Chemical communication in an archaic anuran amphibian

Abstract

Bioacoustic signals appear to be so essential to the social communication of anuran amphibians that other sensory modalities have been largely ignored. We studied the abilities of Leiopelma hamiltoni, a species evolutionarily basal to most living anurans, to communicate by means of chemosignals. We collected frogs in the field, held them in captivity for 72 h, and then tested their preferences for substrates that they had marked themselves to those marked by conspecifics. Individuals preferred paper towels that they had marked themselves to those marked by frogs collected from other home ranges. Preferences were greater, on average, when the conspecific had been collected farther away. Frogs did not discriminate between their own odor and those of other individuals with which they had shared a home range. Individuals preferred their own odor to a blank unmarked towel but also avoided odors of unfamiliar conspecifics when paired with a blank. The discovery of chemical communication in an archaic anuran offers a window into how frogs may have communicated before mechanisms of bioacoustic signaling evolved. We suggest, however, that chemical signaling may be widespread in anuran amphibians.

Embryonic exposure to conspecific chemicals suppresses cane toad growth and survival

“…If it is difficult for cannibalistic tadpoles to find eggs in muddy weedchoked ponds, we might also expect pheromonal suppression to evolve. Anuran tadpoles use sophisticated chemical communication systems [19] and exhibit plastic developmental responses to chemical cues [20,21]. If toad tadpoles exploit those sensitivities to interfere with their competitors, larval chemical cues might offer novel approaches for targeted control of toads [8,22].…”

Perception of airborne odors by loggerhead sea turtles

“…Chemoreception is ubiquitous among animals and is used for diverse purposes, including foraging (Nevitt et al, 1995;Derby et al, 2001;Clark, 2004), predator detection (Dielenberg and McGregor, 2001;Lukowiak et al, 2008), kin recognition (Todrank et al, 1998;Mateo, 2003), communication (Waldman and Bishop, 2004) and navigation (Hasler et al, 1978;Vickers, 2000;Lohmann et al, 2008a). Chemical cues may be particularly important to aquatic species, which often inhabit environments where visibility is poor and the availability of other sensory cues is limited (Wisenden, 2000;Lohmann et al, 2008a).…”

Adult frogs are sensitive to the predation risks of olfactory communication

“…Use of olfactory cues in communication by adult frogs has only rarely been demonstrated, although the sophisticated use of olfaction by larval anurans and by the closely related salamanders suggests that such use is likely to be more widespread than currently realized [4]. Our results indicate that male M. fasciolatus at least showed the ability to discriminate between odours of different conspecifics and different species, and the ability to weigh up the potential predation risks of visiting these odours.…”

“…Frogs were presented with a choice between two shelters placed at either end of a rectangular 150 l plastic tub (50 Â 72 Â 42 cm), following several other studies [4,10,11]. Shelters were plastic containers (12 Â 17.5 Â 4.5 cm) filled with 250 ml clean sand, into which frogs readily burrowed.…”