Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conspicuous displays in cryptic males of a polytypic poison-dart frog

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The evolution of aposematism is linked to increased opportunities for conspicuous sexual displays since detection by potential predators is no longer disadvantageous. Therefore, phenotypic divergence in aposematic species leading to relatively cryptic forms is expected to constrain such opportunities, by restoring the trade-off between natural and sexual selection on the boldness of sexual displays. We asked if and how a derived phenotype of the poison-dart frog Oophaga granulifera that appears relatively cryptic to potential predators exhibits conspicuous sexual displays for potential mates. We used visual modeling of frog contrasts against their natural backgrounds to test if for conspecifics green frogs appear less conspicuous than red frogs as they do for birds. We conducted behavioral observations of focal red and green males to determine if green frogs adjust their display behavior to the availability of potential mates. Dorsal brightness is known to influence female preferences in at least one poison frog species. We found that, despite being less visible under some measures, green frogs may appear as bright as red frogs for conspecifics but not birds, when viewed on dark backgrounds. Additionally, green males called more intermittently than red males when advertising to distant females, but they exhibited a dramatic increase in calling activity in proximity of a female and were as active as red males in this context. Together, our results suggest that green frogs retain context-dependent conspicuousness to conspecifics despite the evolution of relative crypsis to potential predators.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alvarado JB, Álvarez A, Saporito RA (2013) Oophaga pumilio (strawberry poison frog). Predation. Herpetol Rev 44:298

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B 57:289–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolaños F (1990) Actividad de canto y territorialidad en Dendrobates granuliferus Taylor 1958, Costa Rica. Dissertation, Universidad de Costa Rica

  • Bonansea M, Vaira M (2012) Geographic and intrapopulational variation in colour and patterns of an aposematic toad, Melanophrynis cusrubriventris (Amphibia, Anura, Bufonidae). Amphibia-Reptilia 33:11–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brusa O, Bellati A, Meuche I, Mundy NI, Pröhl H (2013) Divergent evolution in the polymorphic granular poison-dart frog, Oophaga granulifera: genetics, coloration, advertisement calls and morphology. J Biogeogr 40:394–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne PG (2008) Strategic male calling behavior in an Australian terrestrial toadlet (Pseudophryne bibronii). Copeia 2008:57–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Candolin U (1998) Reproduction under predation risk and the trade-off between current and future reproduction in the three spine stickleback. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1171–1175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crothers LR, Cummings ME (2013) Warning signal brightness variation: sexual selection may work under the radar of natural selection in populations of a polytypic poison frog. Am Nat 181:E116–E124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crothers L, Gering E, Cummings M (2011) Aposematic signal variation predicts male-male interactions in a polymorphic poison frog. Evolution 65:599–605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crump ML (1972) Territoriality and mating behavior in Dendrobates granuliferus (Anura: Dendrobatidae). Herpetologica 28:195–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings ME, Rosenthal GG, Ryan MJ (2003) A private ultraviolet channel in visual communication. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:897–904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DaCosta MA (2010) Phylogeny of Utetheisa s. str. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae: Arctinae) with comments on the evolution of colour, hind wing scales and origin of New World species. Invertebr Syst 24:113–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darst CR, Cummings ME, Cannatella DC (2006) A mechanism for diversity in warning signals: conspicuousness versus toxicity in poison frogs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:5852–5857

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins MS, Guilford T (1996) Sensory bias and the adaptiveness of female choice. Am Nat 148:937–942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Development Core Team R (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Endler JA (1987) Predation, light intensity and courtship behaviour in Poecilia reticulate (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Anim Behav 35:1376–1385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endler JA (1991) Variation in the appearance of guppy color patterns to guppies and their predators under different visual conditions. Vis Res 31:587–608

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Endler JA (1992) Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution. Am Nat 139:S125–S153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endler JA (2000) Evolutionary implications of the interaction between animal signals and the environment. In: Espmark Y, Amundsen T, Rosenqvist G (eds) Animal signals. Tapir, Trondheim, pp 11–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsman A, Hagman M (2006) Calling is an honest indicator of paternal genetic quality in poison frogs. Evolution 60:2148–2157

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gittleman JL, Harvey PH (1980) Why are distasteful prey not cryptic? Nature 286:149–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godin JJ, McDonough HE (2003) Predator preference for brightly colored males in the guppy: a viability cost for a sexually selected trait. Behav Ecol 14:194–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman DE (1971) Territorial behavior in a Neotropical frog, Dendrobates granuliferus. Copeia 1971:365–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilford T (1986) How do ‘warning colours’ work? Conspicuousness may reduce recognition errors in experienced predators. Anim Behav 34:286–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart NS (2001) The visual ecology of avian photoreceptors. Prog Retin Eye Res 20:281–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Håstad O, Victorsson J, Ödeen A (2005) Differences in color vision make passerines less conspicuous in the eyes of their predators. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:6391–6394

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannou CC, Krause J (2009) Interactions between background matching and motion during visual detection can explain why cryptic animals keep still. Biol Lett 5:191–193

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones G, Barabas A, Elliott W, Parsons S (2002) Female greater wax moths reduce sexual display behavior in relation to the potential risk of predation by echolocating bats. Behav Ecol 13:375–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kålås JA, Fiske P, Saether SA (1995) The effect of mating probability on risk taking: an experimental study in lekking great snipe. Am Nat 146:59–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotiaho J, Alatalo RV, Mappes J, Parri S, Rivero A (1998) Male mating success and risk of predation in a wolf spider: a balance between sexual and natural selection? J Anim Ecol 67:287–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maan ME, Cummings ME (2008) Female preferences for aposematic signal components in a polymorphic poison frog. Evolution 62:2334–2345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maan ME, Cummings ME (2009) Sexual dimorphism and directional sexual selection on aposematic signals in a poison frog. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:19072–19077

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maan ME, Cummings ME (2012) Poison frog colors are honest signals of toxicity, particularly for bird predators. Am Nat 179:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnhagen C (1991) Predation risk as a cost of reproduction. Trends Ecol Evol 6:183–186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Master TL (1999) Predation by Rufous Motmot on black-and-green poison dart frog. Wilson Bull 111:439–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Merilaita S, Tullberg BG (2005) Constrained camouflage facilitates the evolution of conspicuous warning coloration. Evolution 59:38–45

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Montanarin A, Kaeferand IL, Lima AP (2011) Courtship and mating behaviour of the brilliant-thighed frog Allobates femoralis from Central Amazonia: implications for the study of a species complex. Ethol Ecol Evol 23:141–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narins PM, Hödl W, Grabul DS (2003) Bimodal signal requisite for agonistic behavior in a dart-poison frog, Epipedobates femoralis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:577–580

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pröhl H (2003) Variation in male calling behaviour and relation to male mating success in the strawberry poison frog (Dendrobates pumilio). Ethology 109:273–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pröhl H, Ostrowski T (2011) Behavioural elements reflect phenotypic colour divergence in a poison frog. Evol Ecol 25:993–1015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds RG, Fitzpatrick BM (2007) Assortative mating in poison-dart frogs based on an ecologically important trait. Evolution 61:2253–2259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Richards-Zawacki CL, Cummings ME (2011) Intraspecific reproductive character displacement in a polymorphic poison dart frog, Dendrobates pumilio. Evolution 65:259–267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roithmair ME (1994) Male territoriality and female mate selection in the dart-poison frog Epipedobates trivittatus (Dendrobatidae, Anura). Copeia 1994:107–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roper TJ (1994) Conspicuousness of prey retards reversal of learned avoidance. Oikos 69:115–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roper TJ, Wistow R (1986) Aposematic colouration and avoidance learning in chicks. Q J Exp Psychol 38:141–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudh A, Rogell B, Håstad O, Qvarnström A (2011) Rapid population divergence linked with co-variation between coloration and sexual display in strawberry poison frogs. Evolution 65:1271–1282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rudh A, Breed MF, Qvarnström A (2013) Does aggression and explorative behaviour decrease with lost warning coloration? Biol J Linn Soc 108:116–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A (1992) Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am Nat 139:S4–S35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage JM (2002) The amphibians and reptiles of Costa Rica: a herpetofauna between two continents, between two seas. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Siddiqi A, Cronin TW, Loew ER, Vorobyev M, Summers K (2004) Interspecific and intraspecific views of color signals in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio. J Exp Biol 207:2471–2485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Silverstone PA (1973) Observations on the behavior and ecology of a Colombian poison-arrow frog, the kõkoé-pá (Dendrobates histrionicus Berthold). Herpetologica 29:295–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Speed MP, Ruxton GD (2005) Aposematism: what should our starting point be? Proc R Soc Lond B 272:431–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speed MP, Brockhurst MA, Ruxton GD (2009) the dual benefits of aposematism: predator avoidance and enhanced resource collection. Evolution 64:1622–1633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Summers K, Weigt LA, Boag P, Bermingham E (1999a) The evolution of female parental care in poison frogs of the genus Dendrobates: evidence from mitochondrial DNA sequences. Herpetologica 55:254–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Summers K, Symula R, Clough M, Cronin T (1999b) Visual mate choice in poison frogs. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:2141–2145

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971. Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorobyev M, Osorio D (1998) Receptor noise as a determinant of colour thresholds. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:351–358

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vorobyev M, Osorio D, Bennett ATD, Marshall NJ, Cuthill IC (1998) Tetrachromacy oil droplets and bird plumage colours. J Comp Physiol A 183:621–633

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wang IJ (2011) Inversely related aposematic traits: reduced conspicuousness evolves with increased toxicity in a polymorphic poison-dart frog. Evolution 65:1637–1649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wang IJ, Shaffer HB (2008) Rapid color evolution in an aposematic species: a phylogenetic analysis of color variation in the strikingly polymorphic strawberry poison frog. Evolution 62:2742–2759

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wells KD (2007) The ecology and behavior of amphibians. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Willink B, Brenes-Mora E, Bolaños F, Pröhl H (2013) Not everything is black and white: Color and behavioral variation reveal a continuum between cryptic and aposematic strategies in a polymorphic poison frog. Evolution 67:2783–2794

    Google Scholar 

  • Wing SR (1988) Cost of mating for female insects: risk of predation in Photinus collustrans (Coleoptera: Lampyridae). Am Nat 131:139–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuk M, Kolluru GM (1998) Exploitation of sexual signals by predators and parasitoids. Q Rev Biol 73:415–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank to A. Vicente, J. Shik, V. Acosta, and E. Arias for their valuable assistance in the field. The Rainmaker Park, The Firestone Center for Restoration Ecology and Hacienda Barú provided permits and logistic support. We are grateful to Thomas Cronin who kindly provided the sensitivity spectra for the photoreceptors of strawberry poison frogs and Nathan Hart who provided sensitivity spectra for the photoreceptors of blue tits. We thank G. Barrantes, E. Fuchs, J. Shik, C. Dreher, K. Knorr, Martine Maan, and one anonymous reviewer for comments that improved the manuscript.

Ethical standards

This study complies with current Costa Rican legislation and was conducted under research permits of the Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones of Costa Rica.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Escuela de Biología, Universidad de Costa Rica, Ciudad Universitaria Rodrigo Facio, 2060, San José, Costa Rica

    Beatriz Willink & Federico Bolaños

  2. Institute of Zoology, University of Veterinary Medicine of Hannover, Bünteweg 17, 30559, Hannover, Germany

    Heike Pröhl

Authors
  1. Federico Bolaños
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heike Pröhl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beatriz Willink.

Additional information

Communicated by M. Gibbons

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOC 390 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Willink, B., Bolaños, F. & Pröhl, H. Conspicuous displays in cryptic males of a polytypic poison-dart frog. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68, 249–261 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-013-1640-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-013-1640-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation