Abstract
Animals relying on acoustic signals for communication must cope with the constraints imposed by the environment for sound propagation. A resource to improve signal broadcast is the use of structures that favor the emission or the reception of sounds. We conducted playback experiments to assess the effect of the burrows occupied by the frogs Eupsophus emiliopugini and E. calcaratus on the amplitude of outgoing vocalizations. In addition, we evaluated the influence of these cavities on the reception of externally generated sounds potentially interfering with conspecific communication, namely, the vocalizations emitted by four syntopic species of anurans (E. emiliopugini, E. calcaratus, Batrachyla antartandica, and Pleurodema thaul) and the nocturnal owls Strix rufipes and Glaucidium nanum. Eupsophus advertisement calls emitted from within the burrows experienced average amplitude gains of 3–6 dB at 100 cm from the burrow openings. Likewise, the incoming vocalizations of amphibians and birds were amplified on average above 6 dB inside the cavities. The amplification of internally broadcast Eupsophus vocalizations favors signal detection by nearby conspecifics. Reciprocally, the amplification of incoming conspecific and heterospecific signals facilitates the detection of neighboring males and the monitoring of the levels of potentially interfering biotic noise by resident frogs, respectively.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amézquita A, Flechas SV, Lima AP, Gasser H, Hödl W (2011) Acoustic interference and recognition space within a complex assemblage of dendrobatid frogs. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:17058–17063. doi:10.1073/pnas.1104773108
Bailey WJ, Roberts JD (1981) The bioacoustics of the burrowing frog Heleioporus (Leptodactylidae). J Nat Hist 15:693–702. doi:10.1080/00222938100770491
Bailey WJ, Bennet-Clark HC, Fletcher NH (2001) Acoustics of a small Australian burrowing cricket: the control of low-frequency pure-tone songs. J Exp Biol 204:2827–2841
Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2004) lme4: linear mixed effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1–7. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
Bennet-Clark HC (1987) The tuned singing burrow of mole crickets. J Exp Biol 128:383–409
Bleach IT, Beckmann C, Both C, Brown GP, Shine R (2015) Noisy neighbours at the frog pond: effects of invasive cane toads on the calling behaviour of native Australian frogs. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69:675–683. doi:10.1007/s00265-015-1879-z
Blumenrath SH, Dabelsteen T, Pedersen SB (2004) Being inside nest boxes: does it complicate the receiving conditions for great tit parus major females? Bioacoustics 14:209–223. doi:10.1080/09524622.2004.9753526
Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White JSS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008
Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (2011) Principles of animal communication. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland
Brumm H, Zollinger SA (2011) The evolution of the Lombard effect: 100 years of psychoacoustic research. Behaviour 148:1173–1198. doi:10.1163/000579511X605759
Chaverri G, Gillam EH (2013) Sound amplification by means of a horn-like roosting structure in Spix’s disc-winged bat. Proc R Soc B 280:20132362. doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.2362
Gough DC, Mennill DJ, Nol E (2014) Singing seaside: pacific wrens (Troglodytes pacificus) change their songs in the presence of natural and anthropogenic noise. Wilson J Ornithol 126:269–278
Hart PJ, Hall R, Ray W, Beck A, Zook J (2015) Cicadas impact bird communication in a noisy tropical rainforest. Behav Ecol 26:839–842. doi:10.1093/beheco/arv018
Holt DE, Johnston CE (2014) Evidence of the Lombard effect in fishes. Behav Ecol 25:819–826. doi:10.1093/beheco/aru028
Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363. doi:10.1002/bimj.200810425
Kéver L, Colleye O, Lugli M, Lecchini D, Lerouvreur F, Herrel A, Parmentier E (2014) Sound production in Onuxodon fowleri (Carapidae) and its amplification by the host shell. J Exp Biol 217:4283–4294. doi:10.1242/jeb.109363
Kinsler LE, Frey AR, Coppens AB, Sanders JV (1982) Fundamentals of acoustics. Wiley, New York
Lange S, Burda H, Wegner RE, Dammann P, Begall S, Kawalika M (2007) Living in a “stethoscope”: burrow-acoustics promote auditory specializations in subterranean rodents. Naturwissenschaften 94:134–138. doi:10.1007/s00114-006-0168-0
Lardner B, bin Lakim M (2002) Tree-hole frogs exploit resonance effects. Nature 420:475. doi:10.1038/420475a
Lin YS, Lehtinen RM, Kam YC (2008) Time- and context-dependent oviposition site selection of a phytotelm-breeding frog in relation to habitat characteristics and conspecific cues. Herpetologica 64:413–421. doi:10.1655/08-020R1.1
Lugli M (2012) Acoustics of fish shelters: frequency response and gain properties. J Acoust Soc Am 132:3512–3524. doi:10.1121/1.4754581
Lugli M (2013) Sand pile above the nest amplifies the sound emitted by the male sand goby. Environ Biol Fish 96:1003–1012. doi:10.1007/s10641-012-0097-z
Mennill DJ, Ratcliffe LM (2004) Nest cavity orientation in black-capped chickadees Poecile atricapillus: do the acoustic properties of cavities influence sound reception in the nest and extra-pair matings? J Avian Biol 35:477–482. doi:10.1111/j.0908-8857.2004.03351.x
Moreno-Gómez FN, Bacigalupe LD, Silva-Escobar AA, Soto-Gamboa M (2015) Female and male phonotactic responses and the potential effect of sexual selection on the advertisement calls of a frog. Anim Behav 104:79–86. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.03.010
Page RA, Ryan MJ, Bernal XE (2014) Be loved, be prey, be eaten. In: Yasukawa K (ed) Animal behavior. Case studies: integration and application of animal behavior, vol 3. Praeger, New York, pp 123–154
Penna M (2004) Amplification and spectral shifts of vocalizations inside burrows of the frog Eupsophus calcaratus (Leptodactylidae). J Acoust Soc Am 116:1254–1260. doi:10.1121/1.1768257
Penna M, Hamilton-West C (2007) Susceptibility of evoked vocal responses to noise exposure in a frog of the temperate austral forest. Anim Behav 74:45–56. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.11.010
Penna M, Marquéz R (2007) Amplification and spectral modification of incoming vocalizations inside burrows of the frog Eupsophus roseus (Leptodactylidae). Bioacoustics 16:245–259
Penna M, Meier A (2011) Vocal strategies in confronting interfering sounds by a frog from the southern temperate forest, Batrachyla antartandica. Ethology 117:1147–1157. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2011.01973.x
Penna M, Moreno-Gómez FN (2014) Ample active acoustic space of a frog from the South American temperate forest. J Comp Physiol A 200:171–181. doi:10.1007/s00359-013-0875-x
Penna M, Moreno-Gómez FN (2015) Contrasting propagation of natural calls of two anuran species from the South American temperate forest. PLoS One 10(7):e0134498. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134498
Penna M, Quispe M (2007) Independence of evoked vocal responses from stimulus direction in burrowing frogs Eupsophus (Leptodactylidae). Ethology 113:313–323. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2007.01339.x
Penna M, Solís R (1996) Influence of burrow acoustics on sound reception by frogs Eupsophus (Leptodactylidae). Anim Behav 51:255–263. doi:10.1006/anbe.1996.0026
Penna M, Solís R (1999) Extent and variation of sound enhancement inside burrows of the frog Eupsophus emiliopugini (Leptodactylidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 47:94–103. doi:10.1007/s002650050654
Penna M, Velásquez N (2011) Heterospecific vocal interactions in a frog from the southern temperate forest, Batrachyla taeniata. Ethology 117:63–71. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01847.x
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. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.11.022
Penna M, Plaza A, Moreno-Gómez FN (2013) Severe constraints for sound communication in a frog from the South American temperate forest. J Comp Physiol A 199:723–733. doi:10.1007/s00359-013-0831-9
Phelps SM, Rand A, Ryan MJ (2007) The mixed-species chorus as public information: tungara frogs eavesdrop on a heterospecific. Behav Ecol 18:108–114. doi:10.1093/beheco/ar1063
Pike N (2011) Using false discovery rates for multiple comparisons in ecology and evolution. Methods Ecol Evol 2:278–282. doi:10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00061.x
Prozesky-Schulze L, Prozesky OPM, Anderson F, var der Merwe GJJ (1975) Use of a self-made sound baffle by a tree cricket. Nature 255:142–143. doi:10.1038/255142a0
R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org/
Römer H (2013) Masking by noise in acoustic insects: problems and solutions. In: Brumm H (ed) Animal communication and noise. Springer, Berlin, pp 33–63. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41494-7_3
Schleich CE, Antenucci DC (2009) Sound transmission and burrow characteristics of the subterranean rodent Ctenomys talarum (Rodentia: Ctenomyidae). Acta Theriol 54:165–170. doi:10.1007/BF03193172
Schmidt KA, Belinsky KL (2013) Voices in the dark: predation risk by owls influences dusk singing in a diurnal passerine. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:1837–1843. doi:10.1007/s00265-013-1593-7
Schwartz JJ, Bee MA (2013) Anuran acoustic signal production in noisy environments. In: Brumm H (ed) Animal communication and noise, Springer, Berlin, pp 91–132. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41494-7_5
Schwartz JJ, Wells KD (1985) Intra- and interspecific vocal behavior of the neotropical treefrog Hyla microcephala. Copeia 1:27–38. doi:10.2307/1444787
Singmann H, Bolker B, Westfall J (2015) Afex: analysis of factorial experiments. R packages version 0.13–145. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=afex
Stanley CQ, Walter MH, Venkatraman MX, Wilkinson GS (2016) Insect noise avoidance in the dawn chorus of neotropical birds. Anim Behav 112:255–265. doi:10.1016/j.anbehay.2015:12.003
Sueur J (2002) Cicada acoustic communication: potential sound partitioning in a multispecies community from Mexico (Hemiptera: Cicadomorpha: Cicadidae). Biol J Linn Soc 75:379–394. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2002.tb02079.x
Sueur J, Aubin T, Simonis C (2008) Seewave: a free modular tool for sound analysis and synthesis. Bioacoustics 18:213–226
Tan WH, Tsai CG, Lin C, Lin YK (2014) Urban canyon effect: storm drains enhance call characteristics of the Mientien tree frog. J Zool 294:77–84. doi:10.1111/jzo.12154
Úbeda CA, Nuñez JJ (2006) New parental care behaviours in two telmatobiine genera from temperate Patagonian forests: Batrachyla and Eupsophus (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Amphibia–Reptilia 27:441–444. doi:10.1163/156853806778190015
von May R, Medina-Muller M, Donnelly MA, Summers K (2009) Breeding-site selection by the poison frog Ranitomeya biolat in Amazonian bamboo forests: an experimental approach. Can J Zool 87:453–463. doi:10.1139/Z09-026
Wong S, Parada H, Narins PM (2009) Heterospecific acoustic interference: effects on calling in the frog Oophaga pumilio in Nicaragua. Biotropica 41:74–80. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2008.00452.x
Zuk M, Kolluru GR (1998) Exploitation of sexual signals by predators and parasitoids. Q Rev Biol 73:415–438. doi:10.1086/420412
Zuk M, Rotenberry JT, Tinghitella RM (2006) Silent night: adaptive disappearance of a sexual signal in a parasitized population of field crickets. Biol Lett 2:521–524. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2006.0539
Acknowledgments
Daniel Opazo provided fundamental directions for the experimental design. Reinaldo Marfull, Daniel Opazo, Jessica Toloza and José Serrano helped with the field measurements. Felipe Moreno-Gómez helped with the experimental design and provided valuable statistical advice. Two anonymous reviewers contributed valuable comments on the manuscript. Research supported by FONDECYT Grant 1110939. M.I.M. received financial support from The Guillermo Puelma Foundation for the Neurosciences. This study implied minimal animal handling. The presence of resident frogs inside the cavities interfered with the experimental procedures, and therefore these individuals were gently removed and returned to their corresponding burrows after the experiments were completed.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Muñoz, M.I., Penna, M. Extended amplification of acoustic signals by amphibian burrows. J Comp Physiol A 202, 473–487 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-016-1093-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-016-1093-0