Neill JD, editor. Knobil and Neill's physiology of reproduction. Elsevier Academic Press. p. 1995-2040.
58. Wong BBM, Candolin U. 2005. How is female mate choice affected by male competition? Biol Rev. 80:559-571. (Pubitemid 43381260)
59. Wong BBM, Svensson PA. 2009. Strategic male signalling effort in a desert-dwelling fish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 63:543-549.
60. Zahavi A. 1975. Mate selection\a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol. 53:205-214.
61. Zahavi A, Zahavi A. 1997. The handicap principle, a missing piece of Darwin's puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
62. Zuk M, Kolluru GR. 1998. Exploitation of sexual signals by predators and parasitoids. Q Rev Biol. 73:415-438. (Pubitemid 128652457)