Fan JIANG,Guangzhan FANG,Fei XUE,et al.Male Music Frogs Compete Vocally on the Basis of Temporal Sequence Rather Than Spatial Cues of Rival Calls[J].Asian Herpetological Research(AHR),2015,6(4):305-316.[doi:10.16373/j.cnki.ahr.150026]

Click Copy

Male Music Frogs Compete Vocally on the Basis of Temporal Sequence Rather Than Spatial Cues of Rival Calls

Share To：

Asian Herpetological Research[ISSN:2095-0357/CN:51-1735/Q]

Issue:

2015 VoI.6 No.4

Page:

305-316

Research Field:

Publishing date:

2015-12-25

Info

Title:

Male Music Frogs Compete Vocally on the Basis of Temporal Sequence Rather Than Spatial Cues of Rival Calls

Author(s):

Fan JIANG¹;  Guangzhan FANG^1*;  Fei XUE¹;  Jianguo CUI¹;  Steven E. BRAUTH² and Yezhong TANG^1*

¹ Chengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. No. 9 Section 4, Renmin Nan Road, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan, China
² Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park MD 20742, USA

Keywords:

male-male competition;  advertisement call;  sequence cue;  spatial cue;  call timing

PACS:

-

DOI:

10.16373/j.cnki.ahr.150026

Abstract:

Male-male vocal competition in anuran species may be influenced by cues related to the temporal sequence of male calls as well by internal temporal, spectral and spatial ones. Nevertheless, the conditions under which each type of cue is important remain unclear. Since the salience of different cues could be reflected by dynamic properties of male-male competition under certain experimental manipulation, we investigated the effects of repeating playbacks of conspecific calls on male call production in the Emei music frog (Babina daunchina). In Babina, most males produce calls from nest burrows which modify the spectral features of the cues. Females prefer calls produced from inside burrows which are defined as highly sexually attractive (HSA) while those produced outside burrows as low sexual attractiveness (LSA). In this study HSA and LSA calls were broadcasted either antiphonally or stereophonically through spatially separated speakers in which the temporal sequence and/or spatial position of the playbacks was either predictable or random. Results showed that most males consistently avoided producing advertisement calls overlapping the playback stimuli and generally produced calls competitively in advance of the playbacks. Furthermore males preferentially competed with the HSA calls when the sequence was predictable but competed equally with HSA and LSA calls if the sequence was random regardless of the availability of spatial cues, implying that males relied more on available sequence cues than spatial ones to remain competitive.

References:

Amy M., Monbureau M., Durand C., Gomez D., Théry M., Leboucher G. 2008. Female canary mate preferences: differential use of information from two types of male–male interaction. Anim Behav, 76(3): 971–982
Bates M. E., Cropp B. F., Gonchar M., Knowles J., Simmons J. A., Simmons A. M. 2010. Spatial location influences vocal interactions in bullfrog choruses. J Acoust Soc Am, 127(4): 2664–2677
Bee M. A. 2004. Within-individual variation in bullfrog vocalizations: Implications for a vocally mediated social recognition system. J Acoust Soc Am, 116(6): 3770–3781
Bee M. A. 2015. Treefrogs as animal models for research on auditory scene analysis and the cocktail party problem. Int J Psychophysiol, 95: 216–237
Bee M. A., Gerhardt H. C. 2001a. Habituation as a mechanism of reduced aggression between neighboring territorial male bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana). J Comp Psychol, 115(1): 68–82
Bee M. A., Gerhardt H. C. 2001b. Neighbour–stranger discrimination by territorial male bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana): I. Acoustic basis. Anim Behav, 62(6): 1129–1140
Bee M. A., Gerhardt H. C. 2001c. Neighbour–stranger discrimination by territorial male bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana): II. Perceptual basis. Anim Behav, 62(6): 1141–1150
Briefer E., Rybak F., Aubin T. 2008. When to be a dear enemy: flexible acoustic relationships of neighbouring skylarks, Alauda arvensis. Anim Behav, 76(4): 1319–1325
Briefer E., Rybak F., Aubin T. 2010. Are unfamiliar neighbours considered to be dear-enemies? PLoS ONE, 5(8): e12428
Brush J. S., Narins P. M. 1989. Chorus dynamics of a neotropical amphibian assemblage: comparison of computer simulation and natural behaviour. Anim Behav, 37: 33–44
Buck J. 1988. Synchronous rhythmic flashing of fireflies. II. Q Rev Biol: 265–289
Byrne P. G. 2008. Strategic male calling behavior in an Australian terrestrial toadlet (Pseudophryne bibronii). Copeia, 2008(1): 57–63
Carazo P., Font E., Desfilis E. 2008. Beyond ‘nasty neighbours’ and ‘dear enemies’? Individual recognition by scent marks in a lizard (Podarcis hispanica). Anim Behav, 76(6): 1953–1963
Carlyon R. P., Gockel H. E. 2007. Effects of harmonicity and regularity on the perception of sound sources. In: Yost W. A.,Popper A. N. and Fay R. R. (eds.) Auditory perception of sound sources. Springer. p 191–213
Cheng K., Crystal J. 2008. Learning to time intervals. In: Menzel R. (ed.) Learning theory and behavior: A Comprehensive Reference No. 1. Academic Press, Oxford. p 341–364
Cohen J. 1992. A power primer. Psychol Bull, 112(1): 155–159
Cotton S., Small J., Pomiankowski A. 2006. Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr Biol, 16(17): R755–765
Crystal J. D. 2006. Animal behavior: timing in the wild. Curr Biol, 16(7): R252–R253
Cui J. G., Tang Y. Z., Narins P. M. 2012. Real estate ads in Emei music frog vocalizations: female preference for calls emanating from burrows. Biol Lett, 8(3): 337–340
Cui J. G., Wang Y. S., Brauth S. E., Tang Y. Z. 2010. A novel female call incites male-female interaction and male-male competition in the Emei music frog, Babina daunchina. Anim Behav, 80: 181–187
Darwin C. J. 2007. Spatial hearing and perceiving sources. In: Yost W.A., Popper A.N. and Fay R.R. (eds.) Auditory perception of sound sources. Springer, New York. p 215–232
Davis M. S. 1987. Acoustically mediated neighbor recognition in the North American bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 21(3): 185–190
Dimarco R. D., Farji-Brener A. G., Premoli A. C. 2010. Dear enemy phenomenon in the leaf-cutting ant Acromyrmex lobicornis: behavioral and genetic evidence. Behav Ecol, 21(2): 304–310
Fang G. Z., Jiang F., Yang P., Cui J. G., Brauth S. E., Tang Y. Z. 2014. Male vocal competition is dynamic and strongly affected by social contexts in music frogs. Anim Cogn, 17(2): 483–494
Farris H., Rand A. S., Ryan M. J. 2005. The effects of time, space and spectrum on auditory grouping in túngara frogs. J Comp Physiol A, 191(12): 1173–1183
Farris H. E., Rand A. S., Ryan M. J. 2002. The effects of spatially separated call components on phonotaxis in túngara frogs: evidence for auditory grouping. Brain Behav Evol, 60: 181–188
Feng A. S., Arch V. S., Yu Z., Yu X. J., Xu Z. M., Shen J. X. 2009. Neighbor–Stranger Discrimination in Concave‐Eared Torrent Frogs, Odorrana tormota. Ethology, 115(9): 851–856
Feng A. S., Schellart N. A. 1999. Central auditory processing in fish and amphibians Comparative hearing: fish and amphibians. Springer, New York. p 218–268
Feng A. S., Schul J. 2006. Sound processing in real-world environments. In: Narins P. M., Feng A. S., Fay R. R. and Popper A. N.(eds.) Hearing and sound communication in amphibians. Springer Verlag, New York. p 323–350
Gentner T. Q. 2007. Mechanisms of temporal auditory pattern recognition in songbirds. Language learning and development, 3(2): 157–178
Gerhardt H. C. 1988. Acoustic properties used in call recognition by frogs and toads. In: Fritszch B., Wilczynski W., Ryan M. J., Hetherington T. E. and Walkowiak W. (eds.) The evolution of the amphibian auditory system. Wiley, New York. p 275–294
Gerhardt H. C., Bee M. A. 2006. Recognition and localization of acoustic signals. In: Narins P. M., Feng A. S., Fay R. R. and Popper A. N.(eds.) Hearing and sound communication in amphibians. Springer, New York. p 113–146
Gerhardt H. C., Huber F. 2002. Acoustic communication in insects and anurans: common problems and diverse solutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Gerhardt H. C., Roberts J. D., Bee M. A., Schwartz J. J. 2000. Call matching in the quacking frog (Crinia georgiana). Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 48(3): 243–251
Greenfield M. D. 1994a. Cooperation and conflict in the evolution of signal interactions. Annu Rev Ecol Syst, 25: 97–126
Greenfield M. D. 1994b. Synchronous and alternating choruses in insects and anurans: common mechanisms and diverse functions. Am Zool, 34(6): 605–615
Greenfield M. D. 2002. Signalers and receivers: mechanisms and evolution of arthropod communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Greenfield M. D. 2005. Mechanisms and evolution of communal sexual displays in arthropods and anurans. Adv Stud Behav, 35: 1–62
Greenfield M. D., Rand A. S. 2000. Frogs have rules: selective attention algorithms regulate chorusing in Physalaemus pustulosus (Leptodactylidae). Ethology, 106(4): 331–347
Greenfield M. D., Tourtellot M. K., Snedden W. A. 1997. Precedence effects and the evolution of chorusing. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 264(1386): 1355–1361
Hurly T. A., Ratcliffe L., Weisman R. 1990. Relative pitch recognition in white-throated sparrows, Zonotrichia albicollis. Anim Behav, 40(1): 176–181
Leiser J. K. 2003. When are neighbours ‘dear enemies’ and when are they not? The responses of territorial male variegated pupfish, Cyprinodon variegatus, to neighbours, strangers and heterospecifics. Anim Behav, 65(3): 453–462
Leiser J. K., Bryan C. M., Itzkowitz M. 2006. Disruption of dear enemy recognition among neighboring males by female leon springs pupfish, Cyprinodon bovinus. Ethology, 112(5): 417–423
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): 287–295
Levy D. A., Granot R., Bentin S. 2001. Processing specificity for human voice stimuli: electrophysiological evidence. Neuroreport, 12(12): 2653–2657
Levy D. A., Granot R., Bentin S. 2003. Neural sensitivity to human voices: ERP evidence of task and attentional influences. Psychophysiology, 40(2): 291–305
Litovsky R. Y., Colburn H. S., Yost W. A., Guzman S. J. 1999. The precedence effect. J Acoust Soc Am, 106: 1633–1654
Lohr B., Weisman R., Nowicki S. 1994. The role of pitch cues in song recognition by Carolina chickadees (Parus carolinensis). Behaviour, 130(1–2): 1–15
Marshall V. T., Gerhardt H. C. 2010. A precedence effect underlies preferences for calls with leading pulses in the grey treefrog, Hyla versicolor. Anim Behav, 80(1): 139–145
Martínez-Rivera C. C., Gerhardt H. C. 2008. Advertisement-call modification, male competition, and female preference in the bird-voiced treefrog Hyla avivoca. Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 63(2): 195–208
Meckenh?user G., Hennig R. M., Nawrot M. P. 2013. Critical Song Features for Auditory Pattern Recognition in Crickets. PLoS ONE, 8(2): e55349
Munro B. H. 2005. Statistical methods for health care research. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Owen P. C., Perrill S. A. 1998. Habituation in the green frog, Rana clamitans. Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 44(3): 209–213
Popper A. N., Fay R. R. 2005. Sound source localization. New York: Springer
Reichert M. S. 2012. Call timing is determined by response call type, but not by stimulus properties, in the treefrog Dendropsophus ebraccatus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 66(3): 433–444
Rose G. J., Gooler D. M. 2006. Function of the amphibian central auditory system. In: Narins P. M., Feng A. S., Fay R. R. and Popper A. N.(eds.) Hearing and Sound Communication in Amphibians. Springer, New York. p 250–290
Rosell F., Bj?rk?yli T. 2002. A test of the dear enemy phenomenon in the Eurasian beaver. Anim Behav, 63(6): 1073–1078
Schwartz J. J. 1987. The function of call alternation in anuran amphibians: a test of three hypotheses. Evolution, 41: 461–471
Schwartz J. J. 1993. Male calling behavior, female discrimination and acoustic interference in the Neotropical treefrog Hyla microcephala under realistic acoustic conditions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 32(6): 401–414
Schwartz J. J., Buchanan B. W., Gerhardt H. C. 2001. Female mate choice in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) in three experimental environments. Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 49(6): 443–455
Vedenina V. Y., Pollack G. S. 2012. Recognition of variable courtship song in the field cricket Gryllus assimilis. J Exp Biol, 215(13): 2210–2219
Wells K., Schwartz J. 2006. The behavioral ecology of anuran communication. In: Narins P. M., Feng A. S., Fay R. R. and Popper A. N. (eds.) Hearing and Sound Communication in Amphibians. Springer Verlag, New York. p 44–86
Wilczynski W., Endepols H. 2006. Central auditory pathways in anuran amphibians: the anatomical basis of hearing and sound communication. In: Narins P. M., Feng A. S., Fay R. R. and Popper A. N.(eds.) Hearing and sound communication in amphibians. Springer, Berlin, Germany. p 221–249
Yost W. A. 2007. Perceiving sound sources. In: Yost W. A.,Popper A. N. and Fay R. R. (eds.) Auditory Perception of Sound Sources. Springer, New York. p 1–12
Zenuto R. R. 2010. Dear enemy relationships in the subterranean rodent Ctenomys talarum: the role of memory of familiar odours. Anim Behav, 79(6): 1247–1255
Zurek P. M. 1987. The precedence effect. In: Yost W.A. and Gourevitch G. (eds.) Directional hearing. Springer-Verlag, New York. p 85–105

Memo

Memo:

-

Common functions