Vocal Strategies in Confronting Interfering Sounds by a Frog from the Southern Temperate Forest, Batrachyla antartandica

Ethology

Volumn 117, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 1147-1157

  Penna, Mario ^a   Meier, Andrea ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHILE   (Chile)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOTIC FACTOR; FROG; NOISE; SYMPATRY; TEMPERATE FOREST; VOCALIZATION;

CHILE;

ANIMALIA; ANURA; BATRACHYLA ANTARTANDICA;

EID: 80055024334     PISSN: 01791613     EISSN: 14390310     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2011.01973.x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Barrio, A. 1967: Batrachyla antartandica n. sp. (Anura, Leptodactylidae). Descripción y estudio comparativo con la especie genotípica, B. leptopus. Bell. Physis 27, 153-157.
2. Bee, M. A. 2007: Selective phonotaxis by male wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) to the sound of a chorus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61, 955-966.
3. Bernal, X. E., Rand, A. S. & Ryan, M. J. 2007: Sex differences in response to nonconspecific advertisement calls: receiver permisiveness in male and female túngara frogs. Anim. Behav. 73, 955-964.
4. Brumm, H. 2004: The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird. J. Anim. Ecol. 73, 434-440.
5. Brumm, H. 2006: Signaling through acoustic windows: nightingales avoid interspecific competition by short-term adjustment of song timing. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 192, 1279-1285.
6. Cynx, J., Lewis, R., Tavel, B. & Tse, H. 1998: Amplitude regulation of vocalizations in noise by a songbird. Anim. Behav. 56, 107-113.
7. Endepols, H. & Walkowiak, W. 1999: Influence of descending forebrain projections on processing of acoustic signals and audiomotor integration in the anuran midbrain. Eur. J. Morphol. 37, 182-184.
8. Endepols, H. & Walkowiak, W. 2001: Integration of ascending and descending inputs in the auditory midbrain of anurans. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 186, 1119-1133.
9. Feng, A. S., Narins, P. M., Xu, C. H., Lin, W. Y., Yu, Z. L., Qiu, Q., Xu, Z. M. & Shen, J. X. 2006: Ultrasonic communication in frogs. Nature 440, 333-336.
10. García-Rutledge, E. J. & Narins, P. M. 2001: Shared acoustic resources in an old World frog community. Herpetologica 57, 104-116.
11. Greenfield, M. D. 1988: Interspecific acoustic interactions among katydids Neoconocephalus: inhibition-induced shifts in diel periodicity. Anim. Behav. 36, 684-695.
12. Kaiser, K. & Hammers, J. L. 2009: The effect of anthropogenic noise on male advertisement call rate in the neotropical treefrog, Dendrosophus triangulum. Behaviour 146, 1053-1069.
13. Kaiser, K., Scofield, D. G., Alloush, M., Jones, R. M., Marczak, S., Martineau, K., Oliva, M. A. & Narins, P. M. 2011: When souds collide: the effect of anthropogenic noise on a breeding assemblage of frogs in Belize, Central America. Behaviour 148, 215-232.
14. Lengagne, T. 2008: Traffic noise affects communication behaviour in a breeding anuran, Hyla arborea. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2023-2031.
15. Lengagne, T., Aubin, T., Lauga, J. & Jouventin, P. 1999: How do king penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) apply the mathematical theory of information to communicate in windy conditions? Proc. Roy. Soc. B 266, 1623-1628.
16. Littlejohn, M. J. & Martin, A. A. 1969: Acoustic interaction between two species of Leptodactylid frogs. Anim. Behav. 17, 785-791.
17. Love, E. K. & Bee, M. A. 2010: An experimental test of noise-dependent voice amplitude regulation in Cope's grey treefrog, Hyla chrysoscelis. Anim. Behav. 80, 509-515.
18. Marshall, V. T., Schwartz, J. J. & Gerhardt, H. C. 2006: Effects of heterospecific call overlap on the phonotactic behaviour of grey treefrogs. Anim. Behav. 72, 449-459.
19. Páez, V., Bock, B. C. & Rand, A. S. 1993: Inhibition of evoked calling of Dendrobates pumilio due to acoustic interference from cicada calling. Biotropica 25, 242-245.
20. Penna, M. 1997: Selectivity of evoked vocal responses in the time domain by frogs Batrachyla (Leptodactylidae). J. Herpetol. 31, 30-45.
21. Penna, M. 2005: Voices of Chilean Amphibians. Universidad de Chile, Santiago.
22. Penna, M. & Hamilton-West, C. 2007: Susceptibility of evoked vocal responses to noise exposure in a frog of the temperate austral forest. Anim. Behav. 74, 45-56.
23. Penna, M. & Solís, R. 1998: Frog call intensities and sound propagation in the South American in the South American temperate forest region. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 42, 371-381.
24. Penna, M. & Velásquez, N. 2011: Heterospecific vocal interactions in a frog from the southern temperate forest, Batrachyla taeniata. Ethology 117, 63-71.
25. Penna, M. & Veloso, A. 1990: Vocal diversity in frogs of the South American temperate forest. J. Herpetol. 24, 23-33.
26. Penna, M., Feng, A. S. & Narins, P. M. 1997: Temporal selectivity of evoked vocal responses of Batrachyla antartandica (Amphibia, Leptodactylidae). Anim. Behav. 54, 833-848.
27. Penna, M., Pottstock, H. & Velásquez, N. 2005: Effect of natural and synthetic noise on evoked vocal responses in a frog of the temperate austral forest. Anim. Behav. 70, 639-651.
28. Pfennig, K. S., Rapa, K. & McNatt, R. 2000: Evolution of male mating behavior: male spadefoot toads preferentially associate with conspecific males. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 48, 69-74.
29. Phelps, S. M., Rand, A. S. & Ryan, M. J. 2006: The mixed-species chorus as public information: túngara frogs eavesdrop on a heterospecific. Behav. Ecol. 18, 108-114.
30. Pytte, C. L., Rusch, K. M. & Ficken, M. S. 2003: Regulation of vocal amplitude by the blue-throated hummingbird, Lampornis clemenciae. Anim. Behav. 66, 703-710.
31. Schwartz, J. J. & Wells, K. D. 1984: Interspecific acoustic interactions of the neotropical treefrog Hyla ebraccata. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 14, 211-224.
32. Schwartz, J. J. & Wells, K. D. 1985: Intra- and Interspecific vocal behavior of the neotropical treefrog Hyla microcephala. Copeia 1985, 27-38.
33. Siegel, S. & Castellan, N. J.Jr. 1988: Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York.
34. Slabbekoorn, H. & Peet, M. 2003: Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise. Nature 424, 267.
35. Sun, J. W. C. & Narins, P. M. 2005: Anthropogenic sounds differentially affect amphibian call rate. Biol. Conserv. 121, 419-427.
36. Swanson, E. M., Tekmen, S. M. & Bee, M. A. 2007: Do female frogs exploit inadvertent social information to locate breeding aggregations? Can. J. Zool. 85, 921-932.
37. Walkowiak, W. & Luksch, H. 1994: Sensory motor interfacing in acoustic behavior of anurans. Am. Zool. 34, 685-695.
38. Wells, K. D. 2007: The Ecology and Behavior of Amphibians. The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
39. Wells, K. D. & Schwartz, J. J. 2007: The behavioral ecology of anuran communication. In: Hearing and Sound Communication in Amphibians (Narins, P. M., Feng, A. S., Fay, R. R. & Popper, A. N., Eds). Springer, New York, pp. 44-86.
40. Wilczynski, W. & Endepols, H. 2007: Central auditory pathways in anuran amphibians: the anatomical basis of hearing and sound communication. In: Hearing and Sound Communication in Amphibians (Narins, P. M., Feng, A. S., Fay, R. R. & Popper, A. N., Eds). Springer, New York, pp. 221-249.
41. Wong, S., Parada, H. & Narins, P. M. 2009: Heterospecific acoustic interference: effects on calling in the frog Oophaga pumilio in Nicaragua. Biotropica 41, 74-80.