Frog call intensities and sound propagation in the South American temperate forest region

Abstract Sound pressure levels and the spectral structure of the advertisement calls of five species of frogs from the South American temperate austral forest were analyzed. Males of Eupsophus emiliopugini, Batrachyla antartandica and B. leptopus call from the ground in bogs, while males of Hylorina sylvatica and Pleurodema thaul call from the water surface in marshes. Calling males of the species from bogs and marshes spaced at average distances that were shorter and longer than 2 m, respectively. The properties of these habitats for sound propagation were evaluated by broadcasting pure tones, broadband noise and tape-recorded advertisement calls of the three species from bogs and of H. sylvatica. Excess attenuation and spectral degradation were higher for calls broadcast in bogs than in the marsh. The calls of B.␣antartandica and B. leptopus, with dominant frequencies of about 2 kHz, were more affected than those of E.␣emiliopugini and H. sylvatica, with dominant frequencies below 1.5 kHz. These results show the lack of an optimal relationship between properties of habitats for sound transmission and the spectral structure of these anuran calls. Body size imposes an important constraint on call spectra and propagation, which frogs counteract by distribution patterns and auditory capabilities.

[1]  C. Harris.  Absorption of Sound in Air versus Humidity and Temperature , 1966 .

[2]  Song pitch ― habitat relationships in white-throated sparrows: cracks in acoustic windows? , 1988 .

[3]  I. Straughan,et al.  Functional aspects of anuran middle ear structures. , 1974, The Journal of experimental biology.

[4]  Douglas G. Richards,et al.  ESTIMATION OF DISTANCE OF SINGING CONSPECIFICS BY THE CAROLINA WREN , 1981 .

[5]  Selectivity of Evoked Vocal Responses in the Time Domain by Frogs of the Genus Batrachyla , 1997 .

[6]  Inter-male spacing in choruses of the spring peeper, Pseudacris (Hyla) crucifer , 1989, Animal Behaviour.

[7]  J. Loftus-Hills.  Comparative aspects of auditory function in Australian anurans , 1973 .

[8]  Charles H. Brown,et al.  Habitat acoustics and primate communication , 1986, American journal of primatology.

[9]  Eliot A. Brenowitz,et al.  Acoustic cues mediate inter-male spacing in a neotropical frog , 1988, Animal Behaviour.

[10]  Jorma Sorjonen,et al.  Song Structure and Singing Strategies in the Genus Luscinia in Different Habitats and Geographical Areas , 1986 .

[11]  A. Feng,et al.  Temporal selectivity for complex signals by single neurons in the torus semicircularis of Pleurodema thaul (Amphibia: Leptodactylidae) , 1997, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[12]  Jorma Sorjonen,et al.  Factors Affecting the Structure of Song and the Singing Behaviour of Some Northern European Passerine Birds , 1986 .

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

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

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

[16]  Wolfgang Walkowiak.  Sensitivity, range and temperature dependence of hearing in the grass frog and fire-bellied toad , 1980, Behavioural Processes.

[17]  Charles H. Brown,et al.  Old world monkey vocalizations: adaptation to the local habitat? , 1995, Animal Behaviour.

[18]  Eugene S. Morton,et al.  6 – Grading, Discreteness, Redundancy, and Motivation-Structural Rules , 1982 .

[19]  R. R. Capranica,et al.  A comparative study of auditory sensitivity in the genus Bufo (amphibia) , 1981, Behavioural Processes.

[20]  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.

[21]  The Association between Vocal Characteristics and Habitat Type in Taiwanese Passerines(Ecology) , 1992 .

[22]  H. Gerhardt,et al.  Significance of two frequency bands in long distance vocal communication in the green treefrog , 1976, Nature.

[23]  J. Krebs,et al.  Geographical Variation in the Song of the Great Tit (Parus major) in Relation to Ecological Factors , 1979 .

[24]  Torben Dabelsteen,et al.  Habitat‐induced degradation of sound signals: Quantifying the effects of communication sounds and bird location on blur ratio, excess attenuation, and signal‐to‐noise ratio in blackbird song , 1993 .

[25]  E. Morton.  Ecological Sources of Selection on Avian Sounds , 1975, The American Naturalist.

[26]  K. Zaveri,et al.  Acoustic Noise Measurements , 1988 .

[27]  W. Duellman,et al.  Acoustic Resource Partitioning in Anuran Communities , 1983 .

[28]  B. Zimmerman.  A COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF CALLS OF OPEN AND FOREST HABITAT FROG SPECIES IN THE CENTRAL AMAZON , 1983 .

[29]  C. Chapuis.  L’influence du milieu sur les émissions vocales des oiseaux : L’évolution des chants en forêt équatoriale , 1971, La Terre et La Vie, Revue d'Histoire naturelle.

[30]  M. Penna,et al.  Vocal Diversity in Frogs of the South American Temperate Forest , 1990 .

[31]  Peter K. McGregor,et al.  The response of Western Meadowlarks (Sturnella neglecta) to the playback of undegraded and degraded songs , 1984 .

[32]  A. Feng,et al.  Temporal selectivity of evoked vocal responses of Batrachyla antartandica (Amphibia: Leptodactylidae) , 1997, Animal Behaviour.