Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 66, Issue 4, pp 613–621

Intrasexual competition, territoriality and acoustic communication in male strawberry poison frogs (Oophaga pumilio)

  • Ivonne Meuche
  • K. Eduard Linsenmair
  • Heike Pröhl
Original Paper


In many species male reproductive success is limited by access to females. Territoriality is one behavioural strategy which helps to acquire females. In the present study, we investigated the correlation between territory size and (1) female availability and (2) rate of intrusion by conspecific males in strawberry poison frogs, Oophaga pumilio. Males defended smaller territories in areas with a high female density and high rate of intrusion by conspecific males. Only males with high body condition values were able to establish territories in areas of high female density probably due to better fighting abilities. Moreover, dominant calling frequency was lower during agonistic interactions. Because only males with high body condition values were able to produce very low dominant frequencies, the acoustic properties appear to be an honest signal containing information about fighting abilities. Thus, the negative correlation between dominant frequency and mating success of males found in previous studies seems to be in part the result of intrasexual competition between males.


Territory size Aggressive interactions Fighting assessment Frequency alteration Dendrobatidae 


  1. Adams ES (2001) Approaches to the study of territory size and shape. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:277–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcock J (2005) Animal behavior: an evolutionary approach, 8th edn. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  3. Arak A (1988) Female mate selection in the Natterjack toad: active choice or passive attraction. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:317–327Google Scholar
  4. Bee MA (2003) A test of the ‘dear enemy effect’ in the strawberry dart-poison frog (Dendrobates pumilio). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:601–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bee MA, Perrill SA, Owen PC (1999) Size assessment in simulated territorial encounters between male green frogs (Rana clamitans). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Booth C, Visser ME (2003) Density dependence, territoriality, and divisibility of resources: from optimal models to population processes. Am Nat 161:326–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown JL (1964) The evolution of diversity in avian territorial systems. Wilson Bull 76:160–169Google Scholar
  8. Bunnell P (1973) Vocalizations in the territorial behavior of the frog Dendrobates pumilio. Copeia 1973:277–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calsbeek R, Sinervo B (2002) An experimental test of the ideal despotic distribution. J Anim Ecol 71:513–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies NB (1991) Mating systems. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioral ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 263–299Google Scholar
  11. Davies NB, Halliday TR (1978) Deep croaks and fighting assessment in toads Bufo bufo. Nature 274:683–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dawkins R, Krebs JR (1978) Animal signals: information or manipulation? In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  13. De Solla SR, Bonduriansky R, Brooks RJ (1999) Eliminating autocorrelation reduces biological relevance of home range estimates. J Anim Ecol 68:221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dill LM, Ydenberg RC, Fraser AHG (1981) Food abundance and territory size in juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can J Zool 59:1801–1809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donnelly MA (1989) Demographic effects of reproductive resource supplementation in a territorial frog Dendrobates pumilio. Ecol Monogr 59:207–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerhardt HC (1991) Female mate choice in treefrogs: static and dynamic acoustic criteria. Anim Behav 42:615–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerhardt HC (1994) The evolution of vocalization in frogs and toads. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 25:293–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerhardt HC, Huber F (2002) Acoustic communication in insects and anurans. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  19. Hirata H, Seno H (1997) How does the size distribution of male territories depend on the spatial distribution of females? Ecol Model 103:193–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jablonski PG (1996) Intruder pressure affects territory size and foraging success in asymmetric contests in the water strider Gerris lacustris. Ethology 102:22–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jakob EM, Marshall SD, Uetz GW (1996) Estimating fitness: a comparison of body condition indices. Oikos 77:61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jakobsson S, Brick O, Kullberg C (1995) Escalated fighting behaviour incurs increased predation risk. Anim Behav 49:235–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marler CA, Walsberg G, White ML, Moore M, Marler CA (1995) Increased energy expenditure due to increased territorial defense in male lizards after phenotypic manipulation. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 37:225–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martin P, Bateson P (1992) Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Maynard Smith J, Parker GA (1976) The logic of symmetric contests. Anim Behav 24:159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maynard Smith J, Price GR (1973) The logic of animal conflict. Nature 246:15–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meuche I (2009) Changes of individual colour patterns in the Central American strawberry poison frog, Oophaga pumilio (Amphibia: Dendrobatidae). Salamandra 45:177–179Google Scholar
  28. Meuche I, Grafe TU (2009) Supplementary feeding affects the breeding behaviour of male European treefrogs (Hyla arborea). BMC Ecol 9:1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meuche I, Pröhl H (2011) Alternative mating tactics in the strawberry poison frog (Oophaga pumilio). Herpetol J 21:275–277Google Scholar
  30. Meuche I, Linsenmair KE, Pröhl H (2011) Female territoriality in the strawberry poison frog (Oophaga pumilio). Copeia 2011:351–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Murphy CG (1994) Determinants of chorus tenure in barking treefrogs (Hyla gratiosa). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 34:285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prestwich KN (1994) The energetics of acoustic signaling in anurans and insects. Amer Zool 34:625–643Google Scholar
  33. Pröhl H (1997) Territorial behavior of the Strawberry Poison-dart Frog, Dendrobates pumilio. Amphibia-Reptilia 18:437–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pröhl H (2003) Variation in male calling behaviour and relation to male mating success in the strawberry poison frog (Dendrobates pumilio). Ethology 109:273–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pröhl H (2005) Territorial behavior in dendrobatid frogs. J Herpetol 39:354–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pröhl H, Berke O (2001) Spatial distributions of male and female strawberry poison frogs and their relation to female reproductive resources. Oecologia 129:534–542Google Scholar
  37. Pröhl H, Hödl W (1999) Parental investment, potential reproductive rates, and mating system in the strawberry dart-poison frog, Dendrobates pumilio. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:215–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robertson JGM (1986a) Female choice, male strategies and the role of vocalizations in the australian frog Uperoleia rugosa. Anim Behav 34:773–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Robertson JGM (1986b) Male territoriality, fighting and assessment of fighting ability in the Australian frog Uperoleia rugosa. Anim Behav 34:763–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rodgers AR, Carr AP (1998) HRE: the home range extension for ArcView. User’s manual. Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Thunder Bay, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  41. Schoener TW (1983) Simple Models of optimal feeding-territory size: a reconciliation. Am Nat 121:608–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Seaman DE, Millspaugh JJ, Kernohan BJ, Brundige GC, Raedeke KJ, Gitzen RA (1999) Effects of sample size on kernel home range estimates. J Wildlife Manage 63:739–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Silverman BW (1986) Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Taigen TL, Wells KD (1985) Energetics of vocalization by an anuran amphibian (Hyla versicolor). J Comp Physiol B 155:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Turpie JK (1995) Non-breeding territoriality: causes and consequences of seasonal and individual variation in grey plover Pluvialis squatarola behaviour. J Anim Ecol 64:429–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ursprung E, Ringler M, Jehle R, Hödl W (2011a) Strong male/male competition allows for nonchoosy females: high levels of polygynandry in a territorial frog with paternal care. Mol Ecol 20:1759–1771PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ursprung E, Ringler M, Jehle R, Hödl W (2011b) Toe regeneration in the Neotropical frog Allobates femoralis (Aromobatidae). Herpetol J 21:83–86Google Scholar
  48. Waddle JH, Rice KG, Mazzotti FJ, Percival HF (2008) Modeling the effect of toe clipping on treefrog survival: beyond the return rate. J Herpetol 42:467–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wagner WE Jr (1992) Deceptive or honest signalling of fighting ability? A test of alternative hypotheses for the function of changes in call dominant frequency by male cricket frogs. Anim Behav 44:449–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Watson A, Moss R (1972) A current model of population dynamics in red grouse. Proc Int Ornithol Congr 15:134–149Google Scholar
  51. Wells KD (2007) The ecology and behavior of amphibians. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  52. Wiley RH (1983) The evolution of communication: information and manipulation. In: Halliday TR, Slater PJB (eds) Animal Behaviour, vol 2. Freeman, New York, pp 156–189Google Scholar
  53. Worton BJ (1989) Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70:164–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zimmermann E (1990) Behavioral signals and reproduction modes in the neotropical frog family Dendrobatidae. In: Fortschritte der Zoologie, vol 38. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, pp 61–73Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivonne Meuche
    • 1
  • K. Eduard Linsenmair
    • 2
  • Heike Pröhl
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of ZoologyUniversity of Veterinary MedicineHannoverGermany
  2. 2.Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, BiozentrumUniversity of WürzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations