acta ethologica

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 51–57 | Cite as

Territory size as a main driver of male-mating success in an Amazonian nurse frog (Allobates paleovarzensis, Dendrobatoidea)

  • Sulamita Marques Correia da RochaEmail author
  • Albertina Pimentel Lima
  • Igor Luis Kaefer
Short Communication


In polygamous mating systems, it is most often males that compete for the opposite sex, using strategies to provide access to as many females as possible. Females, on the other hand, constitute the sex that exerts the choice and so require a means of accessing the quality of a potential partner in comparison to its competitors. A common challenge in sexual selection studies is to identify the most relevant trait for mating success, since many are correlated with each other. In addition, little is known about how the female accesses the aspects related to male quality. In this context, we tested the role of different male characteristics on mating success in a natural environment using the Amazonian frog Allobates paleovarzensis as a model. A multiple linear regression model showed a positive relationship between territory size and number of male matings, while calling persistence was slightly related to the mating success. We did not detect a relation of the number of matings with the distance to the nearest body of water nor with male body size. Additionally, we observed that territory size was not related to calling persistence, but had a positive relation with the duration of the couple’s courting process. Thus, we conclude that: (1) territory size is the main determinant of male-mating success, and this is not correlated with the other attributes tested; and (2) females access the size of the males’ territory through the courting process that precedes oviposition.


Anura Aromobatidae behavior courtship sexual selection 



We thank Natan da Silva Mello for assistance with data collection and Irene da Silva Mello for logistical assistance during the fieldwork.

Funding information

This research was funded by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq, processes 401327/2012-4, 610023/2009-8) and by the Centro de Estudo Integrados da Biodiversidade Amazônica (CENBAM, process 722069/2009). This study was authorized by the Animal Use Ethics Committee (CEUA, process 0142016) from the Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (INPA) and by the Sistema de Autorização e Informação em Biodiversidade (SISBio) from Brazilian Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio, process 51412).

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted.


  1. Assis RL, Haugaasen T, Schongart J, Montero JC, Piedade MTF, Wittmann F (2014) Patterns of tree diversity and composition in Amazonian floodplain paleo-várzea forest. J Veg Sci 26:312–322. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bart J, Earnst SL (1999) Relative importance of male and territory quality in pairing success of male rock ptarmigan (Lagopus mutus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:355–359. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batres C, Perrett DI (2016) How the harsh environment of an army training camp changes human (Homo sapiens) facial preferences. Ethology 123:61–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourne GR, Collins AC, Holder AM, McCarthy CL (2001) Vocal communication and reproductive behaviour of the frog Colostethus beebei in Guyana. J Herpetol 35:272–281. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown JL, Morales V, Summers K (2009) Home range size and location in relation to reproductive resources in poison frogs (Dendrobatidae): a Monte Carlo approach using GIS data. Anim Behav 77:547–554. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Candolin U, Voigt H (2001) Correlation between male size and territory quality: consequence of male competition or predation susceptibility. Oikos 95:225–230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cintra BBL, Schietti J, Emillio T, Martins D, Moulatlet G, Souza P, Levis C, Quesada CA, Schöngart J (2013) Soil physical restrictions and hydrology regulate stand age and wood biomass turnover rates of Purus–Madeira interfluvial wetlands in Amazonia. Biogeosciences 10:7759–7774. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dale S, Slagsvold T (1990) Random settlement of female pied flycatchers, Ficedula hypoleuca: significance of male territory size. Anim Behav 39:231–243. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Downie JR, Robinson E, Linklater-McLennan RJ, Somerville E, Kamenos N (2005) Are there costs to extended larval transport in the Trinidadian stream frog, Mannophryne trinitatis (Dendrobatidae)? J Nat Hist 39:2023–2034. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Eterovick PC, Fernandes GW (2002) Why do breeding frogs colonize some puddles more than others? Phyllomedusa 1:31–40.  10.11606/issn.2316-9079.v1i1p31-40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Claredon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forti LR, Mott T, Struessmann C (2013) Breeding biology of Ameerega braccata (Steindachner, 1864) (Anura: Dendrobatidae) in the Cerrado of Brazil. J Nat Hist 47:2363–2371. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gosner KL (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183–190Google Scholar
  15. Haddad CFB, Giaretta AA (1999) Visual and acoustic communication in the Brazilian torrent frog, Hylodes asper (Anura: Leptadactylidae). Herpetologica 55:324–333Google Scholar
  16. Houck LD, Reagan NL (1990) Male courtship pheromones increase female receptivity in a plethodontid salamander. Anim Behav 39:729–734. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Howard RD (1978) The evolution of mating strategies in bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana. Evolution 32:850–871. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Irion G, Muller J, Nunes de Mello J, Junk WJ (1995) Quaternary geology of the Amazonian lowland. Geo-Mar Lett 15:172–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Izzo TJ, Rodrigues DJ, Menin M, Lima AP, Magnusson WE (2012) Functional necrophilia: a profitable anuran reproductive strategy? J Nat Hist 46:2961–2967. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Juncá FA, Rodrigues MT (2006) The reproductive success of Colostethus stepheni (Anura: Dendrobatidae). Stud Neotropical Fauna Environ 41:9–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaefer IL, Lima AP (2012) Sexual signals of the Amazonian frog Allobates paleovarzensis: geographic variation and stereotypy of acoustic traits. Behaviour 149:15–33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaefer IL, Montanarin A, Costa RS, Lima AP (2012) Temporal patterns of reproductive activity and site attachment of the brilliant-thighed frog Allobates femoralis from Central Amazonia. J Herpetol 46:549–554. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kenward R, Hodder KH (1995) An analysis system for biological location data. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, WarehamGoogle Scholar
  24. Lima AP, Caldwell JP, Biavati GM (2002) Territorial and reproductive behavior of an Amazonian dendrobatid frog, Colostethus caeruleodactylus. Copeia 2002:44–51.[0044:TARBOA]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lima AP, Caldwell JP, Biavati G, Montanarin A (2010) A new species of Allobates (Anura: Aromobatidae) from Paleovárzea Forest in Amazonas, Brazil. Zootaxa 2337:1–17. Google Scholar
  26. Limerick S (1980) Courtship behavior and oviposition of the poison-arrow frog Dendrobates pumilio. Herpetologica 36:69–71Google Scholar
  27. Maan ME, Cummings ME (2009) Sexual dimorphism and directional sexual selection on aposematic signals in a poison frog. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:19072–19077. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Martín J, Civantos E, Amo L, López P (2007) Chemical ornaments of male lizards Psammodromus algirus may reveal their parasite load and health state to females. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:173–179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McElligott AG, Gammell MP, Harty HC, Paini DR, Murphy DT, Walsh JT, Hayden TJ (2001) Sexual size dimorphism in fallow deer (Dama dama): do larger, heavier males gain greater mating success? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:266–272. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Montanarin A, Kaefer IL, Lima AP (2011) Courtship and mating behaviour of the brilliant-thighed frog Allobates femoralis from Central Amazonia: implications for the study of a species complex. Ethol Ecol Evol 23:141–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moravec J, Aparicio J, Guerrero-Reinhard M, Calderón G, Jungfer KH, Gvoždík V (2009) A new species of Osteocephalus (Anura: Hylidae) from Amazonian Bolivia: first evidence of tree frog breeding in fruit capsules of the Brazil nut tree. Zootaxa 2215:37–54. Google Scholar
  32. Parker GA, Baker RR, Smith VGF (1972) The origin and evolution of gamete dimorphism and the male-female phenomenon. J Theor Biol 36:529–553. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Partridge L, Ewing A, Chandler A (1987) Male size and mating success in Drosophila melanogaster: the roles of male and female behaviour. Anim Behav 35:555–562. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pašukonis A, Trenkwalder K, Ringler M, Ringler E, Mangione R, Steininger J, Warrington I, Hödl W (2016) The significance of spatial memory for water finding in a tadpole-transporting frog. Anim. Behav 116:89–98Google Scholar
  35. Prado CPA, Haddad CFB (2003) Testes size in Leptodactylid frogs and occurrence of multimale spawning in the genus Leptodactylus in Brazil. J Herpetol 37:354–362.[0354:TSILFA]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pröhl H (2002) Population differences in female resource abundance, adult sex ratio, and male mating success in Dendrobates pumilio. Behav Ecol 13:175–181. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pröhl H (2003) Variation in male calling behaviour and relation to male mating success in the strawberry poison frog (Dendrobates pumilio). Ethology 109:273–290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pröhl H (2005) Territorial behavior in dendrobatid frogs. J Herpetol 39:354–365. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pröhl H, Berke O (2001) Spatial distributions of male and female strawberry poison frogs and their relation to female reproductive resources. Oecologia 129:534–542. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Pröhl H, Hödl W (1999) Parental investment, potential reproductive rates, and mating system in the strawberry dart-poison frog, Dendrobates pumilio. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:215–220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. R Core Team (2016) A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  42. Reid ML, Weatherhead PJ (1990) Mate-choice criteria of Ipswich sparrows: the importance of variability. Anim Behav 40:538–544. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ringler E, Beck KB, Weinlein S, Huber L, Ringler M (2017) Adopt, ignore, or kill? Male poison frogs adjust parental decisions according to their territorial status. Sci Rep 7:43544. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Ringler E, Pašukonis A, Hödl W, Ringler M (2013) Tadpole transport logistics in a Neotropical poison frog: indications for strategic planning and adaptive plasticity in anuran parental care. Front Zool 10:10–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ringler E, Ringler M, Jehle R, Hödl W (2012) The female perspective of mating in Allobates femoralis, a territorial frog with paternal care—a spatial and genetic analysis. PLoS One 7:e40237. journal.pone.0040237 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Rocha SMC (2017) Comportamento reprodutivo do anuro amazônico Allobates paleovarzensis (Aromobatidae) e o papel dos parentais na sobrevivência da prole. Dissertation, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia. Accessed 9 Nov 2017
  47. Roithmair ME (1992) Territoriality and male mating success in the dart-poison frog, Epipedobates femoralis (Dendrobatidae, Anura). Ethology 92:331–343. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roithmair ME (1994) Male territoriality and female mate selection in the dart-poison frog Epipedobates trivittatus. Copeia 1994:107–115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sargent RC (1982) Territory quality, male quality, courtship intrusions, and female nest-choice in the threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Anim Behav 30:364–374. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Seddon N, Amos W, Mulder RA, Tobias JA (2004) Male heterozygosity predicts territory size, song structure and reproductive success in a cooperatively breeding bird. Proc Royal Soc London Ser B Biol Sci 271:1823–1829. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shine R, Olsson MM, Moore IT, LeMaster MP, Mason RT (2000) Body size enhances mating success in male garter snakes. Anim Behav 59:F4–F11. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Sirkiä PM, Laaksonen T (2009) Distinguishing between male and territory quality: females choose multiple traits in the pied flycatcher. Anim Behav 78:1051–1060. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Soma M, Garamszegi LZ (2015) Evolution of courtship display in Estrildid finches: dance in relation to female song and plumage ornamentation. Front Ecol Evol 3:1–11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sombroek W (2001) Spatial and temporal patterns of Amazon rainfall—consequences for the planning of agricultural occupation and the protection of primary forests. Ambio 30:388–396. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Summers K (1989) Sexual selection and intra-female competition in the green poison-dart frog, Dendrobates auratus. Anim Behav 37:797–805. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thornhill R (1980) Sexual selection within mating swarms of the lovebug, Plecia nearctica (Diptera: Bibionidae). Anim Behav 28:405–412. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Townsend DS (1986) The costs of male parental care and its evolution in a neotropical frog. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:187–195. Google Scholar
  58. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell BG (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  59. Ursprung E, Ringler M, Jehle R, Hödl W (2011) Strong male/male competition allows for nonchoosy females: high levels of polygynandry in a territorial frog with paternal care. Mol Ecol 20:1759–1771. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Valenzuela-Sánchez A, Harding G, Cunningham AA, Chirgwin C, Soto-Azat C (2014) Home range and social analyses in a mouth brooding frog: testing the coexistence of paternal care and male territoriality. J Zool 294:215–223. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vanpé C, Morellet N, Kjellander P, Goulard M, Liberg O, Hewison AJM (2009) Access to mates in a territorial ungulate is determined by the size of a male’s territory, but not by its habitat quality. J Anim Ecol 78:42–51. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Wells KD (1977) Territoriality and male mating success in the green frog (Rana clamitans). Ecology 58:750–762. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wells KD (2007) The ecology and behavior of amphibians. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yasukawa K (1981) Male quality and female choice of mate in the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Ecology 62:922–929. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Young AM (1979) Arboreal movement and tadpole-carrying behaviour of Dendrobates pumilio (Dendrobatidae) in Northeastern Costa Rica. Biotropica 11:238–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature and ISPA 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sulamita Marques Correia da Rocha
    • 1
    Email author
  • Albertina Pimentel Lima
    • 1
    • 2
  • Igor Luis Kaefer
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Programa de Pós-Graduação em EcologiaInstituto Nacional de Pesquisas da AmazôniaManausBrazil
  2. 2.Coordenação de Pesquisas em BiodiversidadeInstituto Nacional de Pesquisas da AmazôniaManausBrazil
  3. 3.Instituto de Ciências BiológicasUniversidade Federal do AmazonasManausBrazil

Personalised recommendations