Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 61, Issue 8, pp 1293–1302 | Cite as

Female preferences for multiple attributes in the acoustic signals of the Italian treefrog, Hyla intermedia

  • Sergio CastellanoEmail author
  • Alessandra Rosso
Original Paper


The advertisement call of frogs and toads is an example of multiple message signal because different acoustic properties encode different kinds of biologically significant information. In the Italian treefrog, Hyla intermedia, pulse rate and frequency have been found to be under stabilizing female preferences and to encode information important for mate recognition, whereas the number of calls per call group have been found to be under directional preferences and, thus, to be important for mate quality assessment. In this study, we investigate preferences for calls that differ simultaneously in frequency, pulse rate, and number of calls per call group, and we ask how these properties interact with each other in influencing female mating decisions. Results of two-choice phonotaxis experiments provide no evidence to support the hypothesis that females process multi-attribute signals in a hierarchical way. In contrast, the pattern of preferences is consistent with the ‘preference function’ hypothesis, that is, with the hypothesis that females rank signals along an ordinal scale of values and choose accordingly. Pulse rate and frequency influence mating preferences more than does the number of calls per call group. The interaction between pulse rate and frequency is not additive but multiplicative: small differences in either pulse rate or frequency that, alone, have no effects on female choice, interact synergistically so that their combination has strong influence on female preferences. A preference repeatability test shows strong among-female differences in preference for multi-attribute signals. We suggest that this result reveals not only a variation in attribute values among females, but also a variation in the way females weight and combine attribute values into a single preference score.


Sexual selection Playback Female choice Multiple messages 



We thank Silvia Lo Vetere for the technical support in field work and laboratory experiments, Paolo Cermelli for his helpful discussion, and the River Ticino Regional Park for the permissions of catching treefrogs.


  1. Adams DC, Anthony CD (1996) Using randomization techniques to analyse behavioural data. Anim Behav 51:733–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson MB (1994) Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Boake CRB (1989) Repeatability: its role in evolutionary studies of mating behaviour. Evol Ecol 3:173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Candolin U (2003) The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev 78:575–595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castellano S, Cermelli P (2006) Reconciling sexual selection and species recognition: a process-based model of mating decision. J Theor Biol (in press)Google Scholar
  6. Castellano S, Giacoma C (1998) Stabilizing and directional female choice for male calls in the European green toad. Anim Behav 56:275–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castellano S, Rosso A (2006) Variation in call temporal properties and female preferences in Hyla intermedia. Behaviour 143:405–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castellano S, Cuatto B, Rinella R, Rosso A, Giacoma C (2002) The advertisement call of the European treefrogs (Hyla arborea): a multilevel study of variation. Ethology 108:75–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castellano S, Rosso A, Giacoma C (2004) Active choice, passive attraction, and the cognitive machinery of acoustic preferences. Anim Behav 68:323–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fawcett TW, Johnstone RA (2003) Optimal assessment of multiple cues. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1637–1643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fishburn PC (1973) Binary choice probabilities: on the varieties of stochastic transitivity. J Math Psychol 10:327–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gerhardt HC (1992) Multiple messages in acoustic signals. Semin Neurosci 4:391–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gerhardt HC (1995) Phonotaxis in female frogs and toads: execution and design of experiments. In: Kulmp GM, Dooling RJ, Fay RR, Stebbins WC (eds) Methods in comparative psychoacoustics. Wiley, New York, pp 455–483Google Scholar
  14. Gerhardt HC, Huber F (2002) Acoustic communication in insects and anurans. University Chicago press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerhardt HC, Schul J (1999) A quantitative analysis of behavioral selectivity for pulse rise-time in the gray treefrog, Hyla versicolor. J Comp Physiol A 185:33–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holland B, Rice WR (1998) Chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jennions MD, Petrie M (1997) Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev 72:283–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jennions MD, Backwell PRY, Passmore NI (1995) Repeatability of mate choice: the effect of size in the African painted reed frog, Hyperolius marmoratus. Anim Behav 49:181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnstone RA (1996) Multiple displays in animal communication: ‘backup signals’ and ‘multiple messages’. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B351:329–338Google Scholar
  20. Kime NM, Rand AS, Kapfer M, Ryan MJ (1998) Consistency of female choice in the tùngara frog: a permissive preference for complex characters. Anim Behav 55:641–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kirkpatrick M, Rand SA, Ryan MJ (2006) Mate choice rules in animals. Anim Behav 71:1215–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lande R (1981) Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78:3721–3725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Manly BFJ (1991) Randomization and Montecarlo methods in biology. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Møller AP, Pomiankowski A (1993) Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:167–176Google Scholar
  25. Murphy CG, Gerhardt HC (2000) Preference functions of individual female barking treefrogs, Hyla gratiosa. Evolution 54:660–669PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nelson DA, Marler P (1990) The perception of birdsong and an ecological concept of signal space. In: Stebbins WC, Berkeley MA (eds) Comparative Perception: complex signals. Wiley, New York, pp 443–478Google Scholar
  27. Phelps SM, Rand SA, Ryan MJ (2005) A cognitive framework for mate choice and species recognition. Am Nat 167:28–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosso A (2003) Ciclo vitale, morfologia e canto nelle raganelle italiane: uno studio di variazione geografica. Dissertation, University of Turin, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosso A, Castellano S, Giacoma C (2006) Preferences for call spectral properties in Hyla intermedia. Ethology 112(6):599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ryan MJ (2001) Anuran communication. Smithsonian Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  31. Ryan MJ, Rand AS (1993) Species recognition and sexual selection as an unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution 47:647–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ryan MJ, Rand AS (2003) Sexual selection in female perceptual space: how female túngara frogs perceive and respond to complex population variation in acoustic signals. Evolution 57:2608–2618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scheffer SJ, Uetz GW, Stratton GE (1996) Sexual selection, male morphology, and the efficiency in the courtship signalling in two wolf spiders (Aranae: Lycosidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scheuber H, Jacot A, Brinkhof MWG (2003) The effect of past condition on a multicomponent sexual signal. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1779–1784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scheuber H, Jacot A, Brinkhof MWG (2004) Female preference for multiple condition-dependent components of a sexually selected signal. Proc R Soc Lond B 271: 2453–2457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schul J, Bush SL (2002) Non-parallel coevolution of sender and receiver in the acoustic communication system of treefrogs. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1847–1852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Welch AM, Semlitsch RD, Gerhardt HC (1998) Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray treefrogs. Science 280:1928–1930PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e dell’UomoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations