Costly help of audiovisual bimodality for female mate choice in a nocturnal anuran (Hyla arborea)

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 889-898

  Gomez, Doris ^a,b   Théry, Marc ^a   Gauthier, Anne Laure ^a   Lengagne, Thierry ^c  

^a MUSÉUM NATIONAL D'HISTOIRE NATURELLE   (France)

^b CENTRE D ECOLOGIE FONCTIONNELLE ET EVOLUTIVE   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ LYON 1   (France)

Author keywords

call; coloration; latency to choose; mate choice; modulation; speed accuracy; trade off

Indexed keywords

CALLING BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; FROG; MATE CHOICE; NOISE; TRADE-OFF;

ANURA; HYLA ARBOREA;

EID: 79959384838     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arr039     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Alais D, Newell FN, Mamassian P. 2010. Multisensory processing in review: from physiology to behaviour. Seeing Perceiving. 23:3-38.
2. Backwell PRY, Passmore NI. 1996. Time constraints and multiple choice criteria in the sampling behaviour and mate choice of the fiddler crab, Uca annulipes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 38:407-416. (Pubitemid 26267235)
3. Bateson M, Healy SD. 2005. Comparative evaluation and its implica¬tions for mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol. 20:659-664. (Pubitemid 41661328)
4. Beckers OM, Wagner WE Jr. 2011. Mate sampling strategy in a field cricket: evidence for a fixed threshold strategy with last chance option. Anim Behav. 81:519-527.
5. Bee MA. 2007. Selective phonotaxis by male wood frogs (Rana sylva-tica) to the sound of a chorus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 61:955-966. (Pubitemid 46376516)
6. Bee MA, Micheyl C. 2008. The cocktail party problem: what is it? How can it be solved? And why should animal behaviorists study it? J Comp Psychol. 122:235-251.
7. Bee MA, Swanson EM. 2007. Auditory masking of anuran advertise¬ment calls by road traffic noise. Anim Behav. 74:1765-1776. (Pubitemid 350216809)
8. Bendich A. 1989. Carotenoids and the immune response. J Nutr. 119:112-115. (Pubitemid 19059543)
9. Blas J, Perez-Rodriguez L, Bortolotti GR, Vinuela J, Marchant TA. 2006. Testosterone increases bioavailability of carotenoids: insights into the honesty of sexual signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 103: 18633-18637. (Pubitemid 44913462)
10. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White J-SS. 2009. Generalized linear mixed models: a prac¬tical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol. 24: 127-135.
11. Booksmythe I, Detto T, Backwell PRY. 2008. Female fiddler crabs settle for less: the travel costs of mate choice. Anim Behav. 76: 1775-1781.
12. Bosch J, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2000. Signal variation and call preferences for whine frequency in the tungara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 49:62-66. (Pubitemid 32122608)
13. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL. 1998. Principles of animal communi¬cation. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates, Inc.
14. Buchanan BW. 1993. Effects of enhanced lighting on the behavior of nocturnal frogs. Anim Behav. 45:893-899.
15. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. 1998. Model selection and inference. A practical information theoretic approach. New York: Springer-Verlag.
16. Burton GH. 1989. Antioxidant action of carotenoids. J Nutr. 119: 109-111.
17. Candolin U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev. 78:575-595. (Pubitemid 41200912)
18. Chittka L, Skorupski P, Raine NE. 2009. Speed-accuracy tradeoffs in animal decision making. Trends Ecol Evol. 24:400-407.
19. Endler JA. 1993. Some general comments on the evolution and design of animal communication systems. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 340:215-225.
20. Endler JA. 1995. Multiple-trait coevolution and environmental gra¬dients in guppies. Trends Ecol Evol. 10:22-29.
21. Faivre B, Grégoire A, Préault M, Cézilly F, Sorci G. 2003. Immune activation rapidly mirrored in a secondary sexual trait. Science. 300:103. (Pubitemid 36423036)
22. Fleishman LJ, McClintock WJ, D'Eath RB, Brainard DH, Endler JA. 1998. Colour perception and the use of video playback experiments in animal behaviour. Anim Behav. 56:1035-1040. (Pubitemid 28494549)
23. Forsman A, Hagman M. 2006. Calling is an honest indicator of pater¬nal genetic quality in poison frogs. Evolution. 60:2148-2157. (Pubitemid 44808224)
24. Friedl TWP, Klump GM. 1997. Some aspects of population biology in the European treefrog, Hyla arborea. Herpetologica. 53:321-330. (Pubitemid 28102051)
25. Gerhardt HC. 1994. The evolution of vocalization in frogs and toads. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 25:293-324. (Pubitemid 24986121)
26. Gomez D. 2010. AVICOL v5. A program to analyse spectrometric data. Free program available from the author upon request at dodogomez @yahoo.fr/or by download from http://sites.google.com/site/avicolprogram/.
27. Gomez D, Richardson C, Lengagne T, Derex M, Plenet S, Joly P, Léna J-P, Théry M. 2010. Support for a role of colour vision in mate choice in the nocturnal European treefrog (Hyla arborea). Behav¬iour. 147:1753-1768.
28. Gomez D, Richardson C, Lengagne T, Plenet S, Joly P, Léna J-P, Théry M. 2009. The role of nocturnal vision in mate choice: females prefer conspicuous males in the European treefrog (Hyla arborea). Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 276:2351-2358.
29. Gomez D, Richardson C, Théry M, Lengagne T, Léna J-P, Plénet S, Joly P. Forthcoming. Multimodal signals in male European tree-frog (Hyla arborea), and the influence of population isolation on signal expression. Biol J Linn Soc.
30. Grafe TU, Thein J. 2001. Energetics of calling and metabolic substrate use during prolonged exercise in the European treefrog Hyla arbor-ea. J Comp Physiol B. 171:69-76. (Pubitemid 32161024)
31. Guilford T, Dawkins MS. 1987. Search images not proven: a reappraisal of recent evidence. Anim Behav. 35:1838-1845.
32. Hebets EA, Papaj DR. 2005. Complex signal function: developing a framework of testable hypotheses. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 57: 197-214. (Pubitemid 40167465)
33. Holveck MJ, Riebel K. 2010. Low-quality females prefer low-quality males when choosing a mate. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 277: 153-160.
34. Jaeger RG, Hailman JP. 1973. Effects of intensity on the phototactic responses of adult anuran amphibians: a comparative survey. Z Tierpsychol. 33:352-407.
35. Janetos AC. 1980. Strategies of female mate choice: a theoretical anal¬ysis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 7:107-112.
36. King RB, Douglass JK, Phillips JB, Baube CL. 1993. Scotopic spectral sensitivity of the optomotor response in the green treefrog Hyla cinerea. J Exp Zool. 267:40-46.
37. Lengagne T, Aubin T, Lauga J, Jouventin P. 1999. How do king pen¬guins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) apply the mathematical theory of in¬formation to communicate in windy conditions? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 266:1623-1628.
38. Lima SL. 1998. Stress and decision making under the risk of preda-tion: recent developments from behavioral, reproductive, and eco¬logical perspectives. Adv Study Behav. 27:215-290. (Pubitemid 128082428)
39. Lovy D. 1996. WinDig 2.5. Freeware available from the author at dominique.lovy@chiphy.unige.ch/or by download from http://www.unige.ch/sciences/ chifi/epb/winding.html (verified May 2004). 2.5 ed. Switzerland: Department of Physical Chemistry, University of Geneva.
40. Maynard-Smith J, Harper D. 2003. Animal signals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41. McGregor PK. 1992. Playback and studies of animal communication-New York: Plenum Press, NATO ASI (Advanced Science Institutes) Series. Series A Life Sciences. Vol. 228:i-x. p. 1-231.
42. Partan S. 2004. Multisensory animal communication. In: Calvert E, Spence C, Stein BE, editors. The handbook of multisensory pro¬cesses. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. p. 225-240.
43. Partan SR, Marler P. 2005. Issues in the classification of multimodal communication signals. Am Nat. 166:231-245. (Pubitemid 41076647)
44. Phelps SM, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2006. A cognitive framework for mate choice and species recognition. Am Nat. 167:28-42. (Pubitemid 43039424)
45. R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statis¬tical Computing. Available at http://www.R-project.org.
46. Réale D, Garant D, Humphries MM, Bergeron P, Careau V, Montiglio PO. 2010. Personality and the emergence of the pace-of-life syn¬drome concept at the population level. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 365:4051-4063.
47. Richardson C, Gomez D, Durieux R, Théry M, Joly P, Léna J-P, Plenet S, Lengagne T. 2010. Hearing is not necessarily believing in noctur¬nal anurans. Biol Lett. 6:633-635.
48. Richardson C, Joly P, Léna J-P, Plénet S, Lengagne T. 2010. The challenge of finding a high-quality male: a treefrog solution based on female assessment of male calls. Behaviour. 147:1737-1752.
49. Richardson C, Léna J-P, Joly P, Lengagne T. 2008. Are leaders good mates? A study of call timing and male quality. Anim Behav. 76: 1487-1495.
50. Richardson C, Lengagne T. 2010. Multiple signals and male spacing affect female preference at cocktail parties in treefrogs. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 277:1247-1252.
51. Richardson C, Popovici J, Bellvert F, Lengagne T. 2009. Conspicuous colouration of the vocal sac of a nocturnal chorusing treefrog: carotenoid-based? Amphibia-Reptilia. 30:576-580.
52. Roberts JA, Taylor PW, Uetz GW. 2007. Consequences of complex signaling: predator detection of multimodal cues. Behav Ecol. 18: 236-240. (Pubitemid 46026336)
53. Rosenthal GG, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2004. The vocal sac as a visual cue in anuran communication: an experimental analysis using video playback. Anim Behav. 68:55-58. (Pubitemid 38865824)
54. Rowe C. 1999. Receiver psychology and the evolution of multicompo-nent signals. Anim Behav. 58:921-931.
55. Schuett W, Tregenza T, Dall SRX. 2010. Sexual selection and animal personality. Biol Rev. 85:217-246.
56. Schwartz JJ, Buchanan BW, Gerhardt HC. 2001. Female mate choice in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) in three experimental environ¬ments. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 49:443-455. (Pubitemid 32442544)
57. Schwartz JJ, Marshall VT. 2006. Forms of call overlap and their impact on advertisement call attractiveness to females of the gray treefrog, Hyla versicolor. Bioacoustics. 16:39-56. (Pubitemid 46127953)
58. Suied C, Viaud-Delmon I. 2009. Auditory-visual object recognition time suggests specific processing for animal sounds. Plos One. 4:9.
59. Taigen TL, Wells KD. 1985. Energetics of vocalization by an anuran amphibian (Hyla versicolor). J Comp Physiol B. 155:163-170.
60. Taylor RC, Buchanan BW, Doherty JL. 2007. Sexual selection in the squirrel treefrog Hyla squirella: the role of multimodal cue assess¬ment in female choice. Anim Behav. 74:1753-1763. (Pubitemid 350216804)
61. Ulrich R, Miller J, Schroter H. 2007. Testing the race model inequality: an algorithm and computer programs. Behav Res Methods. 39: 291-302.
62. Vasquez T, Pfennig KS. 2007. Looking on the bright side: females prefer coloration indicative of male size and condition in the sex¬ually dichromatic spadefoot toad, Scaphiopus couchii. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 62:127-135. (Pubitemid 47568641)
63. Warrant E. 2004. Vision in the dimmest habitats on earth. J Comp Physiol A. 190:765-789. (Pubitemid 39520731)
64. Welch AM, Semlitsch RD, Gerhardt HC. 1998. Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science. 280: 1928-1930. (Pubitemid 28299398)
65. Wells KD, Taigen TL. 1989. Calling energetics of a Neotropical tree-frog, Hyla microcephala. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 25:13-22.
66. Zahavi A. 1975. Mate selection\a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol. 53:205-214.