Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 70, Issue 1, pp 41–48 | Cite as

Maternal care in a glassfrog: care function and commitment to offspring in Ikakogi tayrona

  • Laura Bravo Valencia
  • Jesse Delia
Original Article


Parental care is important for offspring success for many animals. Both male-only and female-only care occur equally often among frogs, creating opportunities to examine ecological factors that may favor sex-specific patterns of care. Experimental tests of care function can elucidate such factors and identify benefits of parental behavior to offspring. In glassfrogs (Centrolenidae), only male egg attendance has been documented and male care is thought to have evolved repeatedly from a state of no-care. We provide experimental evidence demonstrating female care in the glassfrog Ikakogi tayrona—a species sister to all other members of the family. We used repeated observations to quantify egg attendance behaviors, and a removal experiment to evaluate the benefits of maternal care and test whether care function changes with embryonic development. Given the importance of care to female fitness, we examined maternal commitment to providing care in risky situations, using a simple behavioral challenge. We found that egg attendance reduces embryo dehydration and predation. Moreover, the specific benefits of care changed across embryo development, suggesting that different threats to embryos select for egg attendance at different stages. The maternal commitment assay revealed that caring females are more risk-tolerant than non-caring females. Our finding of maternal care in I. tayrona reveals previously unknown diversity in glassfrog parental care and contributes to emerging evidence that care functions are similar among frogs with female-only and male-only egg attendance. This suggests that a lack of sex-specific constraints may have facilitated evolutionary changes in sex roles.


Parental care Offspring benefits Maternal commitment Centrolenidae Frog 



We thank K.M. Warkentin and J.C. Touchon for assisting with methods development and statistical analyses, and for critical reviews on multiple drafts of this manuscript. A. Amézquita, J.M. Guayasamin, P. Stevenson, and the Egg Science discussion group at Boston University provided thoughtful suggestions on an earlier version of this manuscript. Thanks to the Associate Editor and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments that improved our manuscript. A. Amézquita supervised LBV’s thesis work at Universidad de los Andes. Partial funding was provided by Facultad de Ciencias at Universidad de los Andes and a Fullbright Fellowship. Special thanks to residents of La Tagua, especially Edelmira Prado and her family, for hosting us during field work. Permits were provided by Autoridad Nacional de Licencias Ambientales ANLA (Expediente IDB 0337).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Universidad de Los Andes and the Colombian Government; research was approved and permits were provided by the Autoridad Nacional de Licencias Ambientales (Expediente IDB 0337).

Supplementary material

265_2015_2022_MOESM1_ESM.wmv (157.7 mb)
ESM 1 (WMV 161503 kb)


  1. Alonso-Alvarez C, Velando A (2012) Benefits and costs of parental care. In: Royle NJ, Smiseth PT, Kölliker M (eds) The evolution of parental care. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 40–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balshine S (2012) Patterns of parental care in vertebrates. In: Royle NJ, Smiseth PT, Kölliker M (eds) The evolution of parental care. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 40–61Google Scholar
  3. Bee MA, Schwartz JJ, Summers K (2013) All’s well that begins Wells: celebrating 60 years of Animal Behaviour and 36 years of research on anuran social behaviour. Anim Behav 85:5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bickford DP (2004) Differential parental care behaviors of arboreal and terrestrial microhylid frogs from Papua New Guinea. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:402–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown JL, Morales V, Summers K (2010) A key ecological trait drove the evolution of biparental care and monogamy in an amphibian. Am Nat 175:436–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cockburn A (2006) Prevalence of different modes of parental care in birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:1375–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook CL, Ferguson JWH, Telford SR (2001) Adaptive male parental care in the giant bullfrog, Pyxicephalus adspersus. J Herpetol 35:310–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clutton-Brock T (1991) The evolution of parental care. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  9. Davison AC, Hinkley DV (1997) Bootstrap methods and their applications. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delia JR, Ramírez-Bautista A, Summers K (2013) Parents adjust care in response to weather conditions and egg dehydration in a neotropical glassfrog. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:557–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Delia JR, Ramírez-Bautista A, Summers K (2014) Glassfrog embryos hatch early after parental desertion. Proc R Soc B 281:2013–3237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frid A, Dill L (2002) Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conserv Ecol 6:11Google Scholar
  13. Gomez-Mestre I, Pyron RA, Wiens JJ (2012) Phylogenetic analyses reveal unexpected patterns in the evolution of reproductive modes in frogs. Evolution 66:3687–3700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guayasamin JM, Castroviejo-Fisher S, Trueb L, Ayarzagüena J, Rada M, Vilà C (2009) Phylogenetic systematics of glassfrogs (Amphibia: Centrolenidae) and their sister taxon Allophryne ruthveni. Zootaxa 2100:1–97Google Scholar
  15. Hawley TJ (2006) Embryonic development and mortality in Hyalinobatrachium pulveratum (Anura: Centrolenidae) of south-western Costa Rica. J Trop Ecol 22:731–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hayes MP (1983a) A technique for partitioning hatching and mortality estimates in leaf-breeding frogs. Herpetol Rev 14:115–116Google Scholar
  17. Hayes MP (1983b) Predation on the adults and prehatching stages of glass frogs (Centrolenidae). Biotropica 15:74–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hurme K (2011) Tadpole schooling and parental care in the neotropical frog, Leptodactylus insularum. PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Connecticut, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacobson SK (1985) Reproductive behavior and male mating success in two species of glass frogs (Centrolenidae). Herpetologica 41:396–404Google Scholar
  20. Klug H, Alonzo SH, Bonsall MB (2012) Theoretical foundations of parental care. In: Royle NJ, Smiseth PT, Kölliker M (eds) The evolution of parental care. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 21–39Google Scholar
  21. Kokko H, Jennions MD (2008) Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. J Evol Biol 21:919–948PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lehtinen RM, Green SE, Pringle JL (2014) Impacts of paternal care and seasonal change on offspring survival: a multiseason experimental study of a Caribbean frog. Ethology 120:400–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lesnoff M, Lancelot R (2015) aod: analysis of overdispersed data. R package, version 1.3,
  24. Martins M, Pombal JP, Haddad CF (1998) Escalated aggressive behaviour and facultative parental care in the nest building gladiator frog, Hyla faber. Amphibia-Reptilia 19:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McDiarmid RW (1978) Evolution of parental care in frogs. In: Burghardt GM, Bekoff M (eds) The development of behavior: comparative and evolutionary aspects. Garland, New York, pp 127–147Google Scholar
  26. Poo S, Bickford DP (2013) The adaptive significance of egg attendance in a south‐east Asian tree frog. Ethology 119:671–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. R Development Core Team (2013) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria,
  28. Reynolds JD, Goodwin NB, Freckleton RP (2002) Evolutionary transitions in parental care and live bearing in vertebrates. Philos T Roy Soc B 357:269–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rodrigues AP, Giaretta AA, da Silva DR, Facure KG (2011) Reproductive features of three maternal-caring species of Leptodactylus (Anura: Leptodactylidae) with a report on alloparental care in frogs. J Nat Hist 45:2037–2047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ruiz-Carranza PM, Lynch JD (1991) Ranas Centrolenidae de Colombia II. Nuevas especies de Centrolene de la Cordillera Oriental y Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. Lozania 58:1–26Google Scholar
  31. Shine R (1988) Parental care in reptiles. In: Gans C, Huey RB (eds) Biology of the Reptilia, vol 16, Ecology B: Defense and Life History. AR Liss, New York, pp 275–329Google Scholar
  32. Simon MP (1983) The ecology of parental care in a terrestrial breeding frog from New Guinea. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14:61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Summers K, Tumulty J (2014) Parental care, sexual selection, and mating systems in neotropical poison frogs. In: Macedo HR, Machado G (eds) Sexual selection: perspectives and models from the neotropics. Academic Press, New York, pp 289–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Townsend DS, Stewart MM, Pough FH (1984) Male parental care and its adaptive significance in a neotropical frog. Anim Behav 32:421–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell BG (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine‐Atherton, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  36. Valencia-Aguilar A, Castro-Herrera F, Ramírez-Pinilla MP (2012) Microhabitats for oviposition and male clutch attendance in Hyalinobatrachium aureoguttatum (Anura: Centrolenidae). Copeia 2012:722–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vargas-Salinas F, Bravo-Valencia L, Amézquita A (2015) The advertisement call and calling site of the early diverging glassfrog Ikakogi tayrona (Anura: Centrolenidae). South Am J Herpetol 10:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vargas-Salinas F, Quintero-Ángel A, Osorio-Domínguez D, Rojas-Morales JA, Escobar-Lasso S, Gutiérrez-Cárdenas PDA, Amézquita A (2014) Breeding and parental behaviour in the glass frog Centrolene savagei (Anura: Centrolenidae). J Nat His 48:1689–1705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vockenhuber EA, Hödl W, Amézquita A (2009) Glassy fathers do matter: egg attendance enhances embryonic survivorship in the glass frog Hyalinobatrachium valerioi. J Herpetol 43:340–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Walke JB, Harris RN, Reinert LK, Rollins‐Smith LA, Woodhams DC (2011) Social immunity in amphibians: evidence for vertical transmission of innate defenses. Biotropica 43:396–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Warkentin KM (2000) Wasp predation and wasp-induced hatching of red-eyed treefrog eggs. Anim Behav 60:503–510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wells KD (2007) The Ecology and Behavior of Amphibians. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IllinoisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Williams CG (1975) Sex and Evolution. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Ciencias BiológicasUniversidad de los AndesBogotáColombia
  2. 2.Department of BiologyBoston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations