The female perspective of mating in A. femoralis, a territorial frog with paternal care - a spatial and genetic analysis

PLoS ONE

Volumn 7, Issue 6, 2012, Pages

  Ringler, Eva ^a   Ringler, Max ^a   Jehle, Robert ^b   Hödl, Walter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALLOBATES FEMORALIS; ANIMAL TISSUE; ANURA; ARTICLE; DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE; EMBRYO; FEMALE; GENETIC DISTANCE; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION; HETEROZYGOTE; MALE; MATE CHOICE; MATING; NONHUMAN; PATERNAL BEHAVIOR; PATERNAL CARE; POLYANDRY; PROGENY; REPRODUCTION; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

ALLELES; ANIMALS; ANURA; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EMBRYO, NONMAMMALIAN; FEMALE; FRENCH GUIANA; HETEROZYGOTE; MALE; REPRODUCTION; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; TERRITORIALITY;

ANURA; EPIPEDOBATES FEMORALIS; LEPTODACTYLIDAE;

EID: 84863084804     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040237     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Colegrave N, Kotiaho JS, Tomkins JL, (2002) Mate choice or polyandry: reconciling genetic compatibility and good genes sexual selection. Evol Ecol Res 2002: 911-917.
2. Neff BD, Pitcher TE, (2005) Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Mol Ecol 14:: 19-38. Available:doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02395.x.
3. Tregenza T, Wedell N, (2002) Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature 415:: 71-73. Available:doi:10.1038/415071a.
4. Pusey A, Wolf M, (1996) Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Ecol Evol 11:: 201-206. Available:doi:10.1016/0169-5347(96)10028-8.
5. Rioux-Paquette E, Festa-Bianchet M, Coltman DW, (2010) No inbreeding avoidance in an isolated population of bighorn sheep. Anim Behav 80:: 865-871. Available:doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.08.006.
6. Keller LF, Waller DM, (2002) Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends Ecol Evol 17:: 230-241. Available:doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02489-8.
7. Crnokrak P, Barrett SCH, (2002) Perspective: purging the genetic load: a review of the experimental evidence. Evolution 56:: 2347-2358. Available:doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb00160.x.
8. Tregenza T, Wedell N, (2000) Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol Ecol 9:: 1013-1027. Available:doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.00964.x.
9. Milinski M, (2003) The function of mate choice in sticklebacks: optimizing Mhc genetics. J Fish Biol 63:: 1-16. Available:doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2003.00215.x.
10. Neff BD, (2004) Stabilizing selection on genomic divergence in a wild fish population. PNAS 101:: 2381-2385. Available:doi:10.1073/pnas.0307522100.
11. Richard M, Losdat S, Lecomte J, de Fraipont M, Clobert J, (2009) Optimal level of inbreeding in the common lizard. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:: 2779-2786. Available:doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0319.
12. Arct A, Rutkowska J, Martyka R, Drobniak SM, Cichoń M, (2010) Kin recognition and adjustment of reproductive effort in zebra finches. Biol Lett 6:: 762-764. Available:doi:10.1098/rsbl.2010.0417.
13. Thünken T, Bakker TCM, Baldauf SA, Kullmann H, (2007) Active inbreeding in a cichlid fish and its adaptive significance. Curr Biol 17:: 225-229. Available:doi:10.1016/j.cub.2006.11.053.
14. Emlen ST, Oring LW, (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:: 215-223. Available:doi:10.1126/science.327542.
15. Bonachea LA, Ryan MJ, (2011) Localization error and search costs during mate choice in túngara frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus. Ethology 117:: 56-62. Available:doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01843.x.
16. Frère CH, Krützen M, Kopps AM, Ward P, Mann J, et al. (2010) Inbreeding tolerance and fitness costs in wild bottlenose dolphins. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:: 2667-2673. Available:doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0039.
17. Bleu J, Bessa-Gomes C, Laloi D, (2012) Evolution of female choosiness and mating frequency: effects of mating cost, density and sex ratio. Anim Behav 83:: 131-136. Available:doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.10.017.
18. Simmons LW, (2005) The evolution of polyandry: sperm competition, sperm selection, and offspring viability. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:: 125-146. Available:doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.102403.112501.
19. Jennions MD, Petrie M, (2000) Why do females mate multiply? a review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:: 21-64. Available:doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1999.tb00040.x.
20. Byrne PG, Roberts JD, (2012) Evolutionary causes and consequences of sequential polyandry in anuran amphibians. Biol Rev 87:: 209-228. Available:doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00191.x.
21. Evans JP, Magurran AE, (2000) Multiple benefits of multiple mating in guppies. PNAS 97:: 10074-10076. Available:doi:10.1073/pnas.180207297.
22. Clutton-Brock T, McAuliffe K, (2009) Female mate choice in mammals. Q Rev Biol 84:: 3-27. Available:doi:10.1086/596461.
23. Kempenaers B, (2007) Mate choice and genetic quality: a review of the heterozygosity theory. Adv Stud Behav 37:: 189-278. Available:doi:10.1016/S0065-3454(07)37005-8.
24. Mays H, Albrecht T, Liu M, Hill G, (2008) Female choice for genetic complementarity in birds: a review. Genetica 134:: 147-158. Available:doi:10.1007/s10709-007-9219-5.
25. Summers K, Amos W, (1997) Behavioral, ecological, and molecular genetic analyses of reproductive strategies in the Amazonian dart-poison frog, Dendrobates ventrimaculatus. Behav Ecol 8: 260-267.
26. Brown JL, Morales V, Summers K, (2010) A key ecological trait drove the evolution of biparental care and monogamy in an amphibian. Am Nat 175:: 436-446. Available:doi:10.1086/650727.
27. Amézquita A, Lima AP, Jehle R, Castellanos L, Ramos Ó, et al. (2009) Calls, colours, shape, and genes: a multi-trait approach to the study of geographic variation in the Amazonian frog Allobates femoralis. Biol J Linn Soc 98:: 826-838. Available:doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2009.01324.x.
28. Ringler M, Ringler E, Magaña Mendoza D, Hödl W, (2011) Intrusion Experiments to Measure Territory Size: Development of the Method, Tests Through Simulations, and Application in the Frog Allobates femoralis. PLoS ONE 6: e25844 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025844.
29. Ringler M, Ursprung E, Hödl W, (2009) Site fidelity and patterns of short- and long-term movement in the brilliant-thighed poison frog Allobates femoralis (Aromobatidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:: 1281-1293. Available:doi:10.1007/s00265-009-0793-7.
30. Ursprung E, Ringler M, Jehle R, Hödl W, (2011) Strong male/male competition allows for nonchoosy females: high levels of polygynandry in a territorial frog with paternal care. Mol Ecol 20:: 1759-1771. Available:doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05056.x.
31. Hödl W, Amézquita A, Narins PM, (2004) The role of call frequency and the auditory papillae in phonotactic behavior in male dart-poison frogs Epipedobates femoralis (Dendrobatidae). J Comp Physiol A 190:: 823-829. Available:doi:10.1007/s00359-004-0536-1.
32. Narins PM, Hödl W, Grabul DS, (2003) Bimodal signal requisite for agonistic behavior in a dart-poison frog, Epipedobates femoralis. PNAS 100:: 577-580. Available:doi:10.1073/pnas.0237165100.
33. Roithmair ME, (1994) Field studies on reproductive behaviour in two dart-poison frog species (Epipedobates femoralis, Epipedobates trivittatus) in Amazonian Peru. Herpetol J 4: 77-85.
34. Montanarin A, Kaefer IL, Lima AP, (2011) Courtship and mating behaviour of the brilliant-thighed frog Allobates femoralis from Central Amazonia: implications for the study of a species complex. Ethol Ecol Evol 23:: 141-150. Available:doi:10.1080/03949370.2011.554884.
35. Weygold P, (1980) Zur Fortpflanzungsbiologie von Phyllobates femoralis (Boulenger) im Terrarium. Salamandra 16: 215-226.
36. ASAB (2006) Guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and teaching. Anim Behav 71:: 245-253. Available:doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.10.001.
37. Born MG, Gaucher P, (2001) Distribution and life histories of amphibians and reptiles. In: Bongers F, Charles-Dominique P, Forget P, Théry M, editors. pp. 167-184 editors. Nouragues. Dynamics and plant-animal interactions in a neotropical rainforest. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
38. Gottsberger B, Gruber E, (2004) Temporal partitioning of reproductive activity in a neotropical anuran community. J Trop Ecol 20:: 271-280. Available:doi:10.1017/S0266467403001172.
39. Ursprung E, Ringler M, Jehle R, Hödl W, (2011) Toe regeneration in the neotropical frog Allobates femoralis. Herpetol J 21: 83-86.
40. Wang J, (2009) A new method for estimating effective population sizes from a single sample of multilocus genotypes. Mol Ecol 18:: 2148-2164. Available:doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04175.x.
41. Queller DC, Goodnight KF, (1989) Estimating relatedness using genetic markers. Evolution 43: 258-275.
42. Konovalov DA, Manning C, Henshaw MT, (2004) kingroup: a program for pedigree relationship reconstruction and kin group assignments using genetic markers. Mol Ecol Notes 4:: 779--782. Available:doi:10.1111/j.1471-8286.2004.00796.x.
43. Blouin MS, (2003) DNA-based methods for pedigree reconstruction and kinship analysis in natural populations. Trends Ecol Evol 18:: 503-511. Available:doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00225-8.
44. Konovalov DA, Heg D, (2008) A maximum-likelihood relatedness estimator allowing for negative relatedness values. Mol Ecol Resour 8:: 256-263. Available:doi:10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01940.x.
45. Blouin MS, Parsons M, Lacaille V, Lotz S, (1996) Use of microsatellite loci to classify individuals by relatedness. Mol Ecol 5:: 393--401. Available:doi:10.1046/j.1365-294X.1996.00094.x.
46. Voronoi G, (1907) Nouvelles applications des paramètres continus à la théorie des formes quadratiques. J Reine Angew Math 133: 97-178.
47. Data East, (2003) XTools Pro for ArcGIS Desktop. 4.2.0 (Build 383): Data East, LLC. Available:http://www.xtoolspro.com/. Accessed 20 March 2012.
48. Mantel N, (1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res 27: 209-220.
49. Anderson MJ, Legendre P, (1999) An empirical comparison of permutation methods for tests of partial regression coefficients in a linear model. J Stat Comput Sim 62:: 271-303. Available:doi:10.1080/00949659908811936.
50. Wagner AP, Creel S, Frank LG, Kalinowski ST, (2007) Patterns of relatedness and parentage in an asocial, polyandrous striped hyena population. Mol Ecol 16:: 4356-4369. Available:doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03470.x.
51. Bonnet E, Van de Peer Y, (2002) zt: a sofware tool for simple and partial mantel tests. J Stat Softw 7: 1-12.
52. R Development Core Team (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna Austria R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available:http://www.r-project.org. Accessed 20 March 2012.
53. Hettyey A, Hegyi G, Puurtinen M, Hoi H, Török J, et al. (2010) Mate choice for genetic benefits: time to put the pieces together. Ethology 116:: 1-9. Available:doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2009.01704.x.
54. Halverson MA, Skelly DK, Caccone A, (2006) Inbreeding linked to amphibian survival in the wild but not in the laboratory. J Hered 97:: 499-507. Available:doi:10.1093/jhered/esl019.
55. Cornell TJ, Berven KA, Gamboa GJ, (1989) Kin recognition by tadpoles and froglets of the wood frog Rana sylvatica. Oecologia 78:: 312-316. Available:doi:10.1007/BF00379103.
56. Blaustein AR, Waldman B, (1992) Kin recognition in anuran amphibians. Anim Behav 44: 207-221.
57. Waldman B, Rice JE, Honeycutt RL, (1992) Kin recognition and incest avoidance in toads. Am Zool 32:: 18-30. Available:doi:10.1093/icb/32.1.18.
58. Ficetola GF, Garner TWJ, Wang J, de Bernardi F, (2011) Rapid selection against inbreeding in a wild population of a rare frog. Evol Appl 4:: 30-38. Available:doi:10.1111/j.1752-4571.2010.00130.x.
59. Vonesh J, de La Cruz O, (2002) Complex life cycles and density dependence: assessing the contribution of egg mortality to amphibian declines. Oecologia 133:: 325-333. Available:doi:10.1007/s00442-002-1039-9.
60. Roberts SC, Gosling LM, (2003) Genetic similarity and quality interact in mate choice decisions by female mice. Nat Genet 35:: 103-106. Available:doi:10.1038/ng1231.
61. Pärt T, (1996) Problems with testing inbreeding avoidance: the case of the collared flycatcher. Evolution 50: 1625-1630.
62. Jamieson IG, Taylor SS, Tracy LN, Kokko H, Armstrong DP, (2009) Why some species of birds do not avoid inbreeding: insights from New Zealand robins and saddlebacks. Behav Ecol 20:: 575-584. Available:doi:10.1093/beheco/arp034.
63. Kokko H, Ekman J, (2002) Delayed dispersal as a route to breeding: territorial inheritance, safe havens, and ecological constraints. Am Nat 160: 468-484.
64. Kokko H, Ots I, (2006) When not to avoid inbreeding. Evolution 60:: 467-475. Available:doi:10.1554/05-613.1.
65. Toft CA, (1980) Feeding ecology of thirteen syntopic species of anurans in a seasonal tropical environment. Oecologia 45: 131-141.
66. Byrne PG, Keogh JS, (2009) Extreme sequential polyandry insures against nest failure in a frog. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:: 115-120. Available:doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.0794.
67. Lampert KP, Bernal XE, Rand AS, Mueller U, Ryan MJ, (2006) No evidence for female mate choice based on genetic similarity in the túngara frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:: 796-804. Available:doi:10.1007/s00265-005-0125-5.
68. Pröhl H, (2005) Territorial Behavior in Dendrobatid Frogs. J Herpetol 39: 354-365.
69. Halliday TH, Verrell PA, (1988) Body Size and Age in Amphibians and Reptiles. J Herpetol 22: 253-265.
70. Lötters S, Jungfer K, Henkel FW, Schmidt W, (2007) Poison frogs. Biology, species & captive husbandry. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Edition Chimaira. 668 p.