Social Recognition in Anurans

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Animal Signals and Communication book series (ANISIGCOM, volume 5)

Abstract

Learning to recognize and categorize other individuals is a cornerstone of animal social behavior. By learning about individually distinctive signal properties, receivers can perceptually discriminate among conspecifics to direct appropriate behaviors toward particular individuals. One context for social recognition arises from contests over territories. In many species, territory residents exhibit reduced levels of aggression toward nearby neighbors, but maintain a readiness to respond aggressively to unfamiliar individuals. Territory residents and their neighbors, which remain competitive rivals despite reaching a truce, are often described as “dear enemies.” Although neighbor recognition is widespread across taxa, we have yet to satisfactorily elucidate the ecological and social factors that favor its evolution nor do we fully understand its underlying perceptual and cognitive mechanisms and how they potentially differ across species. Comparative and integrative studies of anurans (frogs and toads) have potential to address these gaps in current knowledge. After a brief introduction and primer on social recognition, this chapter critically reviews previous and ongoing work on vocally mediated neighbor recognition in territorial anurans. The focus is on comparing behavioral studies of recognition across species in light of similarities and differences in various ecological and social factors . Next, the chapter reviews studies aimed at elucidating the perceptual and cognitive mechanisms by which neighbor recognition is achieved by one particularly well-studied species. By adopting a case-study perspective, this chapter outlines the promise of comparative and integrative approaches to investigating the evolution and psychological mechanisms of social recognition in anurans, while also illustrating the perils that arise when inappropriate or inadequate methodologies are used in these investigations.

Keywords

Social Recognition Advertisement Call Territorial Neighbor Aggressive Call Territory Holder 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to the National Science Foundation, the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Sigma Xi, and the University of Minnesota for funding various portions of the original research reviewed in this chapter.

References

  1. AmphibiaWeb (2016) Information on amphibian biology and conservation. AmphibiaWeb, Berkeley. http://amphibiaweb.org/. Last accessed 12 Feb 2016
  2. Arch VS, Burmeister SS, Feng AS, Shen JX, Narins PM (2011) Ultrasound-evoked immediate early gene expression in the brainstem of the Chinese torrent frog, Odorrana tormota. J Comp Physiol A 197(6):667–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baugh JR, Forester DC (1994) Prior residence effect in the dart-poison frog, Dendrobates pumilio. Behaviour 131(3/4):207–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bee MA (2001a) Habituation and sensitization of aggression in bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana): testing the dual-process theory of habituation. J Comp Psychol 115(3):307–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bee MA (2001b) Vocally mediated neighbor recognition in North American bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana: identification, perception, and learning. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Missouri, ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  6. Bee MA (2002) Territorial male bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) do not assess fighting ability based on size-related variation in acoustic signals. Behav Ecol 13(1):109–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bee MA (2003a) Experience-based plasticity of acoustically evoked aggression in a territorial frog. J Comp Physiol A 189(6):485–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bee MA (2003b) A test of the ‘dear enemy effect’ in the strawberry dart-poison frog (Dendrobates pumilio). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54(6):601–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bee MA (2004) Within-individual variation in bullfrog vocalizations: implications for a vocally mediated social recognition system. J Acoust Soc Am 116(6):3770–3781PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bee MA (2006) Individual recognition in animal species. In: Naguib M (ed) Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn. Elsevier, New York, pp. 617–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bee MA, Gerhardt HC (2001a) Habituation as a mechanism of reduced aggression between neighboring territorial male bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana). J Comp Psychol 115(1):68–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bee MA, Gerhardt HC (2001b) Neighbour-stranger discrimination by territorial male bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana): I. acoustic basis. Anim Behav 62:1129–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bee MA, Gerhardt HC (2001c) Neighbour-stranger discrimination by territorial male bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana): II. perceptual basis. Anim Behav 62:1141–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bee MA, Gerhardt HC (2002) Individual voice recognition in a territorial frog (Rana catesbeiana). Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 269(1499):1443–1448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bee MA, Schachtman TR (2000) Is habituation a mechanism for neighbor recognition in green frogs? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48(2):165–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bee MA, Kozich CE, Blackwell KJ, Gerhardt HC (2001) Individual variation in advertisement calls of territorial male green frogs, Rana clamitans: implications for individual discrimination. Ethology 107(1):65–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bee MA, Reichert MS, Tumulty JP (2016) Assessment and recognition of competitive rivals in anurans. Adv Stud Behav 48:161–249Google Scholar
  18. Beecher MD (1982) Signature systems and kin recognition. Am Zool 22(3):477–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Beecher MD (1988) Kin recognition in birds. Behav Genet 18(4):465–482PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Beecher MD (1989a) Evolution of parent-offspring recognition in swallows. In: Dewsbury DA (ed) Contemporary issues in comparative psychology. Sinauer, Sunderland, pp. 360–380Google Scholar
  21. Beecher MD (1989b) Signalling systems for individual recognition: an information theory approach. Anim Behav 38:248–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Beecher MD (1991) Successes and failures of parent-offspring recognition systems in animals. In: Hepper PG (ed) Kin recognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 94–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Beecher MD, Loesche P, Stoddard PK, Medvin MB (1989) Individual recognition by voice in swallows: signal or perceptual adaptation. In: Dooling RJ, Hulse SH (eds) The comparative psychology of audition: perceiving complex sounds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp. 277–292Google Scholar
  24. Beecher MD, Stoddard PK, Campbell ES, Horning CL (1996) Repertoire matching between neighbouring song sparrows. Anim Behav 51(4):917–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Beer CG (1970) Individual recognition of voice in the social behavior of birds. Adv Study Behav 3:27–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Boake CRB (1989) Repeatability: its role in evolutionary studies of mating behavior. Evol Ecol 3(2):173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Boatright-Horowitz SS, Cheney CA, Simmons AM (1999) Atmospheric and underwater propagation of bullfrog vocalizations. Bioacoustics 9:257–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Bossuyt F, Roelants K (2009) Frogs and toads (Anura). In: Hedges SB, Kumar S (eds) The timetree of life. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 357–364Google Scholar
  29. Bourne GR (1992) Lekking behavior in the neotropical frog Ololygon rubra. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31(3):173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Bourne GR, Collins AC, Holder AM, McCarthy CL (2001) Vocal communication and reproductive behavior of the frog Colostethus beebei in Guyana. J Herpetol 35(2):272–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (2011) Principles of animal communication, 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  32. Brenowitz EA, Rose GJ (1994) Behavioral plasticity mediates aggression in choruses of the Pacific treefrog. Anim Behav 47(3):633–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Briefer E, Aubin T, Lehongre K, Rybak F (2008) How to identify dear enemies: the group signature in the complex song of the skylark Alauda arvensis. J Exp Biol 211(3):317–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Brooks RJ, Falls JB (1975) Individual recognition by song in white-throated sparrows. I discrimination of songs of neighbors and strangers. Can J Zool 53(7):879–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Brown JL, Morales V, Summers K (2010) A key trait drove the evolution of biparental care and monogamy in an amphibian. Am Nat 175(4):436–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Bunnell P (1973) Vocalizations in the territorial behavior of the frog Dendrobates pumilio. Copeia:277–284Google Scholar
  37. Catchpole CK (1989) Pseudoreplication and external validity: playback experiments in avian bioacoustics. Trends Ecol Evol 4(10):286–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Chuang M-F, Bee MA, Kam Y-C (2013) Short amplexus duration in a territorial anuran: a possible adaptation in response to male-male competition. PLoS One 8(12):e83116PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Chuang M-F, Kam Y-C, Bee MA (2016) Quantitative description of the vocal repertoire of the territorial olive frog Babina adenopleura from Taiwan. Bioacoustics 25(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Chuang M-F, Kam Y-C, Bee MA (2017) Vocally-mediated discrimination between neighbors and strangers in a territorial frog, Babina adenopleura. Anim Behav 123:217–228Google Scholar
  41. Chuaynkern Y, Ohler A, Inthara C, Duengkae P, Makchai S, Salangsingha N (2010) A revision of species in the subgenus Nidirana Dubois, 1992, with special attention to the identity of specimens allocated to Rana adenopleura Boulenger, 1909, and Rana chapaensis (Bourret, 1937)(Amphibia: Anura: Ranidae) from Thailand and Laos. Raffles Bull Zool 58(2):291–310Google Scholar
  42. Colgan PW (1983) Comparative social recognition. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Cowan N (1995) Attention and memory: an integrated framework, Oxford Psychology Series, vol 26. Calrendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Crothers LR, Cummings ME (2015) A multifunctional warning signal behaves as an agonistic status signal in a poison frog. Behav Ecol 26(2):560–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Davis MS (1987) Acoustically mediated neighbor recognition in the North American bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21(3):185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Donnelly MA (1989a) Demographic effects of reproductive resource supplementation in a territorial frog, Dendrobates pumilio. Ecol Monogr 59(3):207–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Donnelly MA (1989b) Effects of reproductive resource supplementation on space-use patterns in Dendrobates pumilio. Oecologia 81(2):212–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Donnelly MA (1989c) Phenology and age structure of Dendrobates pumilio in northeastern Costa Rica. J Herpetol 23(4):362–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Dyson ML, Reichert MS, Halliday TR (2013) Contests in amphibians. In: Hardy ICW, Briffa M (eds) Animal contests. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 228–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Emlen ST (1968) Territoriality in the bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. Copeia:240–243Google Scholar
  51. Emlen ST (1976) Lek organization and mating strategies in the bullfrog. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1(3):283–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Falls JB (1982) Individual recognition by sounds in birds. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH (eds) Acoustic communication in birds. Academic, New York, pp. 237–278Google Scholar
  53. Feng AS, Narins PM (2008) Ultrasonic communication in concave-eared torrent frogs (Amolops tormotus). J Comp Physiol A 194(2):159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Feng AS, Narins PM, Xu CH (2002) Vocal acrobatics in a Chinese frog, Amolops tormotus. Naturwissenschaften 89(8):352–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Feng AS, Narins PM, Xu CH, Lin WY, Yu ZL, Qiu Q, Xu ZM, Shen JX (2006) Ultrasonic communication in frogs. Nature 440(7082):333–336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Feng AS, Arch VS, Yu ZL, Yu XJ, Xu ZM, Shen JX (2009a) Neighbor-stranger discrimination in concave-eared torrent frogs, Odorrana tormota. Ethology 115(9):851–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Feng AS, Riede T, Arch VS, Yu ZL, Xu ZM, Yu XJ, Shen JX (2009b) Diversity of the vocal signals of concave-eared torrent frogs (Odorrana tormota): Evidence for individual signatures. Ethology 115(11):1015–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Fisher JB (1954) Evolution and bird sociality. In: Huxely J, Hardy AC, Ford EB (eds) Evolution as a process. Allen & Unwin, London, pp. 71–83Google Scholar
  59. Frost DR (2015) Amphibian species of the world: an online reference. Version 6.0 (12 February 2016). Electronic Database accessible at http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html. American Museum of Natural History, New York
  60. Frost DR, Grant T, Faivovich J, Bain RH, Haas A, Haddad CFB, De Sa RO, Channing A, Wilkinson M, Donnellan SC, Raxworthy CJ, Campbell JA, Blotto BL, Moler P, Drewes RC, Nussbaum RA, Lynch JD, Green DM, Wheeler WC (2006) The amphibian tree of life. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 297:8–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Gasser H, Amézquita A, Hödl W (2009) Who is calling? Intraspecific call variation in the aromobatid frog Allobates femoralis. Ethology 115(6):596–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Gentner TQ (2004) Neural systems for individual song recognition in adult birds. In: Zeigler HP, Marler P (eds) Behavioral neurobiology of birdsong, Annals of the new york academy of sciences, vol 1016. New York Academic Sciences, New York, pp. 282–302Google Scholar
  63. Gerhardt HC, Huber F (2002) Acoustic communication in insects and anurans: common problems and diverse solutions. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  64. Gerhardt HC, Schwartz JJ (2001) Auditory tuning, frequency preferences and mate choice in anurans. In: Ryan MJ (ed) Anuran communication. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 73–85Google Scholar
  65. Gerhardt HC, Roberts JD, Bee MA, Schwartz JJ (2000) Call matching in the quacking frog (Crinia georgiana). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48(3):243–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Getty T (1989) Are dear enemies in a war of attrition? Anim Behav 37:337–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Gridi-Papp M, Feng AS, Shen JX, Yu ZL, Rosowski JJ, Narins PM (2008) Active control of ultrasonic hearing in frogs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(31):11014–11019PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Groves PM, Thompson RF (1970) Habituation: a dual-process theory. Psychol Rev 77(5):419–450PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Haas JD (1976) Individual differences in the vocalizations of the bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. Herpetol Rev 7:86Google Scholar
  70. Haas JD (1977) Individual differences in the vocalization of bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana. Ph.D. Dissertation, Tufts University, MedfordGoogle Scholar
  71. Haase A, Pröhl H (2002) Female activity patterns and aggressiveness in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio (Anura: Dendrobatidae). Amphibia-Reptilia 23(2):129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Hall G (1991) Perceptual and associative learning, Oxford psychology series, vol 18. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Halpin ZT (1986) Individual odors among mammals: origins and functions. Adv Study Behav 16:39–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Hedges SB, Kumar S (2009) The timetree of life. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  75. Howard RD (1978a) Evolution of mating strategies in bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana. Evolution 32(4):850–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Howard RD (1978b) Influence of male-defended oviposition sites on early embryo mortality in bullfrogs. Ecology 59(4):789–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Howard RD (1979) Estimating reproductive success in natural populations. Am Nat 114(2):221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Howard RD (1981) Sexual dimorphism in bullfrogs. Ecology 62(2):303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Howard RD (1983) Sexual selection and variation in reproductive success in a long-lived organism. Am Nat 122(3):301–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Howard RD (1984) Alternative mating behaviors of young male bullfrogs. Am Zool 24(2):397–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Kitchell K Jr, Dundee HA (1994) A trilogy on the herpetology of Linnaeus’s Systema Naturae X. Smithsonian Herpetol Inf Serv 100:1–61Google Scholar
  82. Kroodsma DE (1989a) Inappropriate experimental designs impede progress in bioacoustic research: a reply. Anim Behav 38:717–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Kroodsma DE (1989b) Suggested experimental designs for song playbacks. Anim Behav 37(4):600–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Kroodsma DE (1990) Using appropriate experimental designs for intended hypotheses in ‘song’ playbacks, with examples for testing effects of song repertoire sizes. Anim Behav 40(6):1138–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Kroodsma DE, Byers BE, Goodale E, Johnson S, Liu WC (2001) Pseudoreplication in playback experiments, revisited a decade later. Anim Behav 61:1029–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Lambrechts MM, Dhondt AA (1995) Individual voice discrimination in birds. In: Power DM (ed) Current ornithology. Plenum, New York, pp. 115–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Lesbarrères D, Lodé T (2002) Variations in male calls and responses to an unfamiliar advertisement call in a territorial breeding anuran, Rana dalmatina: evidence for a “dear enemy” effect. Ethol Ecol Evol 14(4):287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Lesbarrères D, Merila J, Lodé T (2008) Male breeding success is predicted by call frequency in a territorial species, the agile frog (Rana dalmatina). Can J Zool 86(11):1273–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Lessells CM, Boag PT (1987) Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. Auk 104(1):116–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Linnaeus C (1758) Systema naturae per regna tria naturae: secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis, 10th edn. Laurentius Salvius, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  91. Lodé T (2009) Mating strategies and monogamy in a territorial breeding anuran, Rana dalmatina: a result of sexual conflict? Alytes (Paris) 27(2):37–48Google Scholar
  92. Lodé T, Lesbarrères D (2004) Multiple paternity in Rana dalmatina, a monogamous territorial breeding anuran. Naturwissenschaften 91(1):44–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Lodé T, Holveck MJ, Lesbarrères D (2005) Asynchronous arrival pattern, operational sex ratio and occurrence of multiple paternities in a territorial breeding anuran, Rana dalmatina. Biol J Linn Soc 86(2):191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Maan ME, Cummings ME (2012) Poison frog colors are honest signals of toxicity, particularly for bird predators. Am Nat 179(1):E1–E14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Marshall VT, Humfeld SC, Bee MA (2003) Plasticity of aggressive signalling and its evolution in male spring peepers, Pseudacris crucifer. Anim Behav 65:1223–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. McGregor PK, Catchpole CK, Dabelsteen T, Falls JB, Fusani L, Gerhardt HC, Gilbert F, Horn A, Klump GM, Kroodsma DE, Lambrechts MM, McComb KE, Nelson DA, Pepperberg IM, Ratcliffe L, Searcy WA, Weary DM (1992) Design of playback experiments: the Thornbridge Hall NATO ARW consensus. In: McGregor PK (ed) Playback and studies of animal communication. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. McVey ME, Zahary RG, Perry D, Macdougal J (1981) Territoriality and homing behaviour in the poison dart frog (Dendrobates pumilio). Copeia 1:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Mello C, Nottebohm F, Clayton D (1995) Repeated exposure to one song leads to a rapid and persistent decline in an immediate-early genes response to that song in zebra finch telencephalon. J Neurosci 15(10):6919–6925PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Meuche I, Linsenmair KE, Pröhl H (2012) Intrasexual competition, territoriality and acoustic communication in male strawberry poison frogs (Oophaga pumilio). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66(4):613–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Miller CT, Bee MA (2012) Receiver psychology turns 20: is it time for a broader approach? Anim Behav 83(2):331–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 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(2):910–913PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Narins PM, Feng AS, Fay RR, Popper AN (2007) Hearing and sound communication in amphibians, Springer handbook of auditory research, vol 28. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  103. Nelson DA (1989) Song frequency as a cue for recognition of species and individuals in the field sparrow (Spizella pusilla). J Comp Psychol 103(2):171–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Nelson DA, Marler P (1990) The perception of birdsong and an ecological concept of signal space. In: Berkley MA, Stebbins WC (eds) Comparative perception: volume II. Wiley, New York, pp. 443–478Google Scholar
  105. Owen PC, Perrill SA (1998) Habituation in the green frog, Rana clamitans. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 44(3):209–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Peeke HVS (1984) Habituation and the maintenance of territorial boundaries. In: Peeke HVS, Petrinovich L (eds) Habituation, sensitization, and behavior. Academic, New York, pp. 393–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Peeke HVS, Peeke SC (1973) Habituation in fish with special reference to intraspecific aggressive behavior. In: HVS P, MJ H (eds) Habituation: I. behavioral studies. Academic, New York, pp. 59–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Petrinovich L (1984) A two-factor dual-process theory of habituation and sensitization. In: Peeke HVS, Petrinovich L (eds) Habituation, sensitization, and behavior. Academic, New York, pp. 17–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Pettitt BA (2012) Paternal effects in relation to acoustically mediated mate choice in a neotropical frog. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Minnesota, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  110. Pettitt BA, Bourne GR, Bee MA (2012) Quantitative acoustic analysis of the vocal repertoire of the golden rocket frog (Anomaloglossus beebei). J Acoust Soc Am 131:4811–4820PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Pettitt BA, Bourne GR, Bee MA (2013) Advertisement call variation in the golden rocket frog (Anomaloglossus beebei): evidence for individual distinctiveness. Ethology 119:244–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Pröhl H (1997a) Reproductive pattern in Dendrobates pumilio (Anura: Dentrobatidae). Rev Biol Trop 45(4):1669–1674Google Scholar
  113. Pröhl H (1997b) Territorial behaviour of the strawberry poison-dart frog, Dendrobates pumilio. Amphibia-Reptilia 18(4):437–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Pröhl H (2002) Population differences in female resource abundance, adult sex ratio, and male mating success in Dendrobates pumilio. Behav Ecol 13(2):175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Pröhl H (2003) Variation in male calling behaviour and relation to male mating success in the strawberry poison frog (Dendrobates pumilio). Ethology 109(4):273–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Pröhl H (2005a) Clutch loss affects the operational sex ratio in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58(3):310–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Pröhl H (2005b) Territorial behavior in dendrobatid frogs. J Herpetol 39(3):354–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Pröhl H, Berke O (2001) Spatial distributions of male and female strawberry poison frogs and their relation to female reproductive resources. Oecologia 129(4):534–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Pröhl H, Hödl W (1999) Parental investment, potential reproductive rates, and mating system in the strawberry dart-poison frog, Dendrobates pumilio. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46(4):215–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Proops L, McComb K, Reby D (2009) Cross-modal individual recognition in domestic horses (Equus caballus). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(3):947–951PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Pyron RA, Wiens JJ (2011) A large-scale phylogeny of Amphibia including over 2800 species, and a revised classification of extant frogs, salamanders, and caecilians. Mol Phylogenet Evol 61(2):543–583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Rankin CH, Abrams T, Barry RJ, Bhatnagar S, Clayton DF, Colombo J, Coppola G, Geyer MA, Glanzman DL, Marsland S (2009) Habituation revisited: an updated and revised description of the behavioral characteristics of habituation. Neurobiol Learn Mem 92(2):135–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Reichert MS, Gerhardt HC (2012) Trade-offs and upper limits to signal performance during close-range vocal competition in gray tree frogs Hyla versicolor. Am Nat 180(4):425–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Richards DG (1979) Recognition of neighbors by associative learning in rufous-sided towhees. The Auk 96:688–693Google Scholar
  125. Richards DG, Wiley RH (1980) Reverberations and amplitude fluctuations in the propagation of sound in a forest: implications for animal communication. Am Nat 115(3):381–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Robertson JGM (1984) Acoustic spacing by breeding males of Uperoleia rugosa (Anura, Leptodactylidae). Z Tierpsychol 64(3–4):283–297Google Scholar
  127. Rose GJ, Brenowitz EA (1991) Aggressive thresholds of male Pacific treefrogs for advertisement calls vary with amplitude of neighbors’ calls. Ethology 89(3):244–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Ryan MJ (1980) The reproductive behavior of the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). Copeia 1980(1):108–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A (1992) Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am Nat 139:S4–S35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Schneider H, Sofianidou TS, Kyriakopoulou-Sklavounou P (1988) Calling behavior and calls of Rana dalmatina (Anura, Ranidae) in Greece. Zool Physiol Tiere 92(2):231–243Google Scholar
  131. Schull J (1979) A conditioned opponent theory of Pavlovian conditioning and habituation. Psychol Learn Motiv 13:57–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Schwartz JJ, Simmons AM (1990) Encoding of a spectrally complex natural call in the bullfrog’s auditory nerve. J Comp Physiol A 166(4):489–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Searcy WA (1989) Pseudoreplication, external validity and the design of playback experiments. Anim Behav 38:715–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Shen JX, Feng AS, Xu ZM, Yu ZL, Arch VS, Yu XJ, Narins PM (2008) Ultrasonic frogs show hyperacute phonotaxis to female courtship calls. Nature 453(7197):914–916PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Shen JX, Xu ZM, Yu ZL, Wang S, Zheng DZ, Fan SC (2011) Ultrasonic frogs show extraordinary sex differences in auditory frequency sensitivity. Nat Commun 2:342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Sherman P, Reeve H, Pfennig D (1997) Recognition systems. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology, 4th edn. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 69–96Google Scholar
  137. Shettleworth SJ (2010) Cognition, evolution, and behavior, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  138. Siddle DA (1991) Orienting, habituation, and resource allocation: an associative analysis. Psychophysiology 28(3):245–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Simmons AM (2013) “To ear is human, to frogive is divine”: Bob Capranica’s legacy to auditory neuroethology. J Comp Physiol A 199(3):169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Simmons AM, Ferragamo M (1993) Periodicity extraction in the anuran auditory nerve 1. “pitch-shift” effects. J Comp Physiol A 172(1):57–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Simmons AM, Schwartz JJ, Ferragamo M (1992) Auditory nerve representation of a complex communication sound in background noise. J Acoust Soc Am 91(5):2831–2844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Simmons AM, Reese G, Ferragamo M (1993) Periodicity extraction in the anuran auditory nerve. II phase and temporal fine-structure. J Acoust Soc Am 93(6):3374–3389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Starks PT (2004) Recognition systems: from components to conservation. Ann Zool Fenn 41:689–690Google Scholar
  144. Stoddard PK (1996) Vocal recognition of neighbors by territorial passerines. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH (eds) Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp. 356–374Google Scholar
  145. Summers K, Symula R, Clough M, Cronin T (1999) Visual mate choice in poison frogs. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 266(1434):2141–2145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Suthers RA, Narins PM, Lin WY, Schnitzler HU, Denzinger A, Xu CH, Feng AS (2006) Voices of the dead: complex nonlinear vocal signals from the larynx of an ultrasonic frog. J Exp Biol 209(24):4984–4993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Temeles EJ (1994) The role of neighbors in territorial systems: when are they dear enemies? Anim Behav 47(2):339–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Thompson RF, Spencer WA (1966) Habituation: a model phenomenon for the study of neuronal substrates of behavior. Psychol Rev 73(1):16–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Tibbetts EA, Dale J (2007) Individual recognition: it is good to be different. Trends Ecol Evol 22(10):529–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Tomsic D, de Astrada MB, Sztarker J, Maldonado H (2009) Behavioral and neuronal attributes of short- and long-term habituation in the crab Chasmagnathus. Neurobiol Learn Mem 92(2):176–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Tumulty J, Morales V, Summers K (2014) The biparental care hypothesis for the evolution of monogamy: experimental evidence in an amphibian. Behav Ecol 25(2):262–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Wagner AR (1976) Priming in STM: an information-processing mechanism for self-generated or retrieval-generated depression in performance. In: Tighe TJ, Leaton RN (eds) Habituation: perspectives from child development, animal behavior, and neurophysiology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp. 95–128Google Scholar
  153. Wagner AR (1979) Habituation and memory. In: Dickenson A, Boakes RA (eds) Mechanisms of learning and motivation: a memorial volume for Jerzy Konorski. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp. 53–82Google Scholar
  154. Wagner AR (1981) SOP: a model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In: Spear NE, Miller RR (eds) Information processing in animals: memory mechanisms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp. 5–47Google Scholar
  155. Wells KD (1977) The social behaviour of anuran amphibians. Anim Behav 25:666–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Wells KD (2007) The ecology and behavior of amphibians. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Wells KD, Schwartz JJ (2007) The behavioral ecology of anuran communication. In: Narins PM, Feng AS, Fay RR, Popper AN (eds) Hearing and sound communication in amphibians, Springer handbook of auditory research, vol 28. Springer, New York, pp. 44–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Whitlow JW, Wagner AR (1984) Memory and habituation. In: Peeke HVS, Petrinovich L (eds) Habituation, sensitization, and behavior. Academic, New York, pp. 103–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Wiewandt TA (1969) Vocalization, aggressive behavior, and territoriality in the bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. Copeia 1969:276–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Wiley RH (2013) Specificity and multiplicity in the recognition of individuals: implications for the evolution of social behaviour. Biol Rev 88(1):179–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Wiley RH (2015) Noise matters: the evolution of communication. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Wiley RH, Richards DG (1978) Physical constraints on acoustic communication in the atmosphere: implications for the evolution of animal vocalizations. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 3(1):69–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Wiley RH, Wiley MS (1977) Recognition of neighbors’ duets by stripe-backed wrens Campylorhynchus nuchalis. Behaviour 62:10–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Wilson EO (1975) Sociobiology: the new synthesis. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  165. Zimmermann E (1990) Behavioral signals and reproduction modes in the neotropical frog family Dendrobatidae. Fortschr Zool 38:61–73Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, Graduate Program in NeuroscienceUniversity of Minnesota – Twin CitiesSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations