Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 125–131 | Cite as

The role of synchronized calling, ambient light, and ambient noise, in anti-bat-predator behavior of a treefrog

  • Merlin D. Tuttle
  • Michael J. Ryan
Article

Summary

Male treefrogs, Smilisca sila (Hylidae), produce calls of varying complexity and demonstrate a remarkable ability to synchronize their calls with those of neighbors. The bat Trachops cirrhosus eats frogs and uses the frogs' advertisement calls as locational cues. The bats are less likely to respond to synchronous calls than to asynchronous calls, and when given a choice prefer complex calls to simple calls.

Experiments with bat models indicate that, like other frogs, S. sila probably uses visual cues to detect hunting bats. In response to bat models the frogs decreased both the number and the complexity of their calls. The calling behavior of the frogs was sampled in the field during periods with and without artificial illumination. The frogs produced fewer and less complex calls, and they tended to call from more concealed sites, during the period without illumination, when presumably it would have been more difficult for the frogs to detect hunting bats.

S. sila tended to call from sites with higher ambient noise level, the noise primarily originating from waterfalls. The frequencies of the dominant energies in the waterfall sounds completely overlapped the frequency range of the S. sila call; thus waterfalls might mask the frog calls. When given a choice between calls produced near and away from waterfall sounds, bats preferred the latter.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander RD (1975) Natural selection and specialized chorusing behavior in insects. In: Pimental D (ed) Insects, science and society. Academic Press, New York, pp 35–77Google Scholar
  2. Barclay RMR, Fenton MB, Tuttle MD, Ryan MJ (1981) Echolocation calls produced by Trachops cirrhosus (Chiroptera: Phyllostomatidae) while hunting for frogs. Can J Zool 59:750–753Google Scholar
  3. Greenfield MD, Shaw KC (in press) Adaptive significance of chorusing in insects. In: Morris GK, Gwynne DT (eds) Mating systems of Orthoptera. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  4. Konishi M (1977) Spatial localization of sound. In: Bullock TR (ed) Recognition of complex acoustic signals. Dahlem Konferenz. FRG, pp 127–143Google Scholar
  5. Otte D (1974) Effects and functions in the evolution of signaling systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:385–417Google Scholar
  6. Otte D (1977) Communication in Orthoptera. In: Sebeok TA (ed) How animals communicate. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp 334–361Google Scholar
  7. Passmore NI, Telford SR (1981) The effect of chorus organization on mate localization in the painted reed frog (Hyperolius marmoratus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:291–293Google Scholar
  8. Rand AS, Ryan MJ (1981) The adaptive significance of a complex vocal repertoire in a neotropical frog. Z Tierpsychol 57:209–214Google Scholar
  9. Ryan MJ (1980) Female mate choice in a neotropical frog. Science 209:523–525Google Scholar
  10. Ryan MJ (1982) Sexual selection and communication in a neotropical frog. Evolution (in press)Google Scholar
  11. Ryan MJ, Tuttle MD, Taft LK (1981) The costs and benefits of frog chorusing behavior. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 8:273–278Google Scholar
  12. Ryan MJ, Tuttle MD, Rand AS (1982) Bat predation and sexual advertisement in a neotropical frog. Am Nat 119:136–139Google Scholar
  13. Schnitzler HU, Henson OW Jr (1980) Performance of airborne animal sonor systems, I. Microchiroptera. In: Busnel RG, Fish JF (eds) Animal sonar systems. Plenum Press, New York London, pp 109–182Google Scholar
  14. Tuttle MD, Ryan MJ (1981) Bat predation and the evolution of frog vocalizations in the neotropics. Science 214:677–678Google Scholar
  15. Tuttle MD, Taft LK, Ryan MJ (1982) Evasive behaviour of a frog in response to bat predation. Anim Behav 30:393–397Google Scholar
  16. Wells KD (1977) The social behaviour of anuran amphibians. Anim Behav 25:666–693Google Scholar
  17. Whitney CL, Krebs JR (1975) Mate selection in Pacific tree frogs. Nature 255:325–326Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Merlin D. Tuttle
    • 1
  • Michael J. Ryan
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Vertebrate DivisionMilwaukee Public MuseumMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.Section of Neurobiology and BehaviorCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  3. 3.Smithsonian Tropical Research InstitutePanama
  4. 4.Museum of Vertebrate ZoologyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations