Acoustic interaction between two species of leptodactylid frogs

Littlejohn, M. J.; Martin, Angus

doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(69)80027-8

Cited by 97 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, some studies find that heterospecific signals reduce calling (Littlejohn and Martin 1969;Zelick et al 1991;Allan and Simmons 1994;see also Greenfield 1988) and seem to conflict with our findings. However, none of these studies investigate advertisement calls in the context of predator exposure.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 66%

The mixed-species chorus as public information: túngara frogs eavesdrop on a heterospecific

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multispecies choruses represent a promising but uninvestigated forum for public information. Although frogs exposed to a potential predator call more readily in the presence of conspecifrc calls than in their absence, none are known to make comparable use of heterospecific calls. To test for heterospecific eavesdropping, we isolated calling male tungara frogs (Physalaemus pustulosus), presented them with a potential predator, and recorded their responses to playbacks of 1 of 4 stimuli: calls of a conspecifrc, a sympatric heterospecific (Leptodactylus labialis), an allopatric congener (Physalaemus enesefae), or silence. We found that males called more in response to the L. labialis call than to either the silent stimulus or the P. enesefae call. In contrast, the P. enesefae call did not result in significantly more calling than the silent stimulus. The conspecifrc call was the most effective at promoting calling. The data indicate that tungara frogs selectively attend to the call of a heterospecific. We hypothesize that such heterospecific eavesdropping contributes to the emergent behavior of mixed-species choruses.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 66%

The mixed-species chorus as public information: túngara frogs eavesdrop on a heterospecific

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies of communication are often conducted using acoustic playbacks (Martof 1961;Littlejohn & Martin 1969;Gerhardt 1974;Gibson 1989), video animations (Rowland et al 1995;Clark et al 1997) or live animal manipulations (Andersson 1982;Basolo 1990;Morris et al 2003). All of these methods have been effective, but here we wanted to explore the feasibility of using robotics in behavioural playback experiments, particularly with regard to multimodal signalling.…”

Section: ) and Chemical Trail Followingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Faux frogs: multimodal signalling and the value of robotics in animal behaviour

Taylor¹,

Klein²,

Stein³

et al. 2008

Animal Behaviour

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Effective communication, therefore, requires that animals modify their vocal behavior in order to maximize the integrity of vocal interactions. The exact nature of vocal modification likely varies across the taxonomic groups depending on its specific internal and external constraints (Cody and Brown, 1969;Littlejohn and Martin, 1969;Ficken et al, 1974;Wasserman, 1977;Wells, 1977;Gochfeld, 1978;Cade and Otte, 1982;Zelick and Narins, 1983;Grafe, 1996). For non-human primates, a crucial constraint may be the extent of their voluntary vocal control, a component of vocal behavior frequently considered to be impoverished across this taxonomic group (Egnor and Hauser, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vocal control by the common marmoset in the presence of interfering noise

Roy

Miller

Gottsch

et al. 2011

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThe natural environment is inherently noisy with acoustic interferences. It is, therefore, beneficial for a species to modify its vocal production to effectively communicate in the presence of interfering noises. Non-human primates have been traditionally considered to possess limited voluntary vocal control, but little is known about their ability to modify vocal behavior when encountering interfering noises. Here we tested the ability of the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) to control the initiation of vocalizations and maintain vocal interactions between pairs in an acoustic environment in which the length and predictability (periodic or random aperiodic occurrences) of interfering noise bursts were varied. Despite the presence of interfering noise, the marmosets continued to engage in antiphonal calling behavior. Results showed that the overwhelming majority of calls were initiated during silence gaps even when the length of the silence gap following each noise burst was unpredictable. During the periodic noise conditions, as the length of the silence gap decreased, the latency between the end of noise burst and call onset decreased significantly. In contrast, when presented with aperiodic noise bursts, the marmosets chose to call predominantly during long (4 and 8s) over short (2s) silence gaps. In the 8s periodic noise conditions, a marmoset pair either initiated both calls of an antiphonal exchange within the same silence gap or exchanged calls in two consecutive silence gaps. Our findings provide compelling evidence that common marmosets are capable of modifying their vocal production according to the dynamics of their acoustic environment during vocal communication. Supplementary material available online at

show abstract

Acoustic interaction between two species of leptodactylid frogs

Cited by 97 publications

References 7 publications

The mixed-species chorus as public information: túngara frogs eavesdrop on a heterospecific

The mixed-species chorus as public information: túngara frogs eavesdrop on a heterospecific

Faux frogs: multimodal signalling and the value of robotics in animal behaviour

Vocal control by the common marmoset in the presence of interfering noise

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About