Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 64, Issue 4, pp 529–539 | Cite as

Aggressive thresholds in Dendropsophus ebraccatus: habituation and sensitization to different call types

Original Paper

Abstract

Males in many chorusing anuran species use aggressive calls during defense of calling spaces from other males. The minimal intensity of another male’s vocalizations that elicits an aggressive call response has been termed the aggressive threshold. Previous studies of aggressive thresholds have shown that they are plastic: males habituated (increased their aggressive thresholds) in response to repeated presentation of stimuli above initial threshold levels. Habituation likely contributes to the stable chorus structure of these species, in which aggressive calling is rare compared to advertisement calls. I have observed high levels of aggressive calling in the treefrog Dendropsophus ebraccatus, suggesting that males of this species do not habituate. In this study, I investigated the plasticity of aggressive thresholds in D. ebraccatus. I measured the aggressive thresholds of males before and after suprathreshold stimulation by both advertisement and aggressive calls. I found that the different call types had different effects: males habituated to advertisement calls but lowered their aggressive thresholds in response to aggressive calls. I consider the latter response to be an example of sensitization, a behavior that has been documented infrequently in vocalizing anurans. Sensitization is a plausible mechanism responsible for the high levels of aggressive calling observed in this species. Given the high costs of aggressive calling, however, it is unclear why a mechanism that increases aggressive call output would be maintained.

Keywords

Aggressive Threshold Frog Habituation Sensitization Communication 

References

  1. Allan DM (1973) Some relationships of vocalization to behavior in the Pacific treefrog, Hyla regilla. Herpetologica 29:366–371Google Scholar
  2. Backwell PRY (1988) Functional partitioning in the two-part call of the leaf folding frog Afrixalus brachycnemis. Herpetologica 44:1–7Google Scholar
  3. Bee MA (2001) Habituation and sensitization in bullfrogs (Rana catesbiana): testing the dual-process theory of habituation. J Comp Psychol 115:307–316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosch J, Marquez R (2001) Call timing in male–male acoustical interactions and female choice in the midwife toad Alytes obstetricans. Copeia 1:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brenowitz EA (1989) Neighbor call amplitude influences aggressive behavior and intermale spacing in choruses of the Pacific Treefrog (Hyla regilla). Ethology 83:69–79Google Scholar
  6. Brenowitz EA, Rose GJ (1994) Behavioural plasticity mediates aggression in choruses of the Pacific treefrog. Anim Behav 47:633–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brenowitz EA, Rose GJ (1999) Female choice and plasticity of male calling behaviour in the Pacific treefrog. Anim Behav 57:1337–1342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Brenowitz EA, Wilczynski W, Zakon HH (1984) Acoustic communication in spring peepers. J Comp Physiol A 155:585–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brzoska J (1982) Vocal response of male European water frogs (Rana esculenta complex) to mating and territorial calls. Behav Processes 7:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brzoska J, Schneider H, Nevo E (1982) Territorial behavior and vocal response in male Hyla arborea savignyi (Amphibia: Anura). Isr J Zool 31:27–37Google Scholar
  11. Bucher TL, Ryan MJ, Bartholomew GA (1982) Oxygen consumption during resting, calling, and nest building in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Physiol Zool 55:10–22Google Scholar
  12. Burmeister S, Wilczynski W, Ryan MJ (1999) Temporal call changes and prior experience affect graded signalling in the cricket frog. Anim Behav 57:611–618CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gerhardt HC, Diekamp B, Ptacek M (1989) Inter-male spacing in choruses of the spring peeper, Pseudacris (Hyla) crucifer. Anim Behav 38:1012–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grafe TU (1995) Graded aggressive calls in the African painted reed frog Hyperolius marmoratus (Hyperoliidae). Ethology 101:67–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grafe TU (1996) The function of call alternation in the African reed frog (Hyperolius marmoratus): precise call timing prevents auditory masking. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Groves PM, Thompson RF (1970) Habituation: a dual-process theory. Psychol Rev 77:419–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lopez PT, Narins PM, Lewis ER, Moore SW (1988) Acoustically induced call modification in the white-lipped frog, Leptodactylus albilabris. Anim Behav 36:1295–1308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marshall VT (2003) Social aspects of communication in gray treefrogs: intraspecific and interspecific interactions. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Columbia, MO: University of MissouriGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Martínez-Rivera C, Gerhardt H (2008) Advertisement-call modification, male competition, and female preference in the bird-voiced treefrog Hyla avivoca. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:195–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Megela AL, Capranica RR (1983) A neural and behavioral study of auditory habituation in the bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. J Comp Physiol A 151:423–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oldham RS, Gerhardt HC (1975) Behavioral isolating mechanisms of treefrogs Hyla cinerea and Hyla gratiosa. Copeia 2:223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Owen PC, Perrill SA (1998) Habituation in the green frog, Rana clamitans. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 44:209–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peeke HVS (1982) Stimulus- and motivation-specific sensitization and redirection of aggression in the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). J Comp Physiol Psychol 96:816–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Petrinovich L, Patterson TL (1981) Field studies of habituation: IV. Sensitization as a function of the distribution and novelty of song playback to white-crowned sparrows. J Comp Physiol Psychol 95:805–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rand AS, Ryan MJ (1981) The adaptive significance of a complex vocal repertoire in a neotropical frog. Z Tierpsychol 57:209–214Google Scholar
  27. Robertson JGM (1984) Acoustic spacing by breeding males of Uperolia rugosa (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Z Tierpsychol 64:283–297Google Scholar
  28. Rose GJ, Brenowitz EA (1991) Aggressive thresholds of male pacific treefrogs for advertisement calls vary with amplitude of neighbors’ calls. Ethology 89:244–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rose GJ, Brenowitz EA (1997) Plasticity of aggressive thresholds in Hyla regilla discrete accommodation to encounter calls. Anim Behav 53:353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rosen M, Lemon RE (1974) Vocal behavior of spring peepers, Hyla crucifer. Copeia 1974:940–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ryan MJ (1988) Energy, calling, and selection. Am Zool 28:885–898Google Scholar
  32. Schwartz J, Buchanan B, Gerhardt HC (2002) Acoustic interactions among male gray treefrogs, Hyla versicolor, in a chorus setting. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 53:9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schwartz JJ (1986) Male calling behavior and female choice in the Neotropical treefrog Hyla microcephala. Ethology 73:116–127Google Scholar
  34. Schwartz JJ (1987) The function of call alternation in anuran amphibians: a test of three hypotheses. Evolution 41:461–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schwartz JJ (1991) Why stop calling? A study of unison bout singing in a Neotropical treefrog. Anim Behav 42:565–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schwartz JJ, Wells KD (1983) An experimental study of acoustic interference between two species of Neotropical treefrogs. Anim Behav 31:181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schwartz JJ, Wells KD (1984) Interspecific acoustic interactions of the Neotropical treefrog Hyla ebraccata. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14:211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwartz JJ, Wells KD (1985) Intraspecific and interspecific vocal behavior of the Neotropical treefrog Hyla microcephala. Copeia 1985:27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stewart MM, Rand AS (1992) Diel variation in the use of aggressive calls by the frog Eleutherodactylus coqui. Herpetologica 48:49–56Google Scholar
  40. Taigen TL, Wells KD (1985) Energetics of vocalization by an anuran amphibian (Hyla versicolor). J Comp Physiol B 155:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Telford SR (1985) Mechanisms and evolution of inter-male spacing in the painted reedfrog (Hyperolius marmoratus). Anim Behav 33:1353–1361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thompson RF, Spencer WA (1966) Habituation: a model phenomenon for the study of neuronal substrates of behavior. Psychol Rev 73:16–43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Thompson RF, Groves PM, Teyler TJ, Roemer RA (1973) A dual-process theory of habituation: theory and behavior. In: Peeke HVS, Herz MJ (eds) Habituation I: behavioral studies. Academic, New York, pp 239–271Google Scholar
  44. Wagner WE (1989a) Fighting, assessment, and frequency alteration in Blanchard’s cricket frog. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:429–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wagner WE (1989b) Graded aggressive signals in Blanchard’s cricket frog: vocal responses to opponent proximity and size. Anim Behav 38:1025–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wagner WE (1992) Deceptive or honest signaling of fighting ability—a test of alternative hypotheses for the function of changes in call dominant frequency by male cricket frogs. Anim Behav 44:449–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wells KD (1977) The social behaviour of anuran amphibians. Anim Behav 25:666–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wells KD (1988) The effect of social interactions on anuran vocal behavior. In: Fritzsch B, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, Hetherington TE, Walkowiak W (eds) The evolution of the amphibian auditory system. Wiley, New York, pp 433–454Google Scholar
  49. Wells KD (1989) Vocal communication in a Neotropical treefrog, Hyla ebraccata—responses of males to graded aggressive calls. Copeia 1989:461–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wells KD (2007) The ecology and behavior of amphibians. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  51. Wells KD, Bard KM (1987) Vocal communication in a Neotropical treefrog, Hyla ebraccata—responses of females to advertisement and aggressive calls. Behaviour 101:199–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wells KD, Greer BJ (1981) Vocal responses to conspecific calls in a Neotropical hylid frog, Hyla ebraccata. Copeia 1981:615–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wells KD, Schwartz JJ (1984a) Vocal communication in a Neotropical treefrog, Hyla ebraccata—advertisement calls. Anim Behav 32:405–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wells KD, Schwartz JJ (1984b) Vocal communication in a Neotropical treefrog, Hyla ebraccata—aggressive calls. Behaviour 91:128–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wells KD, Taigen TL (1986) The effect of social interactions on calling energetics in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wells KD, Taigen TL (1989) Calling energetics of a Neotropical treefrog, Hyla microcephala. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Whitney CL, Krebs JR (1975) Mate selection in Pacific tree frogs. Nature 255:325–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wiewandt TA (1969) Vocalization, aggressive behavior, and territoriality in the bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. Copeia 1969:276–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wilczynski W, Brenowitz EA (1988) Acoustic cues mediate inter-male spacing in a neotropical frog. Anim Behav 36:1054–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilczynski W, McClelland BE, Rand AS (1993) Acoustic, auditory, and morphological divergence in 3 species of neotropical frog. J Comp Physiol A 172:425–438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Wollerman L (1998) Stabilizing and directional preferences of female Hyla ebraccata for calls differing in static properties. Anim Behav 55:1619–1630CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Wollerman L (1999) Acoustic interference limits call detection in a Neotropical frog Hyla ebraccata. Anim Behav 57:529–536CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Biological SciencesUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations