A common form of signal competition in acoustically chorusing animals involves the precise timing of calls relative to those of other nearby individuals. In this study, I present a detailed description of nonrandom timing of both advertisement and aggressive calls in males of the Neotropical treefrog Dendropsophus ebraccatus. I used playback tests to measure call delays for both advertisement and aggressive calls given in response to synthetic advertisement and aggressive call stimuli presented with either a fixed or random timing arrangement. Call delays for a given response call type were nonrandomly distributed and did not differ depending on the fixed or random periodicity of stimulus presentation or on the stimulus call type. In general, advertisement call responses overlapped the playback stimuli, while aggressive calls were given with a much longer delay and did not overlap the playback stimuli. A second test involved the presentation of low pulse number advertisement and aggressive call stimuli to determine if males were capable of nonrandom timing to truncated stimuli. These playbacks also assessed whether they responded more aggressively to truncated aggressive call stimuli. Males usually showed synchrony in response to truncated calls of both types, more commonly in response to truncated advertisement calls. There were no differences in aggressive responses to truncated advertisement or aggressive calls. Call delays appear to be a property solely of the type of call that the male produces, regardless of the kind of stimulus. Thus, there may be a conflict between the ability to discriminate between signals and the ability to rapidly respond to these signals with an appropriate call delay.
Call timing Synchrony Alternation Aggressive call
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
This work was supported by a Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need fellowship from the University of Missouri and the U.S. Department of Education (P200A070476). Flavia Barbosa, Carl Gerhardt, and two anonymous reviewers provided helpful criticism on earlier versions of this paper. John Christy sponsored this project at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. I would like to thank the STRI staff for their logistical assistance. Benjamin Nickelson and Daniel Gruhn assisted with call analyses. This article is part of Michael S. Reichert’s doctoral dissertation at the University of Missouri.
These experiments comply with the current laws of the Republic of Panama and the United States of America. The Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente of the Republic of Panama provided permits for this work. The experimental protocol was approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Missouri (ACUC protocol no. 1910).
Conflict of interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Bee MA, Bowling AC (2002) Socially mediated pitch alteration by territorial male bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana. J Herpetol 36:140–143Google Scholar
Berens P (2009) CircStat: a MATLAB toolbox for circular statistics. J Stat Softw 31:1–21Google Scholar
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
Fisher NI, Lewis T (1983) Estimating the common mean direction of several circular or spherical distributions with differing dispersions. Biometrika 70:333–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gayou DC (1984) Effects of temperature on the mating call of Hyla versicolor. Copeia 1984:733–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerhardt HC, Huber F (2002) Acoustic communication in insects and anurans. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
Given MF (1987) Vocalizations and acoustic interactions of the carpenter frog, Rana virgatipes. Herpetologica 43:467–481Google Scholar
Grafe TU (1996) The function of call alternation in the African reed frog (Hyperolius marmoratus): precise call timing prevents auditory masking. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grafe TU (1999) A function of synchronous chorusing and a novel female preference shift in an anuran. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 266:2331–2336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grafe TU (2003) Synchronized interdigitated calling in the Kuvangu running frog, Kassina kuvangensis. Anim Behav 66:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenfield MD (1994a) Cooperation and conflict in the evolution of signal interactions. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 25:97–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenfield MD (1994b) Synchronous and alternating choruses in insects and anurans—common mechanisms and diverse functions. Am Zool 34:605–615Google Scholar
Greenfield MD (2002) Signalers and receivers. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
Greenfield MD, Roizen I (1993) Katydid synchronous chorusing is an evolutionarily stable outcome of female choice. Nature 364:618–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenfield MD, Tourtellot MK, Snedden WA (1997) Precedence effects and the evolution of chorusing. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 264:1355–1361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartbauer M, Kratzer S, Steiner K, Römer H (2005) Mechanisms for synchrony and alternation in song interactions of the bushcricket Mecopoda elongata (Tettigoniidae: Orthoptera). J Comp Physiol A 191:175–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höbel G, Gerhardt HC (2007) Sources of selection on signal timing in a tree frog. Ethology 113:973–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones MDR (1966a) The acoustic behaviour of the bush cricket Pholidoptera griseoaptera: I. Alternation, synchronism and rivalry between males. J Exp Biol 45:15–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
Jones MDR (1966b) The acoustic behaviour of the bush cricket Pholidoptera griseoaptera: II. Interaction with artificial sound signals. J Exp Biol 45:31–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
Klump GM, Gerhardt HC (1992) Mechanisms and function of call timing in male–male interactions in frogs. In: McGregor PK (ed) Playback and studies of animal communication. Plenum, New York, pp 153–174Google Scholar
Kotiaho JS, Alatalo RV, Mappes J, Parri S (2004) Adaptive significance of synchronous chorusing in an acoustically signalling wolf spider. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:1847–1850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minckley RL, Greenfield MD, Tourtellot MK (1995) Chorus structure in tarbush grasshoppers—inhibition, selective phonoresponse and signal competition. Anim Behav 50:579–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore SW, Lewis ER, Narins PM, Lopez PT (1989) The call-timing algorithm of the white-lipped frog, Leptodactylus albilabris. J Comp Physiol A 164:309–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naguib M, Mennill DJ (2010) The signal value of birdsong: empirical evidence suggests song overlapping is a signal. Anim Behav 80:e11–e15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narins PM (1982) Behavioral refractory period in Neotropical treefrogs. J Comp Physiol 148:337–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nityananda V, Balakrishnan R (2007) Synchrony during acoustic interactions in the bushcricket Mecopoda ‘Chirper’ (Tettigoniidae:Orthoptera) is generated by a combination of chirp-by-chirp resetting and change in intrinsic chirp rate. J Comp Physiol A 193:51–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penna M, Narins PM, Feng AS (2005) Thresholds for evoked vocal responses of Eupsophus emiliopugini (Amphibia, Leptodactylidae). Herpetologica 61:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rand AS, Ryan MJ (1981) The adaptive significance of a complex vocal repertoire in a Neotropical frog. Z Tierpsychol 57:209–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichert M (2010) Aggressive thresholds in Dendropsophus ebraccatus: habituation and sensitization to different call types. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:529–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichert M (2011a) Effects of multiple-speaker playbacks on aggressive calling behavior in the treefrog Dendropsophus ebraccatus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:1739–1751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichert MS (2011b) Aggressive calls improve leading callers’ attractiveness in the treefrog Dendropsophus ebraccatus. Behav Ecol 22:951–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson C, Lena J-P, Joly P, Lengagne T (2008) Are leaders good mates? A study of call timing and male quality in a chorus situation. Anim Behav 76:1487–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen M, Lemon RE (1974) Vocal behavior of spring peepers, Hyla crucifer. Copeia 1974:940–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar