Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 60–69 | Cite as

Calls of Recently Introduced Coquí Frogs Do Not Interfere with Cricket Phonotaxis in Hawaii

  • Marlene ZukEmail author
  • Jessie C. Tanner
  • Elizabeth Schmidtman
  • Mark A. Bee
  • Susan Balenger


Acoustically-signaling animals such as crickets may experience interference from environmental noise, a particular concern given the rise in anthropogenic or other novel sources of sound. We examined the potential for acoustic interference of female phonotaxis to calling song in the Pacific field cricket (Teleogryllus oceanicus) by invasive coqui frogs (Eleutherodactylus coqui) in Hawaii. The frogs were introduced to Hawaii from Puerto Rico in the 1980s. When female crickets were exposed to male calling songs with and without simultaneous broadcast of a coqui chorus, they were equally likely to move toward the cricket song, regardless of the location of the frog sound (ground level or above ground). Unlike some species of frogs and birds, T. oceanicus do not appear to experience acoustic interference from an introduced signaler, even though the introduced species’ calls subjectively seem to be masking the crickets’ songs.


Acoustic interference introduced species phonotaxis 



E.S. was supported in part by a grant from the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program at the University of Minnesota. M.Z. and M.A.B. are supported by grants from the National Science Foundation. J.C.T. is supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship and a Ford Foundation Predoctoral Fellowship.


  1. Bailey NW, Zuk M (2008) Acoustic experience shapes female mate choice in field crickets. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:2645–2650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bee MA, Micheyl C (2008) The “Cocktail Party Problem”: what is it? How can it be solved? And why should animal behaviorists study it? J Comp Psychol 122:235–251CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Benevides FL, Mautz WJ (2014) Temporal and spectral characteristics of the male Eleutherodactylus coqui two-note vocalization in Hawaii. Bioacoustics 23:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennet-Clark HC (1998) Size and scale effects as constraints in insect sound communication. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 353:407–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bleach I, Beckman C, Both C, Brown GP, Shine R (2015) Noisy neighbors at the frog pond: effects of invasive cane toads on the calling behaviour of native Australian frogs. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69:675–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Both C, Grant T (2012) Biological invasions and the acoustic niche: the effect of bullfrog calls on the acoustic signals of white-banded tree frogs. Biol Lett 8:714–716CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyd P, Lewis B (1983) Peripheral auditory directionality in the cricket (Gryllus campestris L., Teleogryllus oceanicus Le Guillou). J Comput Phys 153:523–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brumm H (2013) Animal communication and noise. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costello RA, Symes LB (2014) Effects of anthropogenic noise on male signalling behaviour and female phonotaxis in Oecanthus tree crickets. Anim Behav 95:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drewry GE, Rand AS (1983) Characteristics of an acoustic community: Puerto Rican frogs of the genus Eleutherodactylus. Copeia 1983:941–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Halekoh U, Højsgaard S, Yan J (2006) The R package geepack for generalized estimating equations. J Stat Softw 15:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Halfwerk W, Holleman LJM, Lessells CM, Slabbekoorn H (2011) Negative impact of traffic noise on avian reproductive success. J Appl Ecol 48:210–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hardin J, Hilbe J (2012) Generalized estimating equations, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Kevan D (1990) Introduced grasshoppers and crickets in Micronesia. Biol San Veg Plagas (Fuera de serie) 20:105–123Google Scholar
  15. Lampe U, Schmoll T, Franzke A, Reinhold K (2012) Staying tuned: grasshoppers from noisy roadside habitats produce courtship signals with elevated frequency components. Funct Ecol 26:1348–1354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. LaZerte SE, Otter KA, Slabbekoorn H (2015) Relative effects of ambient noise and habitat openness on signal transfer for chickadee vocalizations in rural and urban green-spaces. Bioacoustics 24:233–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Llusia D, Gómez M, Penna M, Márquez R (2013) Call transmission efficiency in native and invasive anurans: competing hypotheses of divergence in acoustic signals. PLoS One 8:e77312CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Moiseff A, Pollack GS, Hoy RR (1978) Steering responses of flying crickets to sound and ultrasound: mate attraction and predator avoidance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 75:4052–4056CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Narins PM (1982) Effects of masking noise on evoked calling in the Puerto Rican coqui (Anura: Leptodactylidae). J Comp Physiol A 147:439–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Narins PM, Clark GA (2016) Principles of matched filtering with auditory examples from selected vertebrates. In: The ecology of animal senses. Springer, London, pp 111–140Google Scholar
  21. O’Neill EM, Beard KH (2011) Clinal variation of native and introduced populations of Eleutherodactylus coqui. Copeia 2011:18–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Otte D, Alexander RD (1983) The Australian crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Acad Nat Sci Phil Monograph 22, Lawrence, KSGoogle Scholar
  23. Pan W (2001) Akaike’s information criterion in generalized estimating equations. Biometrics 57:120–125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Pohl NU, Slabbekoorn H, Klump GM, Langemann U (2009) Effects of signal features and environmental noise on signal detection in the great tit, Parus major. Anim Behav 78:1293–1300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Popov AV, Shuvalov VF (1977) Phonotactic behavior in crickets. J Comp Physiol A 119:111–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Römer H (2013) Masking by noise in acoustic insects: problems and solutions. In: Brumm H (ed) Animal communication and noise, animal signals and communication 2. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 33–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Römer H (2016) Matched filters in insect audition: tuning curves and beyond. In: The ecology of animal senses. Springer, London, pp 83–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sabet SS, Neo YY, Slabbekoorn H (2016) Impact of anthropogenic noise on aquatic animals: from single species to community-level effects. In: Popper AN, Hawkins A (eds) The effects of noise on aquatic life II, advances in experimental medicine and biology 875. Spring, New York, pp 957–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmidt AKD, Römer H (2011) Solutions to the cocktail party problem in insects: selective filters, spatial release from masking and gain control in tropical crickets. PLoS One 6:e28593CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Simmons LW, Zuk M, Rotenberry JT (2001) Geographic variation in female preference functions and male songs of the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. Evolution 55:1386–1394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. von der Emde G, Warrant E (2016) The ecology of animal senses. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Woolbright LL, Hara AH, Jacobsen CM, Mautz WJ, Benvides FL (2006) Population densities of the Coquí, Eleutherodactylus coqui (Anura: Leptodactylidae) in newly invaded Hawaii and in native Puerto Rico. J Herpetol 40:122–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zuk M, Rebar D, Scott SP (2008) Courtship song is more variable than calling song in the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. Anim Behav 76:1065–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marlene Zuk
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jessie C. Tanner
    • 1
  • Elizabeth Schmidtman
    • 1
  • Mark A. Bee
    • 1
  • Susan Balenger
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of MinnesotaDepartment of Ecology Evolution, and BehaviorSaint PaulUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of MississippiUniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations