Chorus dynamics of a neotropical amphibian assemblage: comparison of computer simulation and natural behaviour

Brush, Jeffrey S.; Narins, Peter M.

doi:10.1016/0003-3472(89)90004-3

Cited by 95 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies of acoustic insects and anurans have investigated this problem, and the typical solution found entails ignoring all but the nearest (loudest?) one or two neighbors (13,105,106,128). Thus, certain anomalous cases of simultaneous synchrony and alternation within choruses (e.g.…”

Section: Signal Jammingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cooperation and Conflict in the Evolution of Signal Interactions

Greenfield¹

1994

Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.

219

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various invertebrate and vertebrate species in which males produce acoustic or bioluminescent signals for long-range sexual advertisement exhibit collective patterns of temporal signal interactions. These patterns range from simple concentrations of signaling during a narrow diel interval to synchronous and alternating interactions entailing precisely timed phase relationships between neighboring individuals. Signals involved in synchrony and alternation are generally produced with rhythms that are under the control of central nervous oscillators. Neighboring individuals effect these interactions via mutual phase delays or phase advances of their oscillators or actual changes in the free-running periods of their oscillators. Both synchrony and alternation may represent adaptations to avoid spiteful behavior or to maximize the ability of a local group to attract females or evade natural enemies. Alternatively, these collective patterns may represent incidental outcomes of competition between males jamming each other's signals. The neural mechanisms that effect signal jamming can be selected for by critical psychophysical factors such as precedence effects. Additional competitive pressures that may generate synchrony, alternation, and other collective patterns of signal interaction include mutual assessment of rivals, evasion of detection by dominant individuals, disruption of communication within courting pairs, and narrowness of the time intervals during which receptive females are present. 97

show abstract

Section: Signal Jammingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cooperation and Conflict in the Evolution of Signal Interactions

Greenfield¹

1994

Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.

219

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another strategy is temporal segregation: this is done by either restricting calling to different times of an evening or different times of year, or by antiphonal calling (see Wells and Schwartz,Chapter 3;Gerhardt and Bee,Chapter 5). In assemblages of a few males, each male would call with regular timing, either roughly synchronized to a neighbor's call or in alternating fashion (Brush and Narins 1989;Greenfield 1994). In larger choruses, the sequence of calling among the males is difficult to discern and does not appear to adhere to a recognizable temporal pattern (Greenfield and Rand 2000;Wollerman and Wiley 2002).…”

Section: Competing Sounds In Natural Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Sound Processing in Real-World Environments

Feng¹,

Schul²

Hearing and Sound Communication in Amphibians

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, in a dense chorus avoiding interference is clearly difficult, if not impossible. One partial solution is for males to selectively adjust their call timing with respect to only their nearest and loudest neighbors while allowing their signals to overlap those other chorus members who are less potent sources of interference (Brush and Narins, 1989;Schwartz, 1993;Greenfield and Rand, 2000). However, examination of patterns of call overlap among males of H. versicolor in the greenhouse-housed artificial pond demonstrated that, not only does acoustic interference increase with chorus size, nearby individuals suffer from higher levels of call overlap than more widely separated males (Schwartz et al, 2002).…”

Section: Reduced Acoustic Interferencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within choruses, sustained sound levels exceeding 90 dB SPL have been reported in some species (Narins, 1982). Male frogs are well-known for adjusting the timing of their calls to deal with high noise levels and the calls of nearby frogs (reviewed in Schwartz and Bee, in press); in many instances, the precision of these adjustments can only be described as remarkable (Brush and Narins, 1989;Grafe, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%