Do female frogs exploit inadvertent social information to locate breeding aggregations

The advertisement calls of male anurans (frogs and toads) are loud and conspicuous signals, and the sound generated by breeding aggregations of males propagates over long distances. As a by-product of communication within an aggregation, the sounds of a frog chorus constitute a form of inadvertent social information that provides potential long-distance cues about the location and timing of breeding. We investigated whether female American toads (Bufo americanus Holbrook, 1836) and Cope’s gray treefrogs (Hyla chrysoscelis Cope, 1880) use the sounds of a chorus to locate breeding aggregations in the absence of other sensory cues. Females of both species approached speakers broadcasting recordings of a chorus made from distances of 0, 20, and 40 m, but not from distances of 80 and 160 m. Female toads also exhibited phonotaxis to a completely artificial chorus sound, but female gray treefrogs did not. We found little evidence to suggest that female American toads and Cope’s gray treefrogs differed substantia...

[1]  J. Faaborg,et al.  AVIAN HABITAT MANAGEMENT MEETS CONSPECIFIC ATTRACTION: IF YOU BUILD IT, WILL THEY COME? , 2006 .

[2]  R. S. Oldham.  Orienting Mechanisms of the Green Frog, Rana Clamitans , 1967 .

[3]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Recognition and Localization of Acoustic Signals , 2007 .

[4]  H. Carl Gerhardt,et al.  SPECIATION BY POLYPLOIDY IN TREEFROGS: MULTIPLE ORIGINS OF THE TETRAPLOID, HYLA VERSICOLOR , 1994, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[5]  Christopher G. Murphy.  The cause of correlations between nightly numbers of male and female barking treefrogs (Hyla gratiosa) attending choruses , 2003 .

[6]  Franz Huber,et al.  Acoustic Communication in Insects and Anurans: Common Problems and Diverse Solutions , 2002 .

[7]  R. S. Oldham.  SPRING MOVEMENTS IN THE AMERICAN TOAD, BUFO AMERICANUS , 1966 .

[8]  P. Aragón.  Sex-dependent use of information on conspecific feeding activities in an amphibian urodelian , 2009 .

[9]  R. D. Howard,et al.  Individual variation in male vocal traits and female mating preferences in Bufo americanus , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[10]  M. A. Bee,et al.  Sound source segregation in grey treefrogs: spatial release from masking by the sound of a chorus , 2007, Animal Behaviour.

[11]  U. Sinsch.  Migration and orientation in anuran amphibians , 1990 .

[12]  N. Davies,et al.  Deep croaks and fighting assessment in toads Bufo bufo , 1978, Nature.

[13]  R. D. Howard.  Sexual selection on male body size and mating behaviour in American toads, Bufo americanus , 1988, Animal Behaviour.

[14]  Mario Penna,et al.  Frog call intensities and sound propagation in the South American temperate forest region , 1998, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[15]  F. J. Diego-Rasilla,et al.  Acoustic orientation in the palmate newt, Lissotriton helveticus , 2007, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[16]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Selective phonotaxis by male wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) to the sound of a chorus , 2007, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[17]  J. Schul,et al.  Non-parallel coevolution of sender and receiver in the acoustic communication system of treefrogs , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[18]  CALLING IS AN HONEST INDICATOR OF PATERNAL GENETIC QUALITY IN POISON FROGS , 2006, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[19]  Robert J Fletcher,et al.  Emergent properties of conspecific attraction in fragmented landscapes. , 2006, The American naturalist.

[20]  N. Fisher,et al.  Statistical Analysis of Circular Data , 1993 .

[21]  D. C. Forester,et al.  Gauntlet Behaviour as a Male Sexual Tactic in the American Toad (Amphffiia: Bufonidae) , 1998 .

[22]  Georg M. Klump,et al.  Phonotactic responses and selectivity of barking treefrogs (Hyla gratiosa) to chorus sounds , 1988, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[23]  Jack W. Bradbury,et al.  Principles of Animal Communication , 1998 .

[24]  U. Sinsch.  Mini-review : the orientation behaviour of amphibians , 1991 .

[25]  M. Littlejohn,et al.  Mating‐Call Sound Intensities of Anuran Amphibians , 1971 .

[26]  M. Björklund,et al.  Can the song of male birds attract other males? An experiment with the pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca , 1982 .

[27]  B. Sullivan.  Sexual Selection and Calling Behavior in the American Toad (Bufo americanus) , 1992 .

[28]  K. Wells,et al.  The Behavioral Ecology of Anuran Communication , 2007 .

[29]  T. Valone,et al.  Public Information: From Nosy Neighbors to Cultural Evolution , 2004, Science.

[30]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Auditory masking of anuran advertisement calls by road traffic noise , 2007, Animal Behaviour.

[31]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  THE ROARING OF RED DEER AND THE EVOLUTION OF HONEST ADVERTISEMENT , 1979 .

[32]  K. Wells.  The social behaviour of anuran amphibians , 1977, Animal Behaviour.

[33]  R. D. Semlitsch,et al.  Defining core habitat of local populations of the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) based on choice of oviposition site , 2003, Oecologia.

[34]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Finding a mate at a cocktail party: spatial release from masking improves acoustic mate recognition in grey treefrogs , 2008, Animal Behaviour.

[35]  F. J. Diego-Rasilla,et al.  Heterospecific call recognition and phonotaxis in the orientation behavior of the marbled newt, Triturus marmoratus , 2004, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

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

[37]  H. Carl Gerhardt,et al.  Acoustic communication in two groups of closely related treefrogs. , 2001 .

[38]  U. Sinsch.  Sex-biassed site fidelity and orientation behaviour in reproductive natterjack toads (Bufo calamita) , 1992 .

[39]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Parallel female preferences for call duration in a diploid ancestor of an allotetraploid treefrog , 2008, Animal Behaviour.

[40]  M. Donahue.  Allee effects and conspecific cueing jointly lead to conspecific attraction , 2006, Oecologia.

[41]  Donald A. Jackson,et al.  Conspecific attraction during establishment of Least Flycatcher clusters , 2006 .

[42]  Johannes Schul,et al.  Pattern recognition and call preferences in treefrogs (Anura: Hylidae): a quantitative analysis using a no-choice paradigm , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[43]  Anthony Arak,et al.  Sexual selection by male–male competition in natterjack toad choruses , 1983, Nature.

[44]  K. Wells,et al.  REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR AND AEROBIC CAPACITIES OF MALE AMERICAN TOADS (BUFO AMERICANUS): IS BEHAVIOR CONSTRAINED BY PHYSIOLOGY? , 1984 .

[45]  R. D. Semlitsch,et al.  Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. , 1998, Science.

[46]  H. Carl Gerhardt.  Phonotaxis in Female Frogs and Toads: Execution and Design of Experiments , 1995 .

[47]  M. Smith,et al.  Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation : are all amphibian populations metapopulations? , 2005 .

[48]  L. Giraldeau,et al.  Inadvertent social information in breeding site selection of natal dispersing birds , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[49]  S. Geisser,et al.  On methods in the analysis of profile data , 1959 .

[50]  Alisha K Holloway,et al.  Polyploids with Different Origins and Ancestors Form a Single Sexual Polyploid Species , 2006, The American Naturalist.

[51]  U. Sinsch.  Orientation and navigation in Amphibia , 2006 .

[52]  S. Schlossberg,et al.  Conspecific Attraction and the Conservation of Territorial Songbirds , 2004 .

[53]  H. Carl Gerhardt,et al.  Sound pressure levels and radiation patterns of the vocalizations of some North American frogs and toads , 1975, Journal of comparative physiology.

[54]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Does common spatial origin promote the auditory grouping of temporally separated signal elements in grey treefrogs? , 2008, Animal Behaviour.