Jinjin SONG,Ruolei SUN,Ke FANG,et al.Flexibility as a Strategy for Avoiding Call Overlap in Male Anhui Treefrogs[J].Asian Herpetological Research(AHR),2020,11(3):230-239.[doi:10.16373/j.cnki.ahr.190033]
Click Copy

Flexibility as a Strategy for Avoiding Call Overlap in Male Anhui Treefrogs
Share To:

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

2020 VoI.11 No.3
Research Field:
Publishing date:


Flexibility as a Strategy for Avoiding Call Overlap in Male Anhui Treefrogs
Jinjin SONG12 Ruolei SUN1 Ke FANG13 Baowei ZHANG1* Yezhong TANG2 and Guangzhan FANG2*
1 School of Life Science, Anhui University, Hefei 230601, Anhui, China
2 Chengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan, China
3 Institute of Bio-inspired Structure and Surface Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, Jiangsu, China
acoustic stimulus call overlap flexibility frog individual recognition male-male competition
Male-male vocal competition is critical for mating success in anuran species; however, it remains unknown that how males regulate their competitive strategies dynamically during competition because calling is highly time-consuming, energetically demanding and likely to increase predation risks. Since different parts of calls will encode different information for vocal communication, we hypothesized that competitive strategies of male frogs may be modulated by the temporal and spectral features of different call notes. To test this hypothesis, the natural advertisement calls (OC), its modified versions with the first call note replaced by white noise (WN) or other notes and with the fifth call note replaced by WN, were played back to the Anhui tree frogs (Rhacophorus zhoukaiyae). Results showed that 1) males produced more competitive calls in response to acoustic stimuli compared to their baseline calling during silence; and 2) males emitted more non-overlapping calls compared to overlapping calls in response to the acoustic stimuli. These results are consistent with the idea that males are flexible to acoustic signals and their competition strategies are modulated dynamically by social contexts.


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
Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Baugh A. T., Ryan M. J. 2010. The development of sexual behavior in túngara frogs (Physalaemus pustulosus). J Comp Psychol, 124(1): 66–80
Bee M. A. 2007. Selective phonotaxis by male wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) to the sound of a chorus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 61(6): 955–966
Bee M. A., Perrill S. A., Owen P. C. 1999. Size assessment in simulated territorial encounters between male green frogs (Rana clamitans). Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 45(3–4): 177–184
Bee M. A., Perrill S. A., Owen P. C. 2000. Male green frogs lower the pitch of acoustic signals in defense of territories: A possible dishonest signal of size? Behav Ecol, 11(2): 169–177
Bernal X. E., Stanley Rand A., Ryan M. J. 2007. Sex differences in response to nonconspecific advertisement calls: Receiver permissiveness in male and female túngara frogs. Anim Behav, 73(6): 955–964
Bernal X. E., Stanley Rand A., Ryan M. J. 2010. Sexual differences in the behavioral response of túngara frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus, to cues associated with increased predation risk. Ethology, 113(8): 755–763
Bosch J., Márquez R. 2001. Female courtship call of the Iberian midwife toad (Alytes cisternasii). J Herpetol, 35(4): 647–652
Brenowitz E. A. 1989. Neighbor call amplitude influences aggressive behavior and intermale spacing in choruses of the Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla). Ethology, 83(1): 69–79
Brenowitz E. A., Rose G. J. 1994. Behavioural plasticity mediates aggression in choruses of the Pacific treefrog. Anim Behav, 47(3): 633–641
Burmeister S., Wilczynski W., Ryan M. J. 1999. Temporal call changes and prior experience affect graded signalling in the cricket frog. Anim Behav, 57(3): 611–618
Caldart V. M., Iop S., Lingnau R., Cechin S. Z. 2016. Communication in a noisy environment: Short-term acoustic adjustments and the underlying acoustic niche of a Neotropical stream-breeding frog. Acta Ethol, 19(3): 151–162
Cohen J. 1992. A power primer. Psychol Bull, 112(1): 155–159
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
Darwin C. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. Murray, London
Dyson M. L., Passmore N. I. 1992. Inter‐male spacing and aggression in african painted reed frogs, Hyperolius marmoratus. Ethology, 91(3): 237–247
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
Fang K., Zhang B. W., Brauth S. E., Tang Y. Z., Fang G. Z. 2019. The first call note of the Anhui tree frog (Rhacophorus zhoukaiyae) is acoustically suited for enabling individual recognition. Bioacoustics, 28(2): 155–176
Garcia M. J., Cronin A., Bowling T., Bushera H., Hunter K. L., Taylor R. C. 2019. Dueling frogs: Do male green tree frogs (Hyla cinerea) eavesdrop on and assess nearby calling competitors? Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 73(2): 21
Gerhardt H. C., Bee M. A. 2007. Recognition and localization of acoustic signals. In Narins P. M., Feng A. S., Fay R. R., Popper A. N. (Eds.) Hearing and sound communication in amphibians. New York: Springer, 113–146
Gerhardt H. C., Huber F. 2002. Acoustic communication in insects and anurans: Common problems and diverse solutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Grafe T. U. 1996. The function of call alternation in the African reed frog (Hyperolius marmoratus): precise call timing prevents auditory masking. Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 38(3): 149–158
Grafe T. U. 1997. Costs and benefits of mate choice in the lek-breeding reed frog, Hyperolius marmoratus. Anim Behav, 53(5): 1103–1117
Grafe T. U. 2003. Synchronized interdigitated calling in the Kuvangu running frog, Kassina kuvangensis. Anim Behav, 66(1): 127–136
Grafe T. U., Preininger D., Sztatecsny M., Kasah R., Dehling J. M., Proksch S., H?dl W. 2012. Multimodal communication in a noisy environment: a case study of the Bornean rock frog Staurois parvus. PLoS One, 7(5): e37965
Harrington F. H., Mech L. D. 1983. Wolf pack spacing: howling as a territory-independent spacing mechanism in a territorial population. Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 12(2): 161–168
H?bel G., Gerhardt H. C. 2007. Sources of selection on signal timing in a tree frog. Ethology, 113(10): 973–982
H?bel G. 2014. Effect of temporal and spectral noise features on gap detection behavior by calling green treefrogs. Behav Processes, 108: 43–49
Jiang F., Fang G. Z., Xue F., Cui J. G., Brauth S. E., Tang Y. Z. 2015. Male music frogs compete vocally on the basis of temporal sequence rather than spatial cues of rival calls. Asian Herpetol Res, 6: 305–316
Jouventin P., Aubin T., Lengagne T. 1999. Finding a parent in a king penguin colony: the acoustic system of individual recognition. Anim Behav, 57(6): 1175–1183
Lazic S. E. 2010. The problem of pseudoreplication in neuroscientific studies: is it affecting your analysis? BMC Neurosci, 11(1): 5–21
Leary C. J. 2014. Close-range vocal signals elicit a stress response in male green treefrogs: resolution of an androgen-based conflict. Anim Behav, 96: 39–48
Litovsky R. Y., Colburn H. S., Yost W. A., Guzman S. J. 1999. The precedence effect. J Acoust Soc Am, 106(4): 1633–1654
Marshall V. T., Humfeld S. C., Bee M. A. 2003. Plasticity of aggressive signalling and its evolution in male spring peepers, Pseudacris crucifer. Anim Behav, 65(6): 1223–1234
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
McGregor P. K. 2000. Playback experiments: design and analysis. Acta Ethol, 3(1): 3–8
Moore S. W., Lewis E. R., Narins P. M., Lopez P. T. 1989. The call-timing algorithm of the white-lipped frog, Leptodactylus albilabris. J Comp Physiol, 164(3): 309–319
Naguib M. 1999. Effects of song overlapping and alternating on nocturnally singing nightingales. Anim Behav, 58(5): 1061–1067
Pan T., Zhang Y. N., Wang H., Wu J., Kang X., Qian L. F., Li K., Zhang Y., Chen J. Y., Rao D. Q. 2017. A new species of the genus Rhacophorus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Dabie Mountains in East China. Asian Herpetol Res, 8(1): 1–13
Preininger D., Boeckle M., Freudmann A., Starnberger I., Sztatecsny M., H?dl W. 2013. Multimodal signaling in the small torrent frog (Micrixalus saxicola) in a complex acoustic environment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 67(9): 1449–1456
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
Richardson C., Lena J. P., Joly P., Lengagne T. 2008. Are leaders good mates? A study of call timing and male quality in a chorus situation. Anim Behav, 76(5): 1487–1495
Roithmair M. E. 1994. Male territoriality and female mate selection in the dart-poison frog Epipedobates trivittatus (Dendrobatidae, Anura). Copeia, 1994: 107–115
Romer H., Bailey W. 1986. Insect hearing in the field. II. Male spacing behaviour and correlated acoustic cues in the bushcricket Mygalopsis marki. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol, 159: 627–638
Ryan M. J. 1985. The túngara frog: a study in sexual selection and communication. University of Chicago Press
Ryser J. 1989. Weight loss, reproductive output, and the cost of reproduction in the common frog, Rana temporaria. Oecologia, 78(2): 264–268
Schwartz J. J. 1987. The function of call alternation in anuran amphibians: a test of three hypotheses. Evolution, 41(3): 461–471
Schwartz J. J. 2001. Call monitoring and interactive playback systems in the study of acoustic interactions among male anurans. In Ryan M. J. (Ed.), Anuran Communication.Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 183–204
Searcy W. A., Brenowitz E. A. 1988. Sexual differences in species recognition of avian song. Nature, 332(6160): 152–154
Shine R. 1980. “Costs” of reproduction in reptiles. Oecologia, 46(1): 92–100
Suzuki T. N., Wheatcroft D., Griesser M. 2016. Experimental evidence for compositional syntax in bird calls. Nat Commun, 7: 10986
Tang Y. Z., Zhuang L. Z., Wang Z. W. 2001. Advertisement calls and their relation to reproductive cycles in Gekko gecko (Reptilia, Lacertilia). Copeia, 2001(1): 248–253
Tobias M. L., Barnard C., O’Hagan R., Horng S. H., Rand M., Kelley D. B. 2004. Vocal communication between male Xenopus laevis. Anim Behav, 67(2): 353–365
Vicario D. S., Naqvi N. H., Raksin J. N. 2001. Sex differences in discrimination of vocal communication signals in a songbird. Anim Behav, 61(4): 805–817
Wells K. D., Schwartz J. J. 2007. The behavioral ecology of anuran communication. In Narins P. M., Feng A. S., Fay R. R., Popper A. N. (Eds.), Hearing and Sound Communication in Amphibians. New York: Springer-Verlag, 44–86
Wiley R. H. 2006. Signal detection and animal communication. Adv Stud Behav, 36(6): 217–247
Williams H., Staples K. 1992. Syllable chunking in zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata) song. J Comp Psychol, 106(3): 278–286
Yu X., Peng Y., Aowphol A., Ding L., Brauth S. E., Tang Y. Z. 2011. Geographic variation in the advertisement calls of Gekko gecko in relation to variations in morphological features: implications for regional population differentiation. Ethol Ecol Evol, 23(3): 211–228
Yue X. Z., Fan Y. Z., Xue F., Brauth S. E., Tang Y. Z., Fang G. Z. 2017. The first call note plays a crucial role in frog vocal communication. Sci Rep, 7: 10128
Zurek P. M. 1987. The precedence effect. In Yost W. A., Gourevitch G. (Eds.), Directional hearing. New York: Springer-Verlag, 85–105


Last Update: 2020-09-25