No evidence for significant effect of body size and age on male mating success in the spot-legged treefrog

Asian Herpetological Research

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 41-45

  Yu, Jianping ^a   Chen, Cheng ^a   Jin, Long ^a   Zhao, Li ^a   Liao, Wenbo ^a  

^a CHINA WEST NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Age; Body size; Male mating success; Polypedates megacephalus; Size assortative

Indexed keywords

EID: 84962145174     PISSN: 20950357     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.16373/j.cnki.ahr.150064     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton
2. Arak A. 1983. Male-male competition and mate choice in anuran amphibians. In: Bateson P. (ed). Mate Choice. pp.181-210. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
3. Awata S., Takeuchi H., Kohda M. 2006. The effect of body size on mating system and parental roles in a biparental cichlid fish (Julidochromis transcriptus): A preliminary laboratory experiment. J Ethol, 24: 125-132
4. Bell M. B. V. 2010. Sex and age influence responses to changes in the cost of cooperative care in a social carnivore. Beha Ecol, 21: 1118-1123
5. Briggs V. S. 2008. Mating patterns of Red-Eyed Treefrogs, Agalychnis callidryas and A. moreletii. Ethol, 114: 489-498
6. Byrne P. G., Whiting M. J. 2008. Simultaneous polyandry increases fertilization success in an African foam-nesting treefrog. Anim Behav, 76: 1157-1164
7. Castanet J., Smirina E. M. 1990. Introduction to the skeletochronological method in amphibians and reptiles. Ann Des Sci Nat Com Zool, 11: 191-196
8. Chen W., Lu X. 2011. Sex recognition and mate choice in male Rana kukunoris. Herpetol J, 21: 141-144
9. Clutton-Brock T. H., Price O. F., MacColl A. D. C. 1992. Mate retention, harassment, and the evolution of ungulate leks. Behav Ecol, 3: 234-242
10. Cothran R. D. 2008. The mechanistic basis of a large male mating advantage in two freshwater amphipod species. Ethology, 114: 1145-1153
11. Darwin C. 1871. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. John Murray, London, UK.
12. Davies N. B., Halliday T. R. 1977. Optimal mate selection in the toad Bufo bufo. Nature, 269: 56-58
13. Emlen S. T., Oring L. W. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science, 197(4300): 215-223
14. Fei L., Ye C. Y. 2001. The Colour Handbook of the Amphibians of Sichuan. China Forestry Publishing House
15. Fukuyama K. 1991. Spawning behaviour and male mating tactics of a foam-nesting treefrog, Rhacophorus schlegelii (Rhacophoridae, Amphibia). Anim Behav, 42: 193-199
16. Gutiérrez G., Lüddecke H. 2002. Mating pattern and hatching success in a population of the Andean frog, Hyla labialis. Amphibia-Reptilia, 23: 281-292
17. Halliday T. 1983. The study of mate choice. In: P. Bateson (ed). Mate Choice. pp. 3-32. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
18. Howard R. D. 1978. The evolution of mating strategies in bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana. Evolution, 32: 850-871
19. Howard R. D. 1984. Alternative mating behaviours of young male bullfrogs. Am Zool 24: 397-406
20. Huang Y., Zhu H. Q., Liao Y. M., Jin L., Liao W. B. 2013. Age structure, size and growth of a high-altitude bell toad in subtropical montane in southwestern China. Herpetol J, 23: 229-232
21. Kierl N. C., Johnston C. E. 2015. The relationship between breeding coloration and mating success in male pygmy. Envir Biol Fish, 98: 301-306
22. Kusano T., Toda M., Fukuyama K. 1991. Testes size and breeding systems in Japanese anurans with special reference to large testes size in the treefrog Rhacophorus arboreus (Amphibia, Rhacophoridae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 29: 27-31
23. Lee J. C., Crump M. L. 1981. Morphological correlates of male mating success in Triprion petasatus and Hyla marmorata. Oecologia, 50: 153-157
24. Li S. T., Wu X., Li D. Y., Lou S. L., Mi Z. P., Liao W. B. 2013. Body size variation of Odorous Frog (Odorrana grahami) across altitudinal gradients. Herpetol J, 23: 187-192
25. Liao W. B., Liu W. C., Merilä J. 2015. Andrew meets Rensch: Sexual size dimorphism and the inverse of Rensch’s rule in Andrew’s toad (Bufo andrewsi). Oecologia, 177: 389-399
26. Liao W. B., Lu X. 2009a. Male mate choice in the Andrew’s toad Bufo andrewsi: a preference for larger females. J Ethol, 27: 413-417
27. Liao W. B., Lu X. 2009b. Sex recognition by male Andrew’s toad Bufo andrewsi in a subtropical montane region. Beha Proc, 82: 100-103
28. Liao W. B., Lu X. 2010. Age structure and body size of the Chuanxi Tree Frog Hyla annectans chuanxiensis from two different elevations in Sichuan (China). Zool Anz, 248: 255-263
29. Liao W. B., Lu X. 2011a. Proximate mechanisms leading to large male-mating advantage in the Andrew’s toad, Bufo andrewsi. Behaviour, 148: 1087-1102
30. Liao W. B., Lu X. 2011b. Male mating success in the Omei treefrog (Rhacophorus omeimontis): the influence of body size and age. Belg J Zool, 141 (2): 3-10
31. Liao W. B., Lu X. 2012. Variation in mating patterns in the Andrew’s toad Bufo andrewsi along an elevational gradient in southwestern China. Ethol Ecol Evol, 24: 174-186
32. Sih A., Chang A. T., Wey T. W. 2014. Effects of behavioural type, social skill and the social environment on male mating success in water striders. Anim Behav, 94: 9-17
33. Somashekar K., Krishna M. S. 2011. Evidence of female preference for older males in Drosophila bipectinata. Zool Stud, 50: 1-15
34. Trivers R. L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: B. Campbell (ed). Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871-1971, pp. 136-179. Aldine, Chicago
35. Welch A. M., Semlitsch R. D., Gerhardt H. C. 1998. Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science, 280: 1928-1930
36. Wellborn G. A., Cothran R. D. 2007. Evolution and ecology of mating behavior in freshwater amphipods. In: E. Duffy and M. Thiel (eds). Evolutionary Ecology of Social and Sexual Systems: Crustaceans as Model Organisms, pp. 147-167.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
37. Wilbur H. M., Rubenstein D. I., Fairchild L. 1978. Sexual selection in toads: the roles of female choice and male body size. Evolution, 32: 264-270