Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 65, Issue 2, pp 359–367 | Cite as

The relative value of call embellishment in túngara frogs

Original Paper

Abstract

Facultative traits that have evolved under sexual selection, such as the acoustic ornaments present in the advertisement signals of male túngara frogs (Physalaemus pustulosus), offer a unique opportunity to examine selection for trait exaggeration with a focus on individual differences amongst signalers. By contrast, many studies of mate choice use experimental designs that obscure the inter-individual variation amongst signalers available for selection to act on—through the use of “typical” or average signals from the population. Here, we use dichotomous female phonotaxis choice tests to determine how the value of male call embellishment varies across 20 individual males frogs recorded from the wild—a sample which captures the acoustic diversity present in the population. We tested 20 females for each male call pair (i.e., 400 females). The results show widespread preference amongst females for ornamented calls (“whine–chucks”) over simple calls (“whines”), yet also demonstrate substantial variation in the relative benefits for individual male frogs—some males enjoy appreciable benefits by using ornaments while others (30% of males in this study) do not. We also show that the relative amplitude of the chuck to the whine correlates positively with the value of call elaborations across these 20 males. Finally, by manipulating the relative amplitude of whines and chucks using both natural and synthetic calls, we demonstrate directly that this single call parameter is key to determining the relative value of call elaborations across males.

Keywords

Advertisement calls Individual differences Mate choice Phonotaxis Physalaemus Sexual selection 

Supplementary material

265_2010_1053_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (304 kb)
ESM 1Summary of acoustic variables of the calls of each male (PDF 303 kb)
265_2010_1053_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (198 kb)
ESM 2Latencies and disqualified trials for each call pair (PDF 197 kb)

References

  1. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Baugh AT, Ryan MJ (2010) Mate choice in response to dynamic presentation of male advertisement signals in túngara frogs. Anim Behav 79:145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernal X, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2006) Acoustic preferences and localization performance of blood-sucking flies (Corethella Coquillett). Behav Ecol 17:709–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernal XE, Akre KL, Baugh AT, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2009) Female and male behavioral response to advertisement calls of graded complexity in túngara frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1269–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cummings ME, Mollaghan DM (2006) Repeatability and consistency of female preference behaviours in a northern swordtail, Xiphophorus nigrensis. Anim Behav 72:217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cummings ME, Rosenthal GG, Ryan MJ (2003) A private ultraviolet channel in visual communication. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 270:897–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dale J (2006) Intraspecific variation in coloration. In: Hill GE, McGraw KJ (eds) Bird coloration: volume 2, function and evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 36–86Google Scholar
  8. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Dochtermann NA (2010) Behavioral syndromes: carryover effects, false discovery rates, and a prior hypotheses. Behav Ecol 21:437–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Espmark Y (1995) Individual and local variations in the song of the snow bunting Plectrophenax nivalis on Spitzbergen. Bioacoustics 6:117–134Google Scholar
  11. Gerhardt HC (1978) Discrimination of intermediate sounds in a synthetic call continuum by female green tree frogs. Science 199:1089–1091CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gerhardt HC, Schwartz JJ (2001) Auditory tuning and frequency preferences in anurans. In: Ryan MJ (ed) Anuran communication. Smithsonian, Washington, D.C., pp 73–85Google Scholar
  13. Gerhardt HC, Brooks R (2009) Experimental analysis of multivariate female choice in gray treefrogs (Hyla versicolor): evidence for directional and stabilizing selection. Evolution 63:2504–2512CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill GE (1991) Plumage coloration is a sexually selected indicator of male quality. Nature 350:337–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jang Y, Greenfield MD (1998) Absolute versus relative measures of sexual selection: assessing the contributions of ultrasonic signal characters to mate attraction in lesser wax moths, Achroia grisella (Leptidopters: Pyralidae). Evolution 52:1383–1393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kodric-Brown A (1988) Effects of sex-ratio manipulation on territoriality and spawning success of the male pupfish, Cyprinodon pecosensis. Anim Behav 36:1136–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McClintock WJ, Uetz GW (1996) Female choice and pre-existing bias: visual cues during courtship in two Schizocosa wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae). Anim Behav 52:167–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Møller AP (1994) Sexual selection in the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica). IV. Patterns of fluctuating asymmetry and selection against asymmetry. Evolution 48:658–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Møller AP (1998) Sexual selection and tail streamers in the barn swallow. Proc Roy Soc B 265:409–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Page R, Ryan MJ (2008) The effect of signal complexity on localization performance in bats that localize frog calls. Anim Behav 76:761–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pröhl H, Hödl W (1999) Parental investment, potential reproductive rates and mating system in the strawberry poison-dart frog Dendrobates pumilio. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:215–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rand AS, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W (1992) Signal redundancy and receiver permissiveness in acoustic mate recognition by the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Am Zool 32:15–17Google Scholar
  23. Ryan MJ (1985) The túngara frog: a study in sexual selection and communication. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  24. Ryan MJ, Rand AS (1990) The sensory basis of sexual selection for complex calls in the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus (sexual selection for sensory exploitation). Evolution 44:305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ryan MJ, Rand AS (2001) Feature weighting in signal recognition and discrimination by túngara frogs. In: Ryan MJ (ed) Anuran communication. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., pp 86–101Google Scholar
  26. Ryan MJ, Rand AS (2003) Sexual selection in female perceptual space: how female túngara frogs perceive and respond to complex population variation in acoustic mating signals. Evolution 57:2608–2618PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Ryan MJ, Tuttle MD, Rand AS (1982) Sexual advertisement and bat predation in a neotropical frog. Am Nat 119:136–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ryan MJ, Fox JH, Wilczynski W, Rand AS (1990) Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature 343:66–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ryan MJ, Rand W, Hurd PL, Phelps SM, Rand AS (2003) Generalization in response to mate recognition signals. Am Nat 161:380–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Schwartz JJ, Gerhardt HC (1998) The neuroethology of frequency preferences in the spring peeper. Anim Behav 56:55–69CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Sheldon BC, Andersson S, Griffith SC, Örnborg J, Sendecka J (1999) Ultraviolet colour variation influences blue tit sex ratios. Nature 402:874–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Weigt LA, Crawford AJ, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2005) Biogeography of the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Mol Ecol 14:3857–3876CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Zuk M, Thornhill R, Ligon JD, Johnson K, Austad S, Ligon SH, Thornhill NW, Costin C (1990) The role of male ornaments and courtship behavior in female mate choice of red jungle fowl. Am Nat 136:450–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zuk M, Lignon D, Thornhill R (1992) Effects of experimental manipulation of male secondary sex characters on female mate preference in red jungle fowl. Anim Behav 44:999–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of Integrative BiologyThe University of TexasAustinUSA
  2. 2.Smithsonian Tropical Research InstituteBalboaRepublic of Panamá
  3. 3.Max Planck Institute for Ornithology: Migration and Immuno-ecologyRadolfzellGermany

Personalised recommendations