Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 68, Issue 2, pp 249–261 | Cite as

Conspicuous displays in cryptic males of a polytypic poison-dart frog

Original Paper

Abstract

The evolution of aposematism is linked to increased opportunities for conspicuous sexual displays since detection by potential predators is no longer disadvantageous. Therefore, phenotypic divergence in aposematic species leading to relatively cryptic forms is expected to constrain such opportunities, by restoring the trade-off between natural and sexual selection on the boldness of sexual displays. We asked if and how a derived phenotype of the poison-dart frog Oophaga granulifera that appears relatively cryptic to potential predators exhibits conspicuous sexual displays for potential mates. We used visual modeling of frog contrasts against their natural backgrounds to test if for conspecifics green frogs appear less conspicuous than red frogs as they do for birds. We conducted behavioral observations of focal red and green males to determine if green frogs adjust their display behavior to the availability of potential mates. Dorsal brightness is known to influence female preferences in at least one poison frog species. We found that, despite being less visible under some measures, green frogs may appear as bright as red frogs for conspecifics but not birds, when viewed on dark backgrounds. Additionally, green males called more intermittently than red males when advertising to distant females, but they exhibited a dramatic increase in calling activity in proximity of a female and were as active as red males in this context. Together, our results suggest that green frogs retain context-dependent conspicuousness to conspecifics despite the evolution of relative crypsis to potential predators.

Keywords

Aposematism Crypsis Dendrobatidae Natural selection Phenotypic divergence Sexual selection Visual modeling 

Supplementary material

265_2013_1640_MOESM1_ESM.doc (390 kb)
ESM 1(DOC 390 kb)

References

  1. Alvarado JB, Álvarez A, Saporito RA (2013) Oophaga pumilio (strawberry poison frog). Predation. Herpetol Rev 44:298Google Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B 57:289–300Google Scholar
  4. Bolaños F (1990) Actividad de canto y territorialidad en Dendrobates granuliferus Taylor 1958, Costa Rica. Dissertation, Universidad de Costa RicaGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonansea M, Vaira M (2012) Geographic and intrapopulational variation in colour and patterns of an aposematic toad, Melanophrynis cusrubriventris (Amphibia, Anura, Bufonidae). Amphibia-Reptilia 33:11–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brusa O, Bellati A, Meuche I, Mundy NI, Pröhl H (2013) Divergent evolution in the polymorphic granular poison-dart frog, Oophaga granulifera: genetics, coloration, advertisement calls and morphology. J Biogeogr 40:394–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byrne PG (2008) Strategic male calling behavior in an Australian terrestrial toadlet (Pseudophryne bibronii). Copeia 2008:57–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Candolin U (1998) Reproduction under predation risk and the trade-off between current and future reproduction in the three spine stickleback. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1171–1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crothers LR, Cummings ME (2013) Warning signal brightness variation: sexual selection may work under the radar of natural selection in populations of a polytypic poison frog. Am Nat 181:E116–E124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crothers L, Gering E, Cummings M (2011) Aposematic signal variation predicts male-male interactions in a polymorphic poison frog. Evolution 65:599–605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crump ML (1972) Territoriality and mating behavior in Dendrobates granuliferus (Anura: Dendrobatidae). Herpetologica 28:195–198Google Scholar
  12. Cummings ME, Rosenthal GG, Ryan MJ (2003) A private ultraviolet channel in visual communication. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:897–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DaCosta MA (2010) Phylogeny of Utetheisa s. str. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae: Arctinae) with comments on the evolution of colour, hind wing scales and origin of New World species. Invertebr Syst 24:113–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Darst CR, Cummings ME, Cannatella DC (2006) A mechanism for diversity in warning signals: conspicuousness versus toxicity in poison frogs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:5852–5857PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dawkins MS, Guilford T (1996) Sensory bias and the adaptiveness of female choice. Am Nat 148:937–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Development Core Team R (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  17. Endler JA (1987) Predation, light intensity and courtship behaviour in Poecilia reticulate (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Anim Behav 35:1376–1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Endler JA (1991) Variation in the appearance of guppy color patterns to guppies and their predators under different visual conditions. Vis Res 31:587–608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Endler JA (1992) Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution. Am Nat 139:S125–S153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Endler JA (2000) Evolutionary implications of the interaction between animal signals and the environment. In: Espmark Y, Amundsen T, Rosenqvist G (eds) Animal signals. Tapir, Trondheim, pp 11–46Google Scholar
  21. Forsman A, Hagman M (2006) Calling is an honest indicator of paternal genetic quality in poison frogs. Evolution 60:2148–2157PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gittleman JL, Harvey PH (1980) Why are distasteful prey not cryptic? Nature 286:149–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Godin JJ, McDonough HE (2003) Predator preference for brightly colored males in the guppy: a viability cost for a sexually selected trait. Behav Ecol 14:194–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goodman DE (1971) Territorial behavior in a Neotropical frog, Dendrobates granuliferus. Copeia 1971:365–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guilford T (1986) How do ‘warning colours’ work? Conspicuousness may reduce recognition errors in experienced predators. Anim Behav 34:286–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hart NS (2001) The visual ecology of avian photoreceptors. Prog Retin Eye Res 20:281–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Håstad O, Victorsson J, Ödeen A (2005) Differences in color vision make passerines less conspicuous in the eyes of their predators. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:6391–6394PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ioannou CC, Krause J (2009) Interactions between background matching and motion during visual detection can explain why cryptic animals keep still. Biol Lett 5:191–193PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones G, Barabas A, Elliott W, Parsons S (2002) Female greater wax moths reduce sexual display behavior in relation to the potential risk of predation by echolocating bats. Behav Ecol 13:375–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kålås JA, Fiske P, Saether SA (1995) The effect of mating probability on risk taking: an experimental study in lekking great snipe. Am Nat 146:59–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kotiaho J, Alatalo RV, Mappes J, Parri S, Rivero A (1998) Male mating success and risk of predation in a wolf spider: a balance between sexual and natural selection? J Anim Ecol 67:287–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maan ME, Cummings ME (2008) Female preferences for aposematic signal components in a polymorphic poison frog. Evolution 62:2334–2345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maan ME, Cummings ME (2009) Sexual dimorphism and directional sexual selection on aposematic signals in a poison frog. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:19072–19077PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maan ME, Cummings ME (2012) Poison frog colors are honest signals of toxicity, particularly for bird predators. Am Nat 179:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Magnhagen C (1991) Predation risk as a cost of reproduction. Trends Ecol Evol 6:183–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Master TL (1999) Predation by Rufous Motmot on black-and-green poison dart frog. Wilson Bull 111:439–440Google Scholar
  37. Merilaita S, Tullberg BG (2005) Constrained camouflage facilitates the evolution of conspicuous warning coloration. Evolution 59:38–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Montanarin A, Kaeferand IL, Lima AP (2011) Courtship and mating behaviour of the brilliant-thighed frog Allobates femoralis from Central Amazonia: implications for the study of a species complex. Ethol Ecol Evol 23:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Narins PM, Hödl W, Grabul DS (2003) Bimodal signal requisite for agonistic behavior in a dart-poison frog, Epipedobates femoralis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:577–580PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Pröhl H, Ostrowski T (2011) Behavioural elements reflect phenotypic colour divergence in a poison frog. Evol Ecol 25:993–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reynolds RG, Fitzpatrick BM (2007) Assortative mating in poison-dart frogs based on an ecologically important trait. Evolution 61:2253–2259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Richards-Zawacki CL, Cummings ME (2011) Intraspecific reproductive character displacement in a polymorphic poison dart frog, Dendrobates pumilio. Evolution 65:259–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roithmair ME (1994) Male territoriality and female mate selection in the dart-poison frog Epipedobates trivittatus (Dendrobatidae, Anura). Copeia 1994:107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roper TJ (1994) Conspicuousness of prey retards reversal of learned avoidance. Oikos 69:115–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roper TJ, Wistow R (1986) Aposematic colouration and avoidance learning in chicks. Q J Exp Psychol 38:141–149Google Scholar
  47. Rudh A, Rogell B, Håstad O, Qvarnström A (2011) Rapid population divergence linked with co-variation between coloration and sexual display in strawberry poison frogs. Evolution 65:1271–1282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rudh A, Breed MF, Qvarnström A (2013) Does aggression and explorative behaviour decrease with lost warning coloration? Biol J Linn Soc 108:116–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A (1992) Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am Nat 139:S4–S35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Savage JM (2002) The amphibians and reptiles of Costa Rica: a herpetofauna between two continents, between two seas. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  51. Siddiqi A, Cronin TW, Loew ER, Vorobyev M, Summers K (2004) Interspecific and intraspecific views of color signals in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio. J Exp Biol 207:2471–2485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Silverstone PA (1973) Observations on the behavior and ecology of a Colombian poison-arrow frog, the kõkoé-pá (Dendrobates histrionicus Berthold). Herpetologica 29:295–301Google Scholar
  53. Speed MP, Ruxton GD (2005) Aposematism: what should our starting point be? Proc R Soc Lond B 272:431–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Speed MP, Brockhurst MA, Ruxton GD (2009) the dual benefits of aposematism: predator avoidance and enhanced resource collection. Evolution 64:1622–1633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Summers K, Weigt LA, Boag P, Bermingham E (1999a) The evolution of female parental care in poison frogs of the genus Dendrobates: evidence from mitochondrial DNA sequences. Herpetologica 55:254–270Google Scholar
  56. Summers K, Symula R, Clough M, Cronin T (1999b) Visual mate choice in poison frogs. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:2141–2145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971. Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  58. Vorobyev M, Osorio D (1998) Receptor noise as a determinant of colour thresholds. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vorobyev M, Osorio D, Bennett ATD, Marshall NJ, Cuthill IC (1998) Tetrachromacy oil droplets and bird plumage colours. J Comp Physiol A 183:621–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wang IJ (2011) Inversely related aposematic traits: reduced conspicuousness evolves with increased toxicity in a polymorphic poison-dart frog. Evolution 65:1637–1649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wang IJ, Shaffer HB (2008) Rapid color evolution in an aposematic species: a phylogenetic analysis of color variation in the strikingly polymorphic strawberry poison frog. Evolution 62:2742–2759PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wells KD (2007) The ecology and behavior of amphibians. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Willink B, Brenes-Mora E, Bolaños F, Pröhl H (2013) Not everything is black and white: Color and behavioral variation reveal a continuum between cryptic and aposematic strategies in a polymorphic poison frog. Evolution 67:2783–2794Google Scholar
  64. Wing SR (1988) Cost of mating for female insects: risk of predation in Photinus collustrans (Coleoptera: Lampyridae). Am Nat 131:139–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zuk M, Kolluru GM (1998) Exploitation of sexual signals by predators and parasitoids. Q Rev Biol 73:415–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beatriz Willink
    • 1
  • Federico Bolaños
    • 1
  • Heike Pröhl
    • 2
  1. 1.Escuela de BiologíaUniversidad de Costa RicaSan JoséCosta Rica
  2. 2.Institute of ZoologyUniversity of Veterinary Medicine of HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations