How cricket frog females deal with a noisy world: habitat-related differences in auditory tuning

Cricket frogs (Acris crepitans) occupy a variety of acoustically different habitats ranging from pine forest to open grassland. There is geographic variation in their calls and the tuning of their basilar papilla (BP) correlated with habitat. Here, we characterize the spectral content of environmental noise from two habitats, one a pine forest (Stengl) and one a grassland (Gill) habitat. We then used rounded exponential filter functions based on the mean tuning of auditory fibers in Stengl and Gill females to model the BP tuning characteristics of an average female from the two cricket frog populations occupying those habitats to compare their ability to filter out environmental noise. Noise recordings were made at both sites from 1800 to 2400 h on multiple nights throughout a breeding season (March through early August). Noise spectra were similar at both sites. Cross-correlation analyses of the sampled noise indicated that noise spectra were consistent throughout the night and varied little over the season other than during the month of May. The model auditory filter simulating an average Stengl female was significantly better than one simulating an average Gill female at filtering environmental noise at both sites. Previous work had shown that cricket frog calls suffered greater attenuation and degradation in the Stengl site than the Gill site but that the male calls from Stengl frogs suffered less attenuation and less degradation than Gill calls during transmission through both habitats. These new results demonstrate that frogs from the more acoustically challenging Stengl habitat have enhanced both the sender and receiver portions of their communication system, evolving calls that transmit better and auditory filters that better eliminate noise. Copyright 2005.

[1]  M. Ryan,et al.  Call patterns and basilar papilla tuning in cricket frogs. I. Differences among populations and between sexes. , 1992, Brain, behavior and evolution.

[2]  J. Partridge,et al.  Visual pigments and optical habitats of surfperch (Embiotocidae) in the California kelp forest , 2001, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[3]  B. Moore,et al.  Auditory filter shapes at low center frequencies. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Michael J. Ryan,et al.  Selection on Long-Distance Acoustic Signals , 2003 .

[5]  H. Bennet-Clark,et al.  Acoustics of a small Australian burrowing cricket: the control of low-frequency pure-tone songs. , 2001, The Journal of experimental biology.

[6]  Peter M. Narins,et al.  Effects of masking noise on evoked calling in the Puerto Rican coqui (Anura: Leptodactylidae) , 1982, Journal of comparative physiology.

[7]  R. Wiley,et al.  Physical constraints on acoustic communication in the atmosphere: Implications for the evolution of animal vocalizations , 1978, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[8]  H. Slabbekoorn,et al.  HABITAT-DEPENDENT SONG DIVERGENCE IN THE LITTLE GREENBUL: AN ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SELECTION PRESSURES ON ACOUSTIC SIGNALS , 2002, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[9]  M. Ryan,et al.  Information transfer during cricket frog contests , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[10]  Peter M. Narins,et al.  Coding of signals in noise by amphibian auditory nerve fibers , 1987, Hearing Research.

[11]  Eliot A. Brenowitz,et al.  The Role of Body Size, Phylogeny, and Ambient Noise in the Evolution of Bird Song , 1985, The American Naturalist.

[12]  R. H. Wiley,et al.  Reverberations and Amplitude Fluctuations in the Propagation of Sound in a Forest: Implications for Animal Communication , 1980, The American Naturalist.

[13]  K. Marchetti.  Dark habitats and bright birds illustrate the role of the environment in species divergence , 1993, Nature.

[14]  M. Ryan,et al.  Temporal call changes and prior experience affect graded signalling in the cricket frog , 1999, Animal Behaviour.

[15]  J. Konieczka,et al.  Agonistic encounters in a cricket frog (Acris crepitans) chorus: Behavioral outcomes vary with local competition and within the breeding season , 1999 .

[16]  M. Ryan,et al.  Evolution of intraspecific variation in the advertisement call of a cricket frog (Acris crepitans, Hylidae) , 1991 .

[17]  William E. Wagner.  Graded aggressive signals in Blanchard's cricket frog: vocal responses to opponent proximity and size , 1989, Animal Behaviour.

[18]  U LANGEMANN,et al.  Auditory sensitivity in the great tit: perception of signals in the presence and absence of noise , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[19]  J. Endler.  Multiple-trait coevolution and environmental gradients in guppies. , 1995, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[20]  M. Ryan,et al.  Coevolution of Sender and Receiver: Effect on Local Mate Preferecnce in Cricket Frogs , 1988, Science.

[21]  B. Dreyfus,et al.  Divergent sexual selection enhances reproductive isolation in sticklebacks , 2022 .

[22]  T. Reimchen.  LOSS OF NUPTIAL COLOR IN THREESPINE STICKLEBACKS (GASTEROSTEUS ACULEATUS) , 1989, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[23]  Robert R. Capranica,et al.  Masking patterns and filter characteristics of auditory nerve fibers in the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea) , 1980, Journal of comparative physiology.

[24]  Robert R. Capranica,et al.  Neurobehavioral Correlates of Sound Communication in Anurans , 1983 .

[25]  Björn Lardner,et al.  Animal communication: Tree-hole frogs exploit resonance effects , 2002, Nature.

[26]  R. Patterson,et al.  The deterioration of hearing with age: frequency selectivity, the critical ratio, the audiogram, and speech threshold. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  R. R. Capranica,et al.  The auditory system of anuran amphibians , 1984, Progress in Neurobiology.

[28]  Michael J. Ryan,et al.  Auditory Tuning and Call Frequency Predict Population-Based Mating Preferences in the Cricket Frog, Acris crepitans , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[29]  J. Endler.  Signals, Signal Conditions, and the Direction of Evolution , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[30]  Lori Wollerman.  Background noise from a natural chorus alters female discrimination of male calls in a Neotropical frog , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[31]  Eliot A. Brenowitz.  Environmental influences on acoustic and electric animal communication. , 1986, Brain, behavior and evolution.

[32]  M. Ryan,et al.  Trade-off in short- and long-distance communication in tungara (Physalaemus pustulosus) and cricket (Acris crepitans) frogs , 2000 .

[33]  James J Finneran,et al.  Auditory filter shapes for the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and the white whale (Delphinapterus leucas) derived with notched noise. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  L. Fleishman.  The Influence of the Sensory System and the Environment on Motion Patterns in the Visual Displays of Anoline Lizards and Other Vertebrates , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[35]  William J Shepherd,et al.  Spatial distribution and male-male communication in the northern cricket frog, Acris crepitans blanchardi , 1989 .

[36]  Bernd Fritzsch,et al.  The Evolution of the amphibian auditory system , 1988 .

[37]  R. R. Capranica,et al.  Evolutionary Origin of Ethological Reproductive Isolation in Cricket Frogs, Acris , 1985 .

[38]  Stephen T. Neely,et al.  Signals, Sound, and Sensation , 1997 .

[39]  J. Endler.  Variation in the appearance of guppy color patterns to guppies and their predators under different visual conditions , 1991, Vision Research.

[40]  D. Todt,et al.  Acoustic communication in noise: regulation of call characteristics in a New World monkey , 2004, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[41]  M. Ryan,et al.  Changes in the Frequency Structure of a Mating Call Decrease Its Attractiveness to Females in the Cricket Frog Acris crepitans blanchardi , 2001 .

[42]  M. Ryan,et al.  THE ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SELECTION IN INTRASPECIFIC DIVERGENCE OF MATE RECOGNITION SIGNALS IN THE CRICKET FROG, ACRIS CREPITANS , 1990, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[43]  P. Marler,et al.  Sound transmission and its significance for animal vocalization , 1977, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[44]  H. Seliger,et al.  Ecology of Colors of Firefly Bioluminescence , 1980, Science.

[45]  C. G. Sibley.  ECOLOGICAL SOURCES OF SELECTION ON AVIAN SOUNDS , 2004 .

[46]  R. Hoy,et al.  Two-tone suppression in the cricket, Eunemobius carolinus (Gryllidae, Nemobiinae). , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[47]  R. Haven Wiley,et al.  5 – Adaptations for Acoustic Communication in Birds: Sound Transmission and Signal Detection , 1982 .

[48]  J. Lythgoe,et al.  The ecology of the visual pigments of snappers (Lutjanidae) on the Great Barrier Reef , 1994, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[49]  Georg M. Klump,et al.  Masking of acoustic signals by the chorus background noise in the green tree frog: A limitation on mate choice , 1988, Animal Behaviour.

[50]  M. Ryan,et al.  Call patterns and basilar papilla tuning in cricket frogs. II. Intrapopulation variation and allometry. , 1992, Brain, behavior and evolution.