Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 65, Issue 9, pp 1739–1751 | Cite as

Effects of multiple-speaker playbacks on aggressive calling behavior in the treefrog Dendropsophus ebraccatus

  • Michael S. Reichert
Original Paper

Abstract

In addition to producing signals, males of chorusing species also act as receivers by adjusting properties of their vocalizations in response to those of other nearby individuals. Although it is likely that males are responsive to more than one other individual, most playback studies investigating male response have involved dyads in which vocal responses are measured to stimuli presented from a single speaker. In this study, I explored changes in both the propensity to give aggressive calls and the temporal properties of those calls in response to the playback of multiple aggressive call stimuli in the treefrog Dendropsophus ebraccatus. I found that males were sensitive to both the number of simulated aggressive callers and their specific call characteristics. Males generally gave a highly aggressive response to the first stimulus presented, but their response to the modification of this stimulus by the addition or subtraction of a simulated competitor depended on the degree of aggressiveness of the stimuli. Males tended to decrease their aggressive responses when either a more aggressive call was silenced or a less aggressive call was added and to increase their aggressive responses in the opposite situation. Aggressive calling in this species is clearly affected by complex changes in the social environment and I suggest that future studies explore these issues in other species to improve the understanding of communication interactions.

Keywords

Aggressive calling Playback Signal competition Communication 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Flavia Barbosa and Carl Gerhardt provided support throughout and made helpful comments on the manuscript. John Christy served as the sponsor of this project at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. Financial support was provided by a Smithsonian Institution 10-week predoctoral fellowship and a graduate research award from the Carl Gottfried Hamilton fellowship fund at The University of Texas.

Ethical standards

These experiments comply with the current laws of the Republic of Panama and the United States of America. The Republic of Panama provided permission to carry out this study and methods were approved by the Animal Care and Use Committees of both the University of Texas and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bee MA, Perrill SA (1996) Responses to conspecific advertisement calls in the green frog (Rana clamitans) and their role in male–male communication. Behaviour 133:283–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benedix JH, Narins PM (1999) Competitive calling behavior by male treefrogs, Eleutherodactylus coqui (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Copeia 1999:1118–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradley DW, Mennill DJ (2009) Strong ungraded responses to playback of solos, duets and choruses in a cooperatively breeding Neotropical songbird. Anim Behav 77:1321–1327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brush JS, Narins PM (1989) Chorus dynamics of a neotropical amphibian assemblage: comparison of computer simulation and natural behaviour. Anim Behav 37:33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Budaev SV (2010) Using principal components and factor analysis in animal behaviour research: caveats and guidelines. Ethology 116:472–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fedy BC, Stutchbury BJM (2005) Territory defence in tropical birds: are females as aggressive as males? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:414–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grafe TU (2005) Anuran choruses as communication networks. In: McGregor PK (ed) Animal communication networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 277–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Greenfield MD, Rand AS (2000) Frogs have rules: selective attention algorithms regulate chorusing in Physalaemus pustulosus (Leptodactylidae). Ethology 106:331–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenfield MD, Snedden WA (2003) Selective attention and the spatio-temporal structure of orthopteran choruses. Behaviour 140:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hall ML (2000) The function of duetting in magpie-larks: conflict, cooperation, or commitment? Anim Behav 60:667–677PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Humfeld SC (2008) Intersexual dynamics mediate the expression of satellite mating tactics: unattractive males and parallel preferences. Anim Behav 75:205–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Illes AE, Hall ML, Vehrencamp SL (2006) Vocal performance influences male receiver response in the banded wren. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:1907–1912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leitão A, Riebel K (2003) Are good ornaments bad armaments? Male chaffinch perception of songs with varying flourish length. Anim Behav 66:161–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. McGregor PK, Peake TM (2000) Communication networks: social environments for receiving and signalling behaviour. Acta Ethol 2:71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mennill DJ (2006) Aggressive responses of male and female rufous-and-white wrens to stereo duet playback. Anim Behav 71:219–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mennill DJ, Vehrencamp SL (2008) Context-dependent functions of avian duets revealed by microphone-array recordings and multispeaker playback. Curr Biol 18:1314–1319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Molles LE, Waas JR (2006) Are two heads better than one? Responses of the duetting kokako to one- and two-speaker playback. Anim Behav 72:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Naguib M, Amrhein V, Kunc HP (2004) Effects of territorial intrusions on eavesdropping neighbors: communication networks in nightingales. Behav Ecol 15:1011–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Naguib M, Todt D (1997) Effects of dyadic vocal interactions on other conspecific receivers in nightingales. Anim Behav 54:1535–1543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peake TM (2005) Eavesdropping in communication networks. In: McGregor PK (ed) Animal communication networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 13–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Radford AN (2003) Territorial vocal rallying in the green woodhoopoe: influence of rival group size and composition. Anim Behav 66:1035–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reichert M (2010) Aggressive thresholds in Dendropsophus ebraccatus: habituation and sensitization to different call types. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:529–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rogers AC, Ferguson JE, Harrington HM, Mcdowell S, Miller A, Panagos J (2004) Use of stereo duet playback to investigate traditional duet playback methods and mechanisms of cooperative territorial defence in magpie-larks. Behaviour 141:741–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Schwartz JJ (1993) Male calling behavior, female discrimination and acoustic interference in the Neotropical treefrog Hyla microcephala under realistic acoustic conditions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:401–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schwartz JJ, Wells KD (1984) Interspecific acoustic interactions of the Neotropical treefrog Hyla ebraccata. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14:211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Seddon N, Tobias JA (2003) Communal singing in the cooperatively breeding subdesert mesite Monias benschi: evidence of numerical assessment? J Avian Biol 34:72–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Simmons AM, Simmons JA, Bates ME (2008) Analyzing acoustic interactions in natural bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) choruses. J Comp Psychol 122:274–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Snedden WA, Greenfield MD, Jang YW (1998) Mechanisms of selective attention in grasshopper choruses: who listens to whom? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43:59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wells KD (1977) The social behaviour of anuran amphibians. Anim Behav 25:666–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wells KD (1978) Territoriality in the green frog (Rana clamitans): vocalizations and agonistic behaviour. Anim Behav 26:1051–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wells KD (1989) Vocal communication in a Neotropical treefrog, Hyla ebraccata—responses of males to graded aggressive calls. Copeia 1989:461–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Wells KD, Greer BJ (1981) Vocal responses to conspecific calls in a Neotropical hylid frog, Hyla ebraccata. Copeia 1981:615–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wells KD, Schwartz JJ (1984) Vocal communication in a Neotropical treefrog, Hyla ebraccata: aggressive calls. Behaviour 91:128–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Wollerman L (1998) Stabilizing and directional preferences of female Hyla ebraccata for calls differing in static properties. Anim Behav 55:1619–1630PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of Integrative BiologyUniversity of TexasAustinUSA
  2. 2.Division of Biological SciencesUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations