Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 61, Issue 6, pp 955–966 | Cite as

Selective phonotaxis by male wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) to the sound of a chorus

Original Paper

Abstract

Frogs and toads commonly form large choruses around suitable breeding habitat during the mating season. Although often regarded as a constraint on the acoustic behavior of signalers and receivers, the sounds of a chorus could also serve as an acoustic beacon that allows some frogs to locate the breeding aggregation. Attraction to chorus sounds might be particularly important for explosively breeding frogs. In these species, which often mate just one or a few days during the year, the timing and location of breeding aggregations can be unpredictable because their formation often depends on local climatic factors, such as rainfall or a change in temperature. I used laboratory playback experiments to test the hypothesis that male wood frogs (Rana sylvatica), an explosively breeding frog, exhibit positive phonotaxis toward the sound of a conspecific chorus. Males were released at the center of a rectangular arena with a speaker positioned in each corner facing toward the release point. In a single-stimulus experiment, more males approached a speaker broadcasting a conspecific chorus than the three silent speakers in the arena. In a two-stimulus experiment, more males approached a speaker broadcasting a conspecific chorus compared to the two silent speakers or a fourth speaker simultaneously broadcasting the spectrally overlapping sound of a heterospecific (R. septentrionalis) chorus. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that male wood frogs could use the sound of a chorus as a beacon to locate a short-lived breeding aggregation.

Keywords

Animal communication Explosive breeder Frog chorus Rana sylvatica Phonotaxis Wood frog 

Notes

Acknowledgment

I thank John Moriarty and the Ramsey County Parks Department for access to the Tamarack Nature Center. Eli Swanson and Sandra Tekmen provided helpful assistance collecting and testing frogs. Alejandro Velez, Vince Marshall, and two anonymous referees provided helpful feedback on previous versions of the manuscript. This work was approved by the University of Minnesota’s IACUC (#0510A76966) on December 15, 2005, conducted under Special Permit 13313 from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and complied with all laws of the USA.

References

  1. Amézquita A, Castellanos L, Hodl W (2005) Auditory matching of male Epipedobates femoralis (Anura: Dendrobatidae) under field conditions. Anim Behav 70:1377–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bee MA, Gerhardt HC (2001a) Habituation as a mechanism of reduced aggression between neighboring territorial male bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana). J Comp Psychol 115:68–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bee MA, Gerhardt HC (2001b) Neighbour–stranger discrimination by territorial male bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana): I. Acoustic basis. Anim Behav 62:1129–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bee MA, Gerhardt HC (2001c) Neighbour–stranger discrimination by territorial male bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana): II. Perceptual basis. Anim Behav 62:1141–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bee MA, Gerhardt HC (2002) Individual voice recognition in a territorial frog (Rana catesbeiana). Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 269:1443–1448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bee MA, Perrill SA, Owen PC (1999) Size assessment in simulated territorial encounters between male green frogs (Rana clamitans). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bee MA, Perrill SA, Owen PC (2000) Male green frogs lower the pitch of acoustic signals in defense of territories: a possible dishonest signal of size? Behav Ecol 11:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berven KA (1981) Mate choice in the wood frog, Rana sylvatica. Evolution 35:707–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boatright-Horowitz SS, Cheney CA, Simmons AM (1999) Atmospheric and underwater propagation of bullfrog vocalizations. Bioacoustics 9:257–280Google Scholar
  10. Bogert CM (1960) The influence of sounds on the behavior of amphibians and reptiles. In: Lanyon WE, Tavolga WN (eds) Animal sounds and communication. American Institute of Biological Sciences, Washington, DC, pp 137–320Google Scholar
  11. Bourne GR, Collins AC, Holder AM, McCarthy CL (2001) Vocal communication and reproductive behavior of the frog Colostethus beebei in Guyana. J Herpetol 35:272–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brenowitz EA (1989) Neighbor call amplitude influences aggressive behavior and intermale spacing in choruses of the Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla). Ethology 83:69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brooke PN, Alford RA, Schwarzkopf L (2000) Environmental and social factors influence chorusing behaviour in a tropical frog: examining various temporal and spatial scales. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bush SL, Dyson ML, Halliday TR (1996) Selective phonotaxis by males in the Majorcan midwife toad. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 263:913–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Caldwell JP (1997) Pair bonding in spotted poison frogs. Nature 385:211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Capranica RR, Moffat JM (1983) Neurobehavioral correlates of sound communication in anurans. In: Ewert JP, Capranica RR, Ingle DJ (eds) Advances in vertebrate neuroethology. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Davies NB, Halliday TR (1978) Deep croaks and fighting assessment in toads Bufo bufo. Nature 274:683–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davis MS (1987) Acoustically mediated neighbor recognition in the North American bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21:185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diego-Rasilla FJ, Luengo RM (2004) Heterospecific call recognition and phonotaxis in the orientation behavior of the marbled newt, Triturus marmoratus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:556–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elliott L (2004) The calls of frogs and toads. Stackpole, Mechanicsburg, PAGoogle Scholar
  21. Friedl TWP, Klump GM (2002) The vocal behaviour of male European treefrogs (Hyla arborea): implications for inter- and intrasexual selection. Behaviour 139:113–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gerhardt HC (1975) Sound pressure levels and radiation patterns of vocalizations of some North American frogs and toads. J Comp Physiol 102:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gerhardt HC (1995) Phonotaxis in female frogs and toads: execution and design of experiments. In: Klump GM, Dooling RJ, Fay RR, Stebbins WC (eds) Methods in comparative psychoacoustics. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, pp 209–220Google Scholar
  24. Gerhardt HC (2001) Acoustic communication in two groups of closely related treefrogs. In: Advances in the study of behavior, vol 30, pp 99–167Google Scholar
  25. Gerhardt HC, Bee MA (2006) Recognition and localization of acoustic signals. In: Narins PM, Feng AS, Fay RR, Popper AN (eds) Hearing and sound communication in amphibians, vol 28. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 113–146Google Scholar
  26. Gerhardt HC, Huber F (2002) Acoustic communication in insects and anurans: common problems and diverse solutions. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  27. Gerhardt HC, Klump GM (1988a) Masking of acoustic signals by the chorus background noise in the green treefrog: a limitation on mate choice. Anim Behav 36:1247–1249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gerhardt HC, Klump GM (1988b) Phonotactic responses and selectivity of barking treefrogs (Hyla gratiosa) to chorus sounds. J Comp Physiol A 163:795–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grafe TU (1997) Costs and benefits of mate choice in the lek-breeding reed frog, Hyperolius marmoratus. Anim Behav 53:1103–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hauselberger KF, Alford RA (2005) Effects of season and weather on calling in the Australian microhylid frogs Austrochaperina robusta and Cophixalus ornatus. Herpetologica 61:349–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Henzi SP, Dyson ML, Piper SE, Passmore NE, Bishop P (1995) Chorus attendance by male and female painted reed frogs (Hyperolius marmoratus): Environmental factors and selection pressures. Funct Ecol 9:485–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Howard RD (1978) Evolution of mating strategies in bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana. Evolution 32:850–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Howard RD (1980) Mating behavior and mating success in wood frogs, Rana sylvatica. Anim Behav 28:705–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Howard RD, Kluge AG (1985) Proximate mechanisms of sexual selection in wood frogs. Evolution 39:260–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Howard RD, Palmer JG (1995) Female choice in Bufo americanus: Effects of dominant frequency and call order. Copeia 212–217Google Scholar
  36. Howard RD, Young JR (1998) Individual variation in male vocal traits and female mating preferences in Bufo americanus. Animal Behaviour 55:1165–1179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kroodsma DE (1989) Suggested experimental designs for song playbacks. Anim Behav 37:600–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Loftus-Hills JJ, Littlejohn MJ (1971) Mating-call sound intensities of anuran amphibians. J Acoust Soc Am 49:1327–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marshall VT, Humfeld SC, Bee MA (2003) Plasticity of aggressive signalling and its evolution in male spring peepers, Pseudacris crucifer. Anim Behav 65:1223–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martof BS, Humphries RL (1959) Geographic variation in the woodfrog, Rana sylvatica. Am Midl Nat 61:350–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Murphy CG (2003) The cause of correlations between nightly numbers of male and female barking treefrogs (Hyla gratiosa) attending choruses. Behav Ecol 14:274–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Murphy CG, Gerhardt HC (2002) Mate sampling by female barking treefrogs (Hyla gratiosa). Behav Ecol 13:472–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Narins PM (1982) Effects of masking noise on evoked calling in the Puerto Rican coqui (Anura, Leptodactylidae). J Comp Physiol 147:439–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Narins PM, Hodl W, Grabul DS (2003) Bimodal signal requisite for agonistic behavior in a dart-poison frog, Epipedobates femoralis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:577–580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Oldfield B, Moriarty JJ (1994) Amphibians and reptiles native to Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  46. Oldham RS (1966) Spring movements in the American toad, Bufo americanus. Can J Zool 44:63–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oldham RS (1967) Orienting mechanisms of the green frog, Rana clamitans. Ecology 48:477–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Oseen KL, Wassersug RJ (2002) Environmental factors influencing calling in sympatric anurans. Oecologia 133:616–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Penna M, Solis R (1998) Frog call intensities and sound propagation in the South American temperate forest region. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 42:371–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Petranka JW, Thomas DAG (1995) Explosive breeding reduces egg and tadpole cannibalism in the wood frog, Rana sylvatica. Anim Behav 50:731–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pfenning 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
  52. Regosin JV, Windmiller BS, Reed JM (2003) Terrestrial habitat use and winter densities of the wood frog (Rana sylvatica). J Herpetol 37:390–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Robertson JGM (1986) Male territoriality, fighting and assessment of fighting ability in the Australian frog Uperoleia rugosa. Anim Behav 34:763–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ryan MJ (1985) The Túngara frog: a study in sexual selection and communication. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  55. Ryan MJ (ed) (2001) Anuran communication. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  56. Ryan MJ, Rand AS (1993) Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution 47:647–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schwartz JJ (1994) Male advertisement and female choice in frogs: recent findings and new approaches to the study of communication in a dynamic acoustic environment. Am Zool 34:616–624Google Scholar
  58. 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
  59. Stevens CE, Paszkowski CA (2004) Using chorus-size ranks from call surveys to estimate reproductive activity of the wood frog (Rana sylvatica). J Herpetol 38:404–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vaira M (2005) Annual variation of breeding patterns of the toad, Melanophryniscus rubriventris (Vellard, 1947). Amphib–Reptil 26:193–199Google Scholar
  61. Wagner WE (1989) Fighting, assessment, and frequency alteration in Blanchard cricket frog. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:429–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Waldman B (1982) Adaptive significance of communal oviposition in wood frogs (Rana sylvatica). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 10Google Scholar
  63. Weir LA, Mossman MJ (2005) North American Amphibian Monitoring Prgram (NAAMP). In: Lannoo MJ (ed) Amphibian declines: conservation status of United States species. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 307–313Google Scholar
  64. Wells KD (1977a) The social behaviour of anuran amphibians. Anim Behav 25:666–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wells KD (1977b) Territoriality and male mating success in green frog (Rana clamitans). Ecology 58:750–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wells KD (1978) Territoriality in the green frog (Rana clamitans): vocalizations and agonistic behavior. Anim Behav 26:1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wells KD, Schwartz JJ (2006) The behavioral ecology of anuran communication. In: Narins PM, Feng AS, Fay RR, Popper AN (eds) Hearing and sound communication in amphibians, vol 28. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 44–86Google Scholar
  68. Wollerman L (1999) Acoustic interference limits call detection in a neotropical frog Hyla ebraccata. Anim Behav 57:529–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wollerman L, Wiley RH (2002) Background noise from a natural chorus alters female discrimination of male calls in a neotropical frog. Anim Behav 63:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Woolbright LL, Greene EJ, Rapp GC (1990) Density-dependent mate searching strategies of male woodfrogs. Anim Behav 40:135–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zakon HH, Wilczynski W (1988) The physiology of the anuran eighth nerve. In: Fritzsch B, Wolkowiak W, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, Hetherington T (eds) The evolution of the amphibian auditory system. Wiley, New York, pp 125–155Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Evolution, and BehaviorUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations