An experimental test of noise-dependent voice amplitude regulation in Cope’s grey treefrog, Hyla chrysoscelis

One strategy for coping with the constraints on acoustic signal reception posed by ambient noise is to signal louder as noise levels increase. Termed the 'Lombard effect', this reflexive behaviour is widespread among birds and mammals and occurs with a diversity of signal types, leading to the hypothesis that voice amplitude regulation represents a general vertebrate mechanism for coping with environmental noise. Support for this evolutionary hypothesis, however, remains limited due to a lack of studies in taxa other than birds and mammals. Here, we report the results of an experimental test of the hypothesis that male grey treefrogs increase the amplitude of their advertisement calls in response to increasing levels of chorus-shaped noise. We recorded spontaneously produced calls in quiet and in the presence of noise broadcast at sound pressure levels ranging between 40 dB and 70 dB. While increasing noise levels induced predictable changes in call duration and rate, males did not regulate call amplitude. These results do not support the hypothesis that voice amplitude regulation is a generic vertebrate mechanism for coping with noise. We discuss the possibility that intense sexual selection and high levels of competition for mates in choruses place some frogs under strong selection to call consistently as loudly as possible.

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

[2]  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.

[3]  Lars Schrader,et al.  Noise-dependent vocal plasticity in domestic fowl , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

[4]  R. Wiley,et al.  Background noise from a natural chorus alters female discrimination of male calls in a Neotropical frog , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[5]  Peter M. Narins,et al.  Ultrasonic communication in frogs , 2006, Nature.

[6]  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.

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

[8]  D B Moody,et al.  Regulation of voice amplitude by the monkey. , 1975, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[10]  Mario Penna,et al.  Effect of natural and synthetic noise on evoked vocal responses in a frog of the temperate austral forest , 2005, Animal Behaviour.

[11]  Peter M. Narins,et al.  Hearing and Sound Communication in Amphibians , 2010 .

[12]  LORI WOLLERMAN,et al.  Acoustic interference limits call detection in a Neotropical frogHyla ebraccata , 1999, Animal Behaviour.

[13]  M. Smotherman,et al.  Context-dependent effects of noise on echolocation pulse characteristics in free-tailed bats , 2009, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[14]  M. Ryan,et al.  Directional Patterns of Female Mate Choice and the Role of Sensory Biases , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[15]  J. Schwartz,et al.  Interference risk and the function of dynamic shifts in calling in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor). , 2008, Journal of comparative psychology.

[16]  Kazuo Okanoya,et al.  Context-dependent song amplitude control in Bengalese finches , 2003, Neuroreport.

[17]  Marla M. Holt,et al.  Speaking up: Killer whales (Orcinus orca) increase their call amplitude in response to vessel noise. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  D. Kroodsma,et al.  Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds , 1997 .

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

[20]  R J Dooling,et al.  Control of vocal intensity in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): differential reinforcement of vocal intensity and the Lombard effect. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  M. Penna,et al.  Susceptibility of evoked vocal responses to noise exposure in a frog of the temperate austral forest , 2007, Animal Behaviour.

[22]  C. M. Hillery,et al.  Seasonality of Two Midbrain Auditory Responses in the Treefrog, Hyla chrysoscelis , 1984 .

[23]  Akihiro Katada,et al.  Lombard reflex during PAG-induced vocalization in decerebrate cats , 1997, Neuroscience Research.

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

[25]  H. Carl Gerhardt,et al.  Female mate choice in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) in three experimental environments , 2001, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[26]  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.

[27]  C. Pytte,et al.  Regulation of vocal amplitude by the blue-throated hummingbird, Lampornis clemenciae , 2003, Animal Behaviour.

[28]  M. Dorcas,et al.  Temporal Variation in Anuran Calling Behavior: Implications for Surveys and Monitoring Programs , 2000, Copeia.

[29]  H. Lane,et al.  The Lombard Sign and the Role of Hearing in Speech , 1971 .

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

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

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

[33]  J. Cynx,et al.  Amplitude regulation of vocalizations in noise by a songbird,Taeniopygia guttata , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[34]  Mark A Bee,et al.  Behavioral measures of signal recognition thresholds in frogs in the presence and absence of chorus-shaped noise. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  S.E. Roian Egnor,et al.  Noise‐induced vocal modulation in cotton‐top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) , 2006, American journal of primatology.

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

[37]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Do female frogs exploit inadvertent social information to locate breeding aggregations , 2007 .

[38]  Edwin R. Lewis,et al.  Acoustically induced call modification in the white-lipped frog, Leptodactylus albilabris , 1988, Animal Behaviour.

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

[40]  Dietmar Todt,et al.  Noise-dependent song amplitude regulation in a territorial songbird , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[41]  Eliot A. Brenowitz.  Neighbor Call Amplitude Influences Aggressive Behavior and Intermale Spacing in Choruses of the Pacific Treefrog (Hyla regilla) , 2010 .

[42]  G. Fellers.  Aggression, territoriality, and mating behaviour in North American treefrogs , 1979, Animal Behaviour.

[43]  A. Horn,et al.  Ambient noise and the design of begging signals , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[44]  Alejandro Vélez,et al.  Signal recognition by frogs in the presence of temporally fluctuating chorus-shaped noise , 2010, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[45]  L. M. Potash,et al.  Noise-induced changes in calls of the Japanese quail , 1972 .

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

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

[48]  L. Max,et al.  Indication of a Lombard vocal response in the St. Lawrence River Beluga. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[49]  H. Brumm,et al.  Acoustic Communication in Noise , 2005 .

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

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

[52]  H. Gerhardt,et al.  Acoustic interactions among male gray treefrogs, Hyla versicolor, in a chorus setting , 2002, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[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]  Peter M Narins,et al.  Ultrasonic signalling by a Bornean frog , 2008, Biology Letters.

[55]  K. Wells,et al.  The effect of social interactions on calling energetics in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) , 1986, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.