Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 70, Issue 3, pp 347–355 | Cite as

Male treefrogs in low condition resume signaling faster following simulated predator attack

  • Michael C. Kuczynski
  • Levi Storks
  • Eben Gering
  • Thomas Getty
Original Article

Abstract

Current models indicate that an organism’s sensitivity to risk may be heavily influenced by the trade-off between current and future reproduction. Individuals that have fewer future reproductive opportunities are expected to show more risky behavior as they have less to lose if captured by a predator (the asset protection principle). In this study, we examined the effects of age and physical condition on risk taking behavior during sexual signaling in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) to test the prediction that older and poor condition males will take greater risks than their younger or higher-condition counterparts. In accordance with these predictions, we found that males in low physical condition resumed signaling activity more rapidly following a simulated predator attack than their higher-condition counterparts, although this effect was only apparent in one of two study years. Further, males that resumed calling early did not offset their risk of detection by predators via reduced calling effort. Contrary to our predictions, we did not find age to be a significant predictor of risk taking in male signaling behavior. We conclude with a discussion of possible explanations for the discrepancy observed between years and highlight the potential reproductive consequences of variation in risk taking behavior.

Keywords

Asset protection Antipredator Sexual signaling Risk 

References

  1. Acker PM, Kruse KC, Krehbiel EB (1986) Aging Bufo americanus by skeletochronology. J Herpetol 20:570–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akre KL, Farris HE, Lea AM, Page RA, Ryan MJ (2011) Signal perception in frogs and bats and the evolution of mating signals. Science 333:751–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker JRM (1992) Body condition and tail height in great crested newts, Triturus cristatus. Anim Behav 43:157–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertram S, Berril M, Nol E (1996) Male mating success and variation in chorus attendance within and among breeding seasons in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor). Copeia 1996:729–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonachea LA, Ryan MJ (2011a) Simulated predation risk influences female choice in túngara frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus. Ethology 117:400–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonachea LA, Ryan MJ (2011b) Predation risk increases permissiveness for heterospecific advertisement calls in túngara frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus. Anim Behav 82:347–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breden F, Stoner G (1987) Male predation risk determines female preference in the Trinidad guppy. Nature 329:831–833CrossRefGoogle 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. Candolin U (1999) The relationship between signal quality and physical condition: is sexual signalling honest in the three-spined stickleback? Anim Behav 58:1261–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark CW (1994) Antipredator behavior and the asset-protection principle. Behav Ecol 5:159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dapper AL, Baugh AT, Ryan MJ (2011) The sounds of silence as an alarm cue in túngara frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus. Biotropica 43:380–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dosmann A, Mateo JM (2014) Food, sex and predators: animal personality persists with multidimensional plasticity across complex environments. Anim Behav 90:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forsgren E, Magnhagen C (1993) Conflicting demands in sand gobies: predators influence reproductive behaviour. Behaviour 126:125–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerhardt HC (1978) Temperature coupling in the vocal communication system of the gray tree frog, Hyla versicolor. Science 199:992–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerhardt HC (1991) Female mate choice in treefrogs: static and dynamic acoustic criteria. Anim Behav 42:615–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerhardt HC (1994) The evolution of vocalization in frogs and toads. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 25:293–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerhardt HC, Dyson ML, Tanner SD (1996) Dynamic properties of the advertisement calls of gray tree frogs: patterns of variability and female choice. Behav Ecol 7:7–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrison SJ, Thomson IR, Grant CM, Bertram SM (2013) Calling, courtship, and condition in the fall field cricket, Gryllus pennsylvanicus. PLoS ONE 8, e60356PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hemelaar A (1985) An improved method to estimate the number of year rings resorbed in phalanges of Bufo bufo (L.) and its application to populations from different latitudes and altitudes. Amphibia-Reptilia 6:323–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hinshaw SH, Sullivan BK (1990) Predation on Hyla versicolor and Pseudacris crucifer during reproduction. J Herpetol 24:196–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Höbel G, Barta T (2014) Adaptive plasticity in calling site selection in grey treefrogs (Hyla versicolor). Behaviour 151:741–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Igaune K, Krams I, Krama T, Bobkova J (2008) White storks Ciconia ciconia eavesdrop on mating calls of moor frogs Rana arvalis. J Avian Biol 39:229–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Killen SS, Marras S, Metcalfe NB, McKenzie DJ, Domenici P (2013) Environmental stressors alter relationships between physiology and behaviour. Trends Ecol Evol 28:651–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Bouskila A (2004) Apprehension and time allocation in gerbils: the effects of predatory risk and energetic state. Ecology 85:917–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuriwada T, Kumano N, Shiromoto K, Haraguchi D (2011) Age-dependent investment in death-feigning behaviour in the sweet potato weevil Cylas formicarius. Physiol Entomol 36:149–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lafaille M, Bimbard G, Greenfield MD (2010) Risk trading in mating behavior: forgoing anti-predator responses reduces the likelihood of missing terminal mating opportunities. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:1485–1494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leclair R, Castanet J (1987) A skeletochronological assessment of age and growth in the frog Rana pipiens Schreber (Amphibia, Anura) from southwestern Quebec. Copeia 1987:361–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lienart GDH, Mitchell MD, Ferrari MCO, McCormick MI (2014) Temperature and food availability affect risk assessment in an ectotherm. Anim Behav 89:199–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lloyd JE (1965) Aggressive mimicry in Photuris: firefly femmes fatales. Science 149:653–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lloyd JE (1983) Bioluminescence and communication in insects. Annu Rev Entomol 28:131–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Magnhagen C (1990) Reproduction under predation risk in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus, and the black goby, Gobius niger: the effect of age and longevity. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:331–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Magnhagen C (1991) Predation risk as a cost of reproduction. Trends Ecol Evol 6:183–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Magnhagen C, Vestergaard K (1991) Risk taking in relation to reproductive investments and future reproductive opportunities: field experiments on nest-guarding common gobies, Pomatoschistus microps. Behav Ecol 2:351–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pocklington R, Dill LM (1995) Predation on females or males: who pays for bright male traits? Anim Behav 49:1122–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. R Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, URL http://www.R-project.org/
  37. Reichert MS (2013) Visual cues elicit courtship signals in a nocturnal anuran. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:265–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ritke ME, Semlitsch RD (1991) Mating behavior and determinants of male mating success in the gray treefrog, Hyla chrysoscelis. Can J Zool 69:246–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schwanz LE, Previtali MA, Gomes-Solecki M, Brisson D, Ostfeld RS (2012) Immunochallenge reduces risk sensitivity during foraging in white-footed mice. Anim Behav 83:155–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schwartz LL, Bee MA, Tanner SD (2000) A behavioral and neurobiological study of the responses of gray treefrogs, Hyla versicolor, to the calls of a predator, Rana catesbeiana. Herpetologica 56:27–37Google Scholar
  41. Schwartz JJ, Buchanan BW, Gerhardt HC (2001) Female mate choice in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) in three experimental environments. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:443–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schwartz JJ, Huth K, Hutchin T (2004) How long do females really listen? Assessment time for female mate choice in the gray treefrog, Hyla versicolor. Anim Behav 68:533–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Sullivan BK, Hinshaw SH (1992) Female choice and selection on male calling behaviour in the grey treefrog Hyla versicolor. Anim Behav 44:733–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Svensson O, Nyman A, Kvarnemo C (2004) Costly courtship or dishonest display? Intensely displaying sand goby males have lower lipid content. J Fish Biol 64:1425–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Taigen TL, Wells KD (1985) Energetics of vocalization by an anuran amphibian (Hyla versicolor). J Comp Physiol B 155:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. ter Hofstede HM, Ratcliffe JM, Fullard JH (2008) The effectiveness of katydid (Neoconocephalus ensiger) song cessation as antipredator defence against the gleaning bat Myotis septentrionalis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:217–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tuttle MD, Ryan MJ (1981) Bat predation and the evolution of frog vocalizations in the neotropics. Science 214:677–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ward JL, Love EK, Velez A, Buerkle NP, O’Bryan LR, Bee MA (2013) Multitasking males and multiplicative females: dynamic signaling and receiver preferences in Cope’s grey treefrog. Anim Behav 86:231–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wells KD, Taigen TL, Rusch SW, Robb CC (1995) Seasonal and nightly variation in glycogen reserves of calling gray treefrogs (Hyla versicolor). Herpetologica 51:359–368Google Scholar
  51. Williams GC (1966) Natural selection, the cost of reproduction and a refinement of Lack’s principle. Am Nat 100:687–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zuk M, Kollru GR (1998) Exploitation of sexual signals by predators and parasitoids. Q Rev Biol 73:415–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael C. Kuczynski
    • 1
  • Levi Storks
    • 1
  • Eben Gering
    • 1
  • Thomas Getty
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Integrative BiologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations