Call Differentiation in a Complex of Seven Species of Crinia (Anura, Leptodactylidae)

Littlejohn, M. J.

doi:10.2307/2406128

Cited by 41 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although there has been considerable debate addressing whether the divergence in signals among taxa is a cause or a consequence of speciation events (Dobzhansky, 1937;Mayr, 1942;Lande, 198 1 ;West-Eberhard, 1983;Andersson, 1994), evidence from behavioral and neuroethological studies indicate that the acoustic Characteristics of anuran advertisement calls are diverse enough among species to enable accurate species discrimination while species integrity is maintained (Blair, 1958(Blair, , 1974Littlejohn, 1959Littlejohn, , 198 1, 1988Mayr, 1963;Littlejohn & Watson, 1974;Gerhardt, 1974Gerhardt, , 1982Gerhardt, , 1988Gerhardt, , 1994Walkowiak, 1988;Zakon & Wilczynski, 1988;Rand, 1988). These calls operate interspecifically to signal a male's species, location and reproductive state while simultaneously performing an intraspecific function to repel competitor males and provide cues for females to choose a mate among the available conspecific males.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraspecific variation in laryngeal and ear morphology in male cricket frogs (Acris crepitans)

McClelland

Wilczynski

Ryan

1998

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a previous report, the authors found significant population variation in the calls of cricket frogs (Acris crepitans) that could not be explained by geographic variation in body size alone. Here we extend that work by investigating intraspecific population variation in the morphological characteristics underlying acoustic communication in male cricket frogs from several sites in Texas. We measured the volumes of laryngeal and auditory components responsible for the generation or reception of species-specific vocalizations in male frogs from eight populations. We found significant differences among populations in body size, as well as all the laryngeal and ear components we measured. With the exception of vocal cord and extracolumella volumes, the volumes of these anatomical structures differ among populations independently of body size as determined by a covariate analysis with snout-vent length as the covariate. Call dominant frequency differs among populations in a clinal pattern and head width, arytenoid cartilage, vocal cord and dilator muscle volume show a similar pattern when the residuals of the regression of morphological component on SVL are assessed for this trend. The results show that both larynx and ear structures can change in size independently of body size, yielding significant geographic variation in the behavioral and physiological expressions of the acoustic communication system underlying mate choice.Copyright 1998 The Linnean Society of London

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraspecific variation in laryngeal and ear morphology in male cricket frogs (Acris crepitans)

McClelland

Wilczynski

Ryan

1998

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That species calling together always differ in call, even when they are virtually identical morphologically (e.g. Crinia Littlejohn 1959), supports this idea. Cases of character displacement in advertisement calls have been interpreted as the results of selection for species isolating mechanisms in the sympatric populations.…”

Section: Species Isolating Mechanismsmentioning

confidence: 82%

Tradeoffs in the evolution of frog calls

Rand

1985

Proc Ani Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All biological characteristics are subject to conflicting selection pressures. This is particularly true of those characteristics that are subject to sexual selection. The classic example is the peacock's tail. Others are the calls used by male frogs and toads to attract their mates. The forces which have acted in the evolution of these calls are varied and the calls that we hear made by these animals are diverse.Two kinds of factors can be recognized: constraints and forces. Constraints on the kind ofa call that a frog might evolve include its phylogeny, the energy required to produce different kinds ofcalls, the risks incurred from attracting predators. Also important is the morphology of the frog: both the structures used by the males to make the calls and the apparatus with which the females hear the calls. For example, frog size has an important influence both on the frequencies of the sounds that a frog produces and the acuity with which they are heard.Both passive and active selective forces can be identified. Passive forces include the distances that environments transmit sounds of different frequencies and the interference from other sounds that calls encounter. Active forces include the reactions of conspecific males and females to the calls. Males interact acoustically in a variety of ways to organize their choruses in both space and time. They position themselves, and time their calls so that they minimize the interference from other males while maximizing their chances of securing a mate. Female choice has been studied in test arenas. Females choose louder calls, calls that are most easily located, and the calls of their own rather than other species. In choosing among males of their own species, females have been shown to pick the males controlling the best resources, sometimes using calls to do so. They should also be expected to choose those males who can contribute the best genes to their offspring. The extent to which they do this and the role of calls in choosing is actively being argued.Sexual selection, both interactions between males and female choice, have undoubtedly been important in the evolution offrog calls but only within the constraints imposed by a variety of other factors.

show abstract

“…Avoidance of acoustic interference is a more plausible explanation in this case. Previous studies have documented avoidance of short-term interspecific acoustic interference in birds (Cody & Brown 1969;Brumm 2006), frogs (Littlejohn 1959;Schwartz & Wells 1984) and insects (Greenfield 1988), but no previous study has documented acoustic partitioning of responses in birds. For acoustic partitioning to occur, both signallers and receivers must coordinate their behaviour.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Signaller: receiver coordination and the timing of communication in Amazonian birds

Luther

2008

Biol. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The efficacy of communication relies on the detection of signals against background noise. Some species are known to alter the timing of vocalizations to avoid acoustic interference from similar signals of other species, but nothing is known about the possibility of coordinated adjustments in the timing of receivers' attention. I examined the possibility that co-occurring species might respond as well as vocalize at different times in a diverse tropical avifauna by presenting playbacks of recordings to territorial birds at typical and atypical times for singing during the dawn chorus. The results show that co-occurring species of birds in a diverse avifauna partition the timing of both production and response in a way that would reduce acoustic interference between species.

show abstract

Call Differentiation in a Complex of Seven Species of Crinia (Anura, Leptodactylidae)

Cited by 41 publications

References 5 publications

Intraspecific variation in laryngeal and ear morphology in male cricket frogs (Acris crepitans)

Intraspecific variation in laryngeal and ear morphology in male cricket frogs (Acris crepitans)

Tradeoffs in the evolution of frog calls

Signaller: receiver coordination and the timing of communication in Amazonian birds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About