Maternal care in a glassfrog: care function and commitment to offspring in Ikakogi tayrona
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.
KeywordsParental 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.
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).
- 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
- Clutton-Brock T (1991) The evolution of parental care. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Frid A, Dill L (2002) Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conserv Ecol 6:11Google Scholar
- 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
- Hayes MP (1983a) A technique for partitioning hatching and mortality estimates in leaf-breeding frogs. Herpetol Rev 14:115–116Google Scholar
- Hurme K (2011) Tadpole schooling and parental care in the neotropical frog, Leptodactylus insularum. PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Connecticut, USAGoogle Scholar
- Jacobson SK (1985) Reproductive behavior and male mating success in two species of glass frogs (Centrolenidae). Herpetologica 41:396–404Google Scholar
- 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
- Lesnoff M, Lancelot R (2015) aod: analysis of overdispersed data. R package, version 1.3, http://cran.r-project.org/package=aod
- 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
- R Development Core Team (2013) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, https://www.r-project.org/
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Williams CG (1975) Sex and Evolution. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar