Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 63, Issue 9, pp 1281–1293 | Cite as

Site fidelity and patterns of short- and long-term movement in the brilliant-thighed poison frog Allobates femoralis (Aromobatidae)

Original Paper


We studied movement and site fidelity of males and females of the territorial frog Allobates femoralis (Aromobatidae) in a population in the Nature Reserve “Les Nouragues” in French Guiana, South America. Observations during 3 months in 2006 ascertained intra-seasonal site fidelity for males and females. Males actively defend large multi-purpose territories whereas females retreat to small resting sites from where they commute to neighbouring males for courtship and mating. Female short-term movement corroborates the previous assumption of a polygynous or promiscuous resource-defence mating system. Year-to-year recaptures from 2005 until 2008 revealed distinct patterns of inter-annual movement for males and regional site fidelity for females. Males abandon their territories and have to re-negotiate them when reproduction starts again at the end of the dry season. Females are not subject to intra- or inter-sexual territorial competition and as a result move significantly less between reproductive seasons than males. Male long-term movement reflects spatial structure and prevailing social interactions and is a reliable indicator for tadpole deposition sites. The combined effects of intra- and inter-seasonal movement promote the diversity of mates for both sexes.


Dispersal Site fidelity Territoriality Amphibia Dendrobatoidea Movement 


  1. Aichinger M (1991) Tadpole transport in relation to rainfall, fecundity, and body size in five species of poison-dart frogs from Amazonian Peru. Amphib–Reptil 12:49–55. doi:10.1163/156853891X00329 Google Scholar
  2. Amézquita A, Hödl W, Lima AP, Castellanos L, Erdtmann L, de Araújo MC (2006) Masking interference and the evolution of the acoustic communication system in the Amazonian dendrobatid frog Allobates femoralis. Evolution 60:1874–1887. doi:10.1554/06-081.1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreone F (1998) Capture–recapture study of Mantidactylus microtympanum (Anura, Ranidae, Mantellinae) from the Andohahela low altitude rainforest, south-eastern Madagascar. Amphib–Reptil 19:451–455. doi:10.1163/156853898X00142 Google Scholar
  4. Arak A (1983) Male–male competition and mate choice in anuran amphibians. In: Bateson P (ed) Mate choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 181–210Google Scholar
  5. Bee MA (2007) Selective phonotaxis by male wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) to the sound of a chorus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:955–966. doi:10.1007/s00265-006-0324-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beyer HL (2004) Hawth’s analysis tools for ArcGIS. Version 3.26
  7. Bollinger EK, Switzer PV (2002) Modeling the impact of edge avoidance on avian nest densities in habitat fragments. Ecol Appl 12:1567–1575. doi:10.2307/3099922 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Born MG, Gaucher P (2001) Distribution and life histories of amphibians and reptiles. In: Bongers F, Charles-Dominique P, Forget P, Théry M (eds) Nouragues. Dynamics and plant–animal interactions in a neotropical rainforest. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 167–184Google Scholar
  9. Bosch J, De la Riva I (2004) Are frog calls modulated by the environment? An analysis with anuran species from Bolivia. Can J Zool 82:880–888. doi:10.1139/z04-060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boyé M, Cabaussel G, Perrot Y (1979) Climatologie. In: Lasserre G, Sautter G, Boyé M, Brasseur G (eds) Atlas des départements français d’Outre-Mer: 4. La Guyane. CNRS/ORSTOM, ParisGoogle Scholar
  11. Butler D (2006) Murders halt rainforest research. Nature 441:555. doi:10.1038/441555a PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chiu C, Kam Y (2006) Testing the nest-homing abilities of a phytotelm-breeding frog, Chirixalus eiffingeri (Rhacophoridae). Zool Sci 23:501–505. doi:10.2108/zsj.23.501 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crump ML (1986) Homing and site fidelity in a neotropical frog, Atelopus varius (Bufonidae). Copeia 1986:438–444. doi:10.2307/1445001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crump ML (1988) Aggression in harlequin frogs: male–male competition and a possible conflict of interest between the sexes. Anim Behav 36:1064–1077. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(88) 80066-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dall SRX, Giraldeau L, Olsson O, McNamara JM, Stephens DW (2005) Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 20:187–193. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.01.010 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Data East (2003–2007) XTools Pro for ArcGIS desktop. Version 4.2.0 (Build 383). Data East, NovosibirskGoogle Scholar
  17. De Solla SR, Bonduriansky R, Brooks RJ (1999) Eliminating autocorrelation reduces biological relevance of home range estimates. J Anim Ecol 68:221–234. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2656.1999.00279.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Diego-Rasilla FJ, Luengo RM, Phillips JB (2005) Magnetic compass mediates nocturnal homing by the alpine newt, Triturus alpestris. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:361–365. doi:10.1007/s00265-005-0951-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dole JW, Durant P (1974) Movements and seasonal activity of Atelopus oxyrhynchus (Anura: Atelopodidae) in a Venezuelan Cloud Forest. Copeia 1974:230–235. doi:10.2307/1443028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Donnelly MA (1989a) Effects of reproductive resource supplementation on space-use patterns in Dendrobates pumilio. Oecologia 81:212–218. doi:10.1007/BF00379808 Google Scholar
  21. Donnelly MA (1989b) Demographic effects of reproductive resource supplementation in a territorial frog, Dendrobates pumilio. Ecol Monogr 59:207–221. doi:10.2307/1942599 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Donnelly MA, Guyer C, Juterbock JE, Alford RA (1994) Techniques for marking amphibians. In: Heyer WR, Donnelly MA, McDiarmid RW, Hayek LC, Foster MS (eds) Measuring and monitoring biological diversity. Standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, pp 277–284Google Scholar
  23. Doty GV, Welch AM (2001) Advertisement call duration indicates good genes for offspring feeding rate in gray treefrogs (Hyla versicolor). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:150–156. doi:10.1007/s002650000291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ET SpatialTechniques (2007) ET Geo Wizards. Version 9.6.1. ET SpatialTechniques, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  25. Ferguson DE, McKeown JP, Bosarge OS, Landreth HF (1968) Sun-compass orientation of bullfrogs. Copeia 1968:230–235. doi:10.2307/1441746 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Forester DC, Wisnieski A (1991) The significance of airborne olfactory cues to the recognition of home area by the dart-poison frog Dendrobates pumilio. J Herpetol 25:502–504. doi:10.2307/1564782 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Forester DC, Snodgrass JW, Marsalek K, Lanham Z (2006) Post-breeding dispersal and summer home range of female American toads (Bufo americanus). Northeast Nat 13:59–72. doi:10.1656/1092-6194(2006) 13[59:PDASHR]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Forsman A, Hagman M (2006) Calling is an honest indicator of paternal genetic quality in poison frogs. Evolution 60:2148–2157. doi:10.1554/06-258.1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Gascon C (1991) Population- and community-level analyses of species occurrences of central Amazonian rainforest tadpoles. Ecology 72:1731–1746. doi:10.2307/1940972 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gasser H, Amézquita A, Hödl W (2009) Who is calling? Intraspecific call variation in the aromobatid frog Allobates femoralis. Ethology 115:596–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Göd M, Franz A, Hödl W (2007) The influence of internote-interval variation of the advertisement call on the phonotactic behaviour in male Allobates femoralis (Dendrobatidae). Amphib–Reptil 28:227–234. doi:10.1163/156853807780202468 Google Scholar
  32. Gottsberger B, Gruber E (2004) Temporal partitioning of reproductive activity in a neotropical anuran community. J Trop Ecol 20:271–280. doi:10.1017/S0266467403001172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Greenwood PJ, Harvey PH (1982) The natal and breeding dispersal of birds. Ann Rev Ecolog Syst 13:1–21. doi:10.1146/ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Grimaldi M, Riéra B (2001) Geography and climate. In: Bongers F, Charles-Dominique P, Forget P, Théry M (eds) Nouragues. Dynamics and plant–animal interactions in a neotropical rainforest. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 9–18Google Scholar
  35. Haase A, Pröhl H (2002) Female activity patterns and aggressiveness in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio (Anura: Dendrobatidae). Amphib–Reptil 23:129–140. doi:10.1163/156853802760061778 Google Scholar
  36. Harvey MJ, Barbour RW (1965) Home range of Microtus ochrogaster as determined by a modified minimum area method. J Mammal 46:398–402. doi:10.2307/1377624 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heying HE (2001) Social and reproductive behaviour in the Madagascan poison frog, Mantella laevigata, with comparisons to the dendrobatids. Anim Behav 61:567–577. doi:10.1006/anbe.2000.1642 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hödl W (1983) Phyllobates femoralis (Dendrobatidae): Rufverhalten und akustische Orientierung der Männchen (Freilandaufnahmen). Wiss Film 30:12–19 Bundesstaatliche Hauptstelle für Wissenschaftliche Kinematographie, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  39. Hödl W, Amézquita A, Narins PM (2004) The role of call frequency and the auditory papillae in phonotactic behavior in male dart-poison frogs Epipedobates femoralis (Dendrobatidae). J Comp Physiol A 190:823–829. doi:10.1007/s00359-004-0536-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ihara Y (2002) A model for evolution of male parental care and female multiple mating. Am Nat 160:235–244. doi:10.1086/341019 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Juncá FA, Eterovick PC (2007) Feeding ecology of two sympatric species of Aromobatidae, Allobates marchesianus and Anomaloglossus stepheni, in central Amazon. J Herpetol 41:301–308. doi:10.1670/0022-1511(2007) 41[301:FEOTSS]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lescure J (1976) Etude des têtards de deux Phyllobates (Dendrobatidae). Bull Soc Zool Fr 101:299–306Google Scholar
  43. Lima AP, Magnusson WE (1998) Partitioning seasonal time: interactions among size, foraging activity and diet in leaf-litter frogs. Oecologia 116:259–266. doi:10.1007/s004420050587 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Luger M (2006) Wanted: riverside home—habitat association in male harlequin toads (Atelopus hoogmoedi, Bufonidae) from Suriname. M.Sc. thesis, Department of Evolutionary Biology, University of Vienna, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  45. Magaña Mendoza D (2008) Territory size in Allobates femoralis (Dendrobatidae): playback versus observational method. M.Sc. thesis, Department of Evolutionary Biology, University of Vienna, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  46. Mardia KV, Jupp PE (2000) Directional statistics (Wiley series in probability and statistics). Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  47. Marsh DM (2001) Fluctuations in amphibian populations: a meta-analysis. Biol Conserv 101:327–335. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(01) 00076-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McVey ME, Zahary RG, Perry D, MacDougal J (1981) Territoriality and homing behavior in the poison dart frog (Dendrobates pumilio). Copeia 1981:1–8. doi:10.2307/1444035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Miaud C, Sanuy Castells D, Avrillier J (2000) Terrestrial movements of the natterjack toad Bufo calamita (Amphibia, Anura) in a semi-arid, agricultural landscape. Amphib–Reptil 21:357–369. doi:10.1163/156853800507426 Google Scholar
  50. Narins PM, Hödl W, Grabul DS (2003) Bimodal signal requisite for agonistic behavior in a dart-poison frog, Epipedobates femoralis. PNAS 100:577–580. doi:10.1073/pnas.0237165100 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Narins PM, Grabul DS, Soma KK, Gaucher P, Hödl W (2005) Cross-modal integration in a dart-poison frog. PNAS 102:2425–2429. doi:10.1073/pnas.0406407102 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Orgutsov SV (2004) Olfactory orientation in anuran amphibians. Russ J Herpetol 11:35–40Google Scholar
  53. Otter K, McGregor PK, Terry AMR, Burford FRL, Peake TM, Dabelsteen T (1999) Do female great tits (Parus major) assess males by eavesdropping? A field study using interactive song playback. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1305–1309. doi:10.1098/rspb.1999.0779 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pasinelli G, Müller M, Schaub M, Jenni L (2007) Possible causes and consequences of philopatry and breeding dispersal in red-backed shrikes Lanius collurio. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1061–1074. doi:10.1007/s00265-006-0339-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Passmore NI, Telford S (1981) The effect of chorus organization on mate localization in the painted reed frog (Hyperolius marmoratus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:291–293. doi:10.1007/BF00299885 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Patrick DA, Calhoun AJK, Hunter ML JR (2007) Orientation of juvenile wood frogs, Rana sylvatica, leaving experimental ponds. J Herpetol 41:158–163. doi:10.1670/0022-1511(2007)41[158:OOJWFR]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Payne RB, Payne LL (1993) Breeding dispersal in indigo buntings: circumstances and consequences for breeding success and population structure. Condor 95:1–24. doi:10.2307/1369382 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pellet J, Rechsteiner L, Skrivervik AK, Zürcher J, Perrin N (2006) Use of the harmonic direction finder to study the terrestrial habitats of the European tree frog (Hyla arborea). Amphib–Reptil 27:138–142. doi:10.1163/156853806776052173 Google Scholar
  59. Poelman EH, Dicke M (2008) Space use of Amazonian poison frogs: testing the reproductive resource defense hypothesis. J Herpetol 42:270–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Poncy O, Sabatier D, Prévost M, Hardy I (2001) The lowland high rainforest: structure and tree species diversity. In: Bongers F, Charles-Dominique P, Forget P, Théry M (eds) Nouragues. Dynamics and plant–animal interactions in a neotropical rainforest. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 31–47Google Scholar
  61. Pope KL, Matthews KR (2001) Movement ecology and seasonal distribution of mountain yellow-legged frogs, Rana muscosa, in a high-elevation Sierra Nevada basin. Copeia 2001:787–793. doi:10.1643/0045-8511(2001) 001[0787:MEASDO]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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. doi:10.1046/j.1439-0310.2003.00863.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pröhl H (2005) Territorial behavior in dendrobatid frogs. J Herpetol 39:354–365. doi:10.1670/162-04A.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Robertson JGM (1984) Acoustic spacing by breeding males of Uperoleia rugosa (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Z Tierpsychol 64:283–297Google Scholar
  65. Roithmair ME (1992) Territoriality and male mating success in the dart-poison frog, Epipedobates femoralis (Dendrobatidae, Anura). Ethology 92:331–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Roithmair ME (1994) Field studies on reproductive behaviour in two dart-poison frog species (Epipedobates femoralis, Epipedobates trivittatus) in Amazonian Peru. Herpetol J 4:77–85Google Scholar
  67. Santos EM, Almeida AV, Vasconcelos SD (2004) Feeding habits of six anuran (Amphibia: Anura) species in a rainforest fragment in northeastern Brazil. Iheringia Sér Zool 94:433–438. doi:10.1590/S0073-47212004000400014 Google Scholar
  68. Silverstone PA (1976) A revision of the poison-arrow frogs of the genus Phyllobates Bibron in Sagra (Family Dendrobatidae). Nat Hist Mus Los Angeles Co Sci Bull 27:1–53Google Scholar
  69. Simões PI, Lima AP, Magnusson WE, Hödl W, Amézquita A (2008) Acoustic and morphological differentiation in the frog Allobates femoralis: relationships with the upper Madeira River and other potential geological barriers. Biotropica 40:607–614. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2008.00416.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sinsch U (1988) Seasonal changes in the migratory behaviour of the toad Bufo bufo: direction and magnitude of movements. Oecologia 76:390–398. doi:10.1007/BF00377034 Google Scholar
  71. Sinsch U (1997) Postmetamorphic dispersal and recruitment of first breeders in a Bufo calamita metapopulation. Oecologia 112:42–47. doi:10.1007/s004420050281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sjögren-Gulve P (1998) Spatial movement patterns in frogs: target-oriented dispersal in the pool frog, Rana lessonae. Ecoscience 5:31–38Google Scholar
  73. Sullivan BK, Heatwole H (Eds) (1995) Social behaviour (Amphibian biology, vol. 2). Surrey Beatty, Chipping NortonGoogle Scholar
  74. Summers K, Weigt LA, Boag PT, Bermingham E (1999) The evolution of female parental care in poison frogs of the genus Dendrobates: evidence from mitochondrial DNA sequences. Herpetologica 55:254–270Google Scholar
  75. Switzer PV (1993) Site fidelity in predictable and unpredictable habitats. Evol Ecol 7:533–555. doi:10.1007/BF01237820 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Switzer PV (1997) Past reproductive success affects future habitat selection. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 40:307–312. doi:10.1007/s002650050346 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sztatecsny M, Schabetsberger R (2005) Into thin air: vertical migration, body condition, and quality of terrestrial habitats of alpine common toads, Bufo bufo. Can J Zool 83:788–796. doi:10.1139/Z05-071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Taylor DH, Ferguson DE (1970) Extraoptic celestial orientation in the southern cricket frog Acris gryllus. Science 168:390–392. doi:10.1126/science.168.3929.39 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Toft CA (1980) Feeding ecology of thirteen syntopic species of anurans in a seasonal tropical environment. Oecologia 45:131–141. doi:10.1007/BF00346717 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ursprung E, Ringler M, Hödl W (2009) Phonotactic approach pattern in the dendrobatid frog Allobates femoralis (Dendrobatidae)—a spatial and temporal analysis. Behaviour 146:153–170. doi:10.1163/156853909x410711 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Valone TJ (2007) From eavesdropping on performance to copying the behavior of others, a review of public information use. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1–14. doi:10.1007/s00265-007-0439-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. van Wijngaarden R, van Gool S (1994) Site fidelity and territoriality in the dendrobatid frog Dendrobates granuliferus. Amphib–Reptil 15:171–181. doi:10.1163/156853894X00272 Google Scholar
  83. Vieites DR, Rabemananjara FEC, Bora P, Razafimahatratra B, Ravoahangimalala OR, Vences M (2005) Distribution and population density of the black-eared Malagasy poison frog, Mantella milotympanum Staniszewski, 1996 (Amphibia: Mantellidae). In: Huber BA, Sinclair BJ, Lampe K (eds) African biodiversity. Molecules, organisms, ecosystems. Springer, New York, pp 197–204Google Scholar
  84. Wells KD (1977) The social behaviour of anuran amphibians. Anim Behav 25:666–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wells KD (2001) The energetics of calling in frogs. In: Ryan MJ (ed) Anuran communication. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, pp 45–60Google Scholar
  86. Wells KD (2007) The ecology and behavior of amphibians. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  87. Wells KD, Schwartz JJ (1982) The effect of vegetation on the propagation of calls in the neotropical frog Centrolenella fleischmanni. Herpetologica 38:449–455Google Scholar
  88. Wells KD, Taigen TL (1986) The effect of social interactions on calling energetics in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:9–18. doi:10.1007/BF00303837 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Weygold P (1980) Zur Fortpflanzungsbiologie von Phyllobates femoralis (Boulenger) im Terrarium. Salamandra 16:215–226Google Scholar
  90. Weygold P (1987) Evolution of parental care in dart poison frogs (Amphibia: Anura: Dendrobatidae). Z Zoolog Syst Evol Forsch 25:51–67Google Scholar
  91. Wilczynski W, Brenowitz EA (1988) Acoustic cues mediate inter-male spacing in a neotropical frog. Anim Behav 36:1054–1063. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(88) 80065-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations