Background noise from a natural chorus alters female discrimination of male calls in a Neotropical frog

Many animals communicate in environments with high levels of background noise. Although it is a fundamental prediction of signal detection theory that noise should reduce both detection and discrimination of signals, little is known about these effects in animal communication. Female treefrogs, Hyla ebraccata, in Costa Rica choose mates in large noisy multispecies choruses. We tested gravid females for preferences between computer-synthesized calls with carrier frequencies of 3240 and 2960 Hz (values near the mode and the fifth percentile of the population, respectively) in four levels of background noise from a natural chorus. In the absence of noise (signal/noise ratio >25 dB), females preferred the lower frequency. With moderate signal/noise ratios (6 and 9 dB), they did not discriminate between these frequencies. With low signal/noise ratios (3 dB), females preferred the frequency near the mode for the population. Similar experiments had previously demonstrated that females can detect the presence of a male’s calls with signal/noise ratios of 3 dB or greater. Thus moderate levels of natural background sound reduced a female’s ability to discriminate between males’ calls even when she could detect them. In high levels of background sound, females abandoned discrimination for low-frequency calls and reverted to the task of detecting signals with modal properties for the population. These results justify recent theoretical analyses of the importance of receivers’ errors in the evolution of communication.

[1]  Rufus A. Johnstone,et al.  Imperfect female choice and male mating skew on leks of different sizes , 1999, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[2]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection Theory: A User's Guide , 1991 .

[3]  H. Gerhardt,et al.  THE EVOLUTION OF VOCALIZATION IN FROGS AND TOADS , 1994 .

[4]  R. Johnstone Honest signalling, perceptual error and the evolution of ‘all-or-nothing’ displays , 1994, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[5]  H. Carl Gerhardt,et al.  Spatially mediated release from auditory masking in an anuran amphibian , 1989, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[6]  H. Gerhardt Sound Pattern Recognition in Some North American Treefrogs (Anura: Hylidae): Implications for Mate Choice , 1982 .

[7]  C. Guyer,et al.  Patterns of reproduction and habitat use in an assemblage of Neotropical hylid frogs , 1994, Oecologia.

[8]  H. Gerhardt,et al.  The neuroethology of frequency preferences in the spring peeper , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[9]  David Jaarsma,et al.  More on the Detection of One of M Orthogonal Signals , 1967 .

[10]  R. Johnstone,et al.  CONSPIRATORIAL WHISPERS AND CONSPICUOUS DISPLAYS: GAMES OF SIGNAL DETECTION , 1998, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[11]  K. Wells,et al.  Vocal communication in a neotropical treefrog, Hyla ebraccata: responses of females to advertisement and aggressive calls , 1987 .

[12]  Lori Wollerman Stabilizing and directional preferences of female Hyla ebraccata for calls differing in static properties , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

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

[14]  R A Johnstone,et al.  Efficacy and Honesty in Communication between Relatives , 1998, The American Naturalist.

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

[16]  Günter Ehret,et al.  Auditory masking and effects of noise on responses of the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea) to synthetic mating calls , 1980, Journal of comparative physiology.

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

[18]  S. Telford,et al.  MATE CHOICE OCCURS ONLY IN SMALL CHORUSES OF PAINTED REED FROGS HYPEROLIUS MARMORATUS , 1989 .

[19]  K. Wells,et al.  Vocal communication in a neotropical treefrog, Hyla ebraccata: Advertisement calls , 1984, Animal Behaviour.

[20]  Don McNicol,et al.  A Primer of Signal Detection Theory , 1976 .

[21]  P F Judy,et al.  Detection of noisy visual targets: Models for the effects of spatial uncertainty and signal-to-noise ratio , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[22]  J A Swets,et al.  Signal detection and identification at successive stages of observation , 1978, Perception & psychophysics.

[23]  J. Bosch,et al.  Female preference in complex acoustical environments in the midwife toads Alytes obstetricans and Alytes cisternasii , 1997 .

[24]  C. Metz,et al.  Visual detection and localization of radiographic images. , 1975, Radiology.

[25]  R. Johnstone Recognition and the evolution of distinctive signatures: when does it pay to reveal identity? , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

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

[27]  R. H. Wiley SEXUAL SELECTION AND MATE CHOICE: TRADE-OFFS FOR MALES AND FEMALES , 2000 .

[28]  Michael D Greenfield,et al.  Synchronous and Alternating Choruses in Insects and Anurans: Common Mechanisms and Diverse Functions , 1994 .

[29]  G. 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.