Calling dynamics and call synchronization in a local group of unison bout callers

In many species of chorusing frogs, callers can rapidly adjust their call timing with reference to neighboring callers so as to maintain call rate while minimizing acoustic interference. The rules governing the interactions, in particular, who is listening to whom are largely unknown, presumably influenced by distance between callers, caller density, and intensities of interfering calls. We report vocal interactions in a unison bout caller, the green tree frog (Hyla cinerea). Using a microphone array, we monitored bouts from a local group of six callers embedded in a larger chorus. Data were analyzed in a 21-min segment at the peak of the chorus. Callers within this group were localized and their voices were separated for analysis of spatio-temporal interactions. We show that callers in this group: (1) synchronize with one another, (2) prefer to time their calls antiphonally, almost exactly at one-third and two-thirds of the call intervals of their neighbors, (3) tolerate call collision when antiphonal calling is not possible, and (4) perform discrete phase-hopping between three preferred phases when tracking other callers. Further, call collision increases and phase-locking decreases, with increasing inter-caller spacing. We conclude that the precise phase-positioning, phase-tracking, and phase-hopping minimizes acoustic jamming while maintaining chorus synchrony.

[1]  M. Ryan The Tungara Frog: A Study in Sexual Selection and Communication , 1986 .

[2]  Joshua J. Schwartz Male calling behavior, female discrimination and acoustic interference in the Neotropical treefrog Hyla microcephala under realistic acoustic conditions , 2004, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[3]  P. Slater,et al.  Bird Song: Biological Themes and Variations , 1995 .

[4]  Andrea Megela Simmons,et al.  Patterns of Vocal Interactions in a Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) Chorus: Preferential Responding to Far Neighbors , 2000 .

[5]  J. Simmons,et al.  Analyzing acoustic interactions in natural bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) choruses. , 2008, Journal of comparative psychology.

[6]  Pierre Comon,et al.  Handbook of Blind Source Separation: Independent Component Analysis and Applications , 2010 .

[7]  Douglas L. Jones,et al.  Blind location and separation of callers in a natural chorus using a microphone array. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Kazuyuki Aihara,et al.  Complex and transitive synchronization in a frustrated system of calling frogs. , 2011, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[9]  Michael D Greenfield Signalers and Receivers: Mechanisms and Evolution of Arthropod Communication , 2002 .

[10]  Peter M. Narins,et al.  Chorus dynamics of a neotropical amphibian assemblage: comparison of computer simulation and natural behaviour , 1989, Animal Behaviour.

[11]  J. Goldberg,et al.  Response of binaural neurons of dog superior olivary complex to dichotic tonal stimuli: some physiological mechanisms of sound localization. , 1969, Journal of neurophysiology.

[12]  W. F. Blair,et al.  Mating Call in the Speciation of Anuran Amphibians , 1958, The American Naturalist.

[13]  J. Schwartz Why stop calling? A study of unison bout singing in a Neotropical treefrog , 1991, Animal Behaviour.

[14]  Andreas M. Ali,et al.  Acoustic monitoring in terrestrial environments using microphone arrays: applications, technological considerations and prospectus , 2011 .

[15]  Kazuyuki Aihara,et al.  Sound imaging of nocturnal animal calls in their natural habitat , 2011, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[16]  Peter M. Narins,et al.  Intensity discrimination and the precision of call timing in two species of neotropical treefrogs , 1983, Journal of comparative physiology.

[17]  E. C. Cherry Some Experiments on the Recognition of Speech, with One and with Two Ears , 1953 .

[18]  T. U. Grafe,et al.  Costs and benefits of mate choice in the lek-breeding reed frog, Hyperolius marmoratus , 1997, Animal Behaviour.

[19]  M. Ryan Synchronized calling in a treefrog (Smilisca sila). Short behavioral latencies and implications for neural pathways involved in call perception and production. , 1986, Brain, Behavior and Evolution.

[20]  Michael D Greenfield,et al.  Frogs Have Rules: Selective Attention Algorithms Regulate Chorusing in Physalaemus pustulosus (Leptodactylidae) , 2000 .

[21]  Albert S. Bregman,et al.  The Auditory Scene. (Book Reviews: Auditory Scene Analysis. The Perceptual Organization of Sound.) , 1990 .

[22]  M. A. Bee,et al.  The cocktail party problem: what is it? How can it be solved? And why should animal behaviorists study it? , 2008, Journal of comparative psychology.

[23]  D. Blumstein Acoustic Communication in Insects and Anurans : Common Problems and Diverse Solutions , 2002 .

[24]  Peter M. Narins,et al.  Characterization of the advertisement call oscillator in the frogEleutherodactylus coqui , 1985, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[25]  Michael D Greenfield,et al.  Cooperation and Conflict in the Evolution of Signal Interactions , 1994 .

[26]  A. Popper,et al.  The Evolutionary biology of hearing , 1992 .

[27]  Peter M. Narins,et al.  Biological Constraints on Anuran Acoustic Communication: Auditory Capabilities of Naturally Behaving Animals , 1992 .

[28]  J. Simmons,et al.  Spatial location influences vocal interactions in bullfrog choruses. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  M. K. Tourtellot,et al.  Precedence effects and the evolution of chorusing , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[30]  Peter K. McGregor,et al.  Playback and Studies of Animal Communication , 1992, NATO ASI Series.

[31]  Kanti V. Mardia,et al.  Statistics of Directional Data , 1972 .

[32]  Erkki Oja,et al.  Independent Component Analysis , 2001 .

[33]  Georg M. Klump,et al.  Mechanisms and Function of Call-Timing in Male-Male Interactions in Frogs , 1992 .