Strong responsiveness to noise interference in an anuran from the southern temperate forest

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

Volumn 68, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 85-97

  Penna, Mario ^a   Zúñiga, Daniel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHILE   (Chile)

Author keywords

Abiotic noise; Acoustic interference; Anurans; Sound communication

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC DATA; CALLING BEHAVIOR; CONSPECIFIC; FROG; NOISE; SOUND PROPAGATION; TEMPERATE FOREST;

AMPHIBIA; ANIMALIA; ANURA; BATRACHYLA ANTARTANDICA; BATRACHYLA TAENIATA;

EID: 84891560459     PISSN: 03405443     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-013-1625-3     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Amézquita A, Castellanos L, Hödl W (2005) Auditory matching of male Epipedopbates femoralis (Anura: Dendrobatidae) under field conditions. Anim Behav 70: 1377-1386.
2. Amézquita A, Flechas SV, Lima AP, Gasser H, Hödl W (2011) Acoustic interference and recognition space within a complex assemblage of dendrobatid frogs. P Natl Acad Sci USA 108: 17058-17063.
3. Barber JR, Crooks KR, Fristrup KM (2009) The costs of noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends Ecol Evol 25: 180-189.
4. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (1998) Principles of animal communication. Sinauer, Sunderland.
5. Brumm H (2004) The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird. J Anim Ecol 73: 434-440.
6. 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.
7. Brumm H, Slabbekoorn H (2005) Acoustic communication in noise. Adv Stud Behav 35: 151-209.
8. Cisternas J, Toloza J, Penna M (2009) Cambios inducidos por ruidos en respuestas vocales evocadas de Batrachyla leptopus (Anura: Ceratophryidae). XVI Reunión de la Sociedad de Ecología de Chile. Valdivia, Chile.
9. Cunnington GM, Fahrig L (2010) Plasticity in the vocalizations of anurans in response to traffic noise. Acta Oecol 36: 463-470.
10. Feng AS, Narins PM, Xu CH, Lin WY, Yu ZL, Qiu Q, Xu ZM, Shen JX (2006) Ultrasonic communication in frogs. Nature 440: 333-336.
11. Francis CD, Ortega CP, Cruz A (2009) Noise pollution changes avian communities and species interactions. Curr Biol 19: 1415-1419.
12. Greenfield MD (1988) Interspecific acoustic interactions among katydids Neoconocephalus: inhibition-induced shifts in diel periodicity. Anim Behav 36: 684-695.
13. Kaiser K, Hammers JL (2009) The effect of anthropogenic noise on male advertisement call rate in the Neotropical treefrog, Dendrosophus triangulum. Behaviour 146: 1053-1069.
14. Kaiser K, Scofield DG, Alloush M, Jones RM, Marczak S, Martineau K, Oliva MA, Narins PM (2011) When sounds collide: the effect of anthropogenic noise on a breeding assemblage of frogs in Belize, Central America. Behaviour 148: 215-232.
15. Lengagne T (2008) Traffic noise affects communication behaviour in a breeding anuran, Hyla arborea. Biol Conserv 141: 2023-2031.
16. Love EK, Bee MA (2010) An experimental test of noise-dependent voice amplitude regulation in Cope's grey treefrog, Hyla chrysoscelis. Anim Behav 80: 509-515.
17. Narins PM, Zelick RD (1988) The effects of noise on auditory processing and behavior in amphibians. In: Fritzsch B, Wilczynski W, Ryan MJ, Hetherington TE, Walkowiak W (eds) The evolution of the amphibian auditory system. Wiley, New York, pp 511-536.
18. Owings DH, Morton ER (1998) Animal vocal communication: a new approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
19. Parris KM, Velik-Lord M, North JMA (2009) Frogs call at higher pitch in traffic noise. Ecol Soc 14: 25.
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, Veloso A (1990) Vocal diversity in frogs of the South American temperate forest. J Herpetol 24: 23-33.
22. 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.
23. 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.
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, Meier A (2011) Interferences on vocal behaviour of a frog from the southern temperate forest, Batrachyla antartandica. Ethology 117: 1147-1157.
26. Pytte CL, Rusch KM, Ficken MS (2003) Regulation of vocal amplitude by the blue-throated hummingbird, Lampornis clemenciae. Anim Behav 66: 703-710.
27. Rojas B, Amézquita A, Delgadillo A (2006) Matching and symmetry in the frequency recognition curve of the poison frog Epipedobates trivittatus. Ethology 112: 564-571.
28. Römer H, Bailey W, Dadour I (1989) Insect hearing in the field. III. Masking by noise. J Comp Physiol A 164: 609-620.
29. Siegel S, Castellan NJ Jr (1988) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York.
30. Slabbekoorn H, Peet M (2003) Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise. Nature 424: 267.
31. Solís R, Penna M (1997) Testosterone levels and evoked vocal responses in a natural population of the frog Batrachyla taeniata. Horm Behav 31: 101-109.
32. Sun JWC, Narins PM (2005) Anthropogenic sounds differentially affect amphibian call rate. Biol Conserv 121: 419-427.
33. Swanson EM, Tekmen SM, Bee MA (2007) Do female anurans exploit inadvertent social information to locate breeding aggregations? Can J Zool 85: 921-932.
34. Zelick RD, Narins PM (1983) Intensity discrimination and the precision of call timing in two species of Neotropical treefrogs. J Comp Physiol A 153: 403-412.