Abstract
The piebald odorous frog (Odorrana schmackeri), the large odorous frog (Odorrana livida) and the concave-eared torrent frog (Amolops tormotus) are sympatric species living near the same torrent streams in the vicinity of Mt. Huangshan, China. A recent study demonstrated that A. tormotus can use sound signals involving ultrasonic components for communication in a noisy environment, and another sympatric species, O. livida, can also perceive ultrasonic sound. Here we report data on the hearing range of O. schmackeri by studying auditory evoked potentials and single-unit data from the torus semicircularis. This frog exhibits its two most sensitive peaks at 2 kHz and 3.5–4.0 kHz with thresholds <42 dB SPL, with an upper frequency limit of hearing at 8.5 kHz with threshold of 87 dB SPL. The upper limit is much lower than those of O. livida and A. tormotus, at 22 and 34 kHz, respectively. It suggests that sympatric species may respond differently to similar environmental selection pressures sculpting auditory communication systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (1998) Principles of animal communication. S Sinauer Associates, Sunderland
Brumm H (2004) The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird. J Anim Ecol 73:434–440
Brumm H, Todt D (2002) Nnoise-dependent song amplitude regulation in a territorial songbird. Anim Behav 63:891–897
Brumm H, Voss K, Köllmer I, Todt D (2004) Acoustic communication in noise: regulation of call characteristics in a New World monkey. J Exp Biol 207:443–448
Fei L (1999) Atlas of amphibians of China. Henan Science and Technical Publisher, Zhengzhou
Feng AS, Narins PM, Xu CH, Lin WY, Yu ZL, Qiu Q, Xu ZM, Shen JX (2006) Ultrasonic communication in frogs. Nature 440:333–336. DOI:10.1038/nature04416
Frishkopf LS, Geisler CD (1966) Peripheral origin of auditory response recorded from the eighth nerve of the bullfrog. J Acoust Soc Am 40:469–472
Gerhardt HC, Huber F (2002) Acoustic communication in insects and anurans. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Hödl W, Amézquita A (2001) Visual signaling in anuran amphibians. In: Ryan MJ (eds) Anuran communication. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC, pp 121–141
Kime NM, Turner WR, Ryan MJ (2000) The transmission of advertisement call in Central American frogs. Behav Ecol 11:71–83
Lewis ER, Narins PM (1999) The acoustic periphery of amphibians: anatomy and physiology. In: Fay RR, Popper AN (eds) Comparative hearing: fish and amphibians. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 101–154
Loftus-Hills JJ (1973) Comparative aspects of auditory function in Australian anurans. Aust J Zool 21:353–367
Loftus-Hills JJ, Johnstone BM (1970) Auditory function, communication, and the brain-evoked response in anuran amphibians. J Acoust Soc Am 47:1131–1138
Narins PM (1982) Effects of masking noise on evoked calling in the Puerto Rican Coqui (Anura: Leptodactylidae). J Comp Physiol A 147:438-446
Narins PM, Benedix JH Jr, Moss F (1997) Does stochastic resonance play a role in hearing? In: Lewis ER, Lyon R, Long GR, Narins PM (eds) Diversity in Auditory Mechanics, World Scientific Publishers, Singapore, pp 83–90
Narins PM, Feng AS, Lin WY, Schnitzler HU, Denzinger A, Suthers RA, Xu CH (2004) Old World frog and bird vocalizations contain prominent ultrasonic harmonics. J Acoust Soc Am 115:910–913
Penna M, Solis R (1998) Frog call intensities and sound propagation in the South American temperate forest region. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 42:371–381
Penna M, Pottstock H, Velásquez N (2005) Effect of natural and synthetic noise on evoked vocal responses in a frog of the temperate austral forest. Anim Behav 70:639–651
Penna M, Márquez R, Bosch J, Crespo EG (2006) Non-optimal propagation of advertisement calls of midwife toads in Iberian habitats. J Acoust Soc Am 119:1227–1237
Pettigrew A, Chung SH, Anson M (1978) Neurophysiological basis of directional hearing in amphibia. Nature 272:138–142
Rabin LA, McCowan B, Hooper SL, Owings DH (2003) Anthropogenic noise and its effect on animal communication: an interface between comparative psychology and conservation biology. Int J Comp Psychol 16:172–192
Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W (1988) Coevolution of sender and receiver: effect on local mate preference in cricket frogs. Science 240:1786–1788
Ryan MJ, Cocroft RB, Wilczynski W (1990) The role of environmental selection in intraspecific divergence of mate recognition signals in the cricket frog, Acris crepitans. Evolution 44:1869–1872
Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W (1991) Evolution of intraspecific variation in the advertisement call of a cricket frog (Acris crepitans, Hylidae). Biol J Linn Soc 44:249–271
Slabbekoorn H, Peet M (2003) Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise. Nature 424:267
Smotherman MS, Narins PM (2003) Hair cells, hearing and hopping: a field guide to hair cell physiology in the frogs. J Exp Biol 203:2237–2246
Sun JWC, Narins PM (2005) Anthropogenic sounds differentially affect amphibian call rate. Biol Conserv 121:419–427
Wilczynski W, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2001) Evolution of calls and auditory tuning in the Physalaemus pustulosus species group. Brain Behav Evol 58:137–51
Wiley RH, Richards DG (1978) Physical constraints on acoustic communication in the atmosphere: implications for the evolution of animal vocalizations. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 3:69–94
Wysocki LE, Ladich F (2005) Hearing in Fishes under Noise Conditions. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 6:28–36
Witte K, Farris HE, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W (2005) How cricket frog females deal with a noisy world: habitat-related differences in auditory tuning. Behav Ecol 10:571–578
Ye CY, Fei L (2001) Phylogeny of genus Odorrana (Amphibia: Ranidae) in China. Acta Zool Sin 47:528–534
Zakon HH, Wilczynski W (1988) The physiology of the Anuran VIIIth nerve. In: Fritzsch B, Wolkowiak W, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, Hetherington T (eds) The Amphibian Auditory System, Wiley, New York, pp 125–155
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Peter M. Narins for his invaluable help during the whole process of the manuscript. Also, we thank Albert S. Feng for instructions; Liang Fei for identifying the frog species. This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China (Nos. 90208012, 30570463) to JXS.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yu, ZL., Qiu, Q., Xu, ZM. et al. Auditory response characteristics of the piebald odorous frog and their implications. J Comp Physiol A 192, 801–806 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-006-0125-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-006-0125-6