Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 55, Issue 6, pp 556–560 | Cite as

Heterospecific call recognition and phonotaxis in the orientation behavior of the marbled newt, Triturus marmoratus

  • F. Javier Diego-RasillaEmail author
  • Rosa M. Luengo
Original Article


The role of acoustic cues as reference cues for orientation by amphibians has been demonstrated in anurans, the only amphibian group that engages in acoustic communication, but not in urodeles. Orientation responses of marbled newts, Triturus marmoratus, were studied to determine whether heterospecific calls elicited positive phonotaxis. The orientation tests consisted in presenting either a familiar acoustic stimulus, the advertisement calls of natterjack toads (Bufo calamita), or a control stimulus, the advertisement calls of European green toads (Bufo viridis) that the newts would not be expected to recognize. Marbled newts and natterjack toads occur in simpatry, but T. marmoratus and B. viridis are allopatric species. Thus, T. marmoratus is distributed over the northern half of the Iberian Peninsula, whereas B. viridis occurs in the Balearic Islands, but not over the Iberian Peninsula. Newts were released in a circular arena while a recorded chorus of natterjack toads or European green toads played outside the arena to determine whether they displayed positive phonotactic orientation. Our results show that marbled newts performed positive phonotaxis when exposed to the breeding calls of natterjack toads, but not to those of European green toads. Newts chose a compass course in the direction of the advertisement calls of B. calamita. Acoustic information might improve orientation accuracy. This study is the first to provide evidence of heterospecific call recognition and positive phonotactic response in urodeles.


Acoustic orientation Homing Migration Phonotaxis Triturus 



We are indebted to V. Pérez-Mellado for discussion and for assistance during this study. We sincerely thank M. Diego-Gutiérrez for invaluable technical assistance during this study. Thanks are also due to three anonymous reviewers for invaluable comments and suggestions regarding the manuscript. The experiments reported herein comply with the current laws of Spain.


  1. Able KP (1980) Mechanisms of orientation, navigation, and homing. In: Gauthreaux SA Jr (ed) Animal migration, orientation and navigation. Academic Press, New York, pp 283–373Google Scholar
  2. Able KP (1991) Common themes and variations in animal orientation systems. Am Zool 31:157–167Google Scholar
  3. Adler K (1980) Individuality in the use of orientation cues by green frogs. Anim Behav 28:413–425Google Scholar
  4. Batschelet E (1981) Circular statistics in biology. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bosch J, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2000) Signal variation and call preferences for whine frequency in the tungara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:62–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bosch J, Márquez R, Boyero L (2003) Behavioural patterns, preference, and motivation of female midwife toads during phonotaxis tests. J Ethol 21:61–66Google Scholar
  7. Castellano S, Giacoma C (1998) Stabilizing and directional female choice for male calls in the European green toad. Anim Behav 56:275–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Diego-Rasilla FJ, Luengo RM (2002) Celestial orientation in the marbled newt (Triturus marmoratus). J Ethol 20:137–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dole JW (1965) Summer movements of adult leopard frogs, Rana pipiens, in Northern Michigan. Ecology 46:236–255Google Scholar
  10. Ferguson DE, Landreth HF (1966) Celestial orientation of the fowler’s toad Bufo fowleri. Behaviour 26:105–123Google Scholar
  11. Fischer JH, Freake MJ, Borland SC, Phillips JB (2001) Evidence for the use of magnetic map information by an amphibian. Anim Behav 62:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fisher NI (1995) Statistical analysis of circular data. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Gerhardt HC (1988) Acoustic properties used in call recognition by frogs and toads. In: Fritzsch B, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, Hetherington T, Walkowiak W (eds) The evolution of the amphibian auditory system. Wiley, New York, pp 253–273Google Scholar
  14. Gerhardt HC (1994) The evolution of vocalizations in frogs and toads. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 25:293–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grubb JC (1973) Olfactory orientation in Bufo woodhousei fowleri, Pseudacris clarki and Pseudacris streckeri. Anim Behav 21:726–732PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hetherington T (2001) Laser vibrometric studies of sound-induced motion of the body walls and lungs of salamanders and lizards: implications for lung-based hearing. J Comp Physiol A 187:499–507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hetherington TE, Lindquist ED (1999) Lung-based hearing in an “earless” anuran amphibian. J Comp Physiol A 184:395–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Joly P, Miaud C (1989) Fidelity to the breeding site in the alpine newt Triturus alpestris. Behav Process 19:47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Joly P, Miaud C (1993) How does a newt find its pond? The role of chemical cues in migrating newts (Triturus alpestris). Ethol Ecol Evol 5:447–455Google Scholar
  20. Kime NM, Turner WR, Ryan MJ (2000) The transmission of advertisement calls in Central American frogs. Behav Ecol 11:71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Landreth HF, Ferguson DE (1967) Newts: sun-compass orientation. Science 158:1459–1461PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindquist ED, Hetherington TE, Volman SF (1998) Biomechanical and neurophysiological studies on audition in eared and earless harlequin frogs (Atelopus). J Comp Physiol A 183:265–271CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Márquez R, Mateu E (1995) Sounds of frogs and toads of Spain and Portugal. ALOSA, sonidos de la naturaleza, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  24. Pfennig KS, Rapa K, McNatt R (2000) Evolution of male mating behavior: male spadefoot toads preferentially associate with conspecific males. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48:69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Phillips JB (1986) Magnetic compass orientation in the Eastern red-spotted newt (Notophthalmus viridescens). J Comp Physiol A 158:103–109Google Scholar
  26. Schwartz JJ, Buchanan BW, Gerhardt HC (2001) Female mate choice in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) in three experimental environments. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:443–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sinsch U (1990) The orientation behaviour of three toad species (genus Bufo) displaced from the breeding site. In: Hanke W (ed) Fortschritte der Zoologie, vol 38. Biology and physiology of amphibians. Fischer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  28. Sinsch U (1992a) Amphibians. In: Papi F (ed) Animal homing. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 213–233Google Scholar
  29. Sinsch U (1992b) Sex-biased site fidelity and orientation behaviour in reproductive natterjack toads (Bufo calamita). Ethol Ecol Evol 4:15–32Google Scholar
  30. Sun L, Wilzcynski W, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2000) Trade-off in short- and long-distance communication in túngara (Physalaemus pustulosus) and cricket (Acris crepitans) frogs. Behav Ecol 11:102–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wilczynski W, Ryan MJ (1988) The amphibian auditory system as a model for neurobiology, behavior, and evolution. In: Fritzsch B, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, Hetherington T, Walkowiak W (eds) The evolution of the amphibian auditory system. Wiley, New York, pp 3–12Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Biología AnimalUniversidad de SalamancaSalamancaSpain
  2. 2.Departamento de Prevención y MedioambienteENIACSalamancaSpain

Personalised recommendations