1968
DOI: 10.2307/1441753
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of Temperature, Body Size, and Hybridization on Mating Calls of Toads, Bufo a. americanus and Bufo woodhousii fowleri

Abstract: JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (ASIH) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Copeia. The mating calls of Bufo a. america… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
50
0
3

Year Published

1971
1971
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 129 publications
(71 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
5
50
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Where documented, hybrid calls often have been described to some degree being intermediate between the calls of the parental species (Duellman & Trueb 1994;Wells 2007). This has been described, among others, for Dryophytes cinereus x D. gratiosus (Mecham 1960;Gerhardt et al 1980), Dryophytes avivoca x D. chrysoscelis (Gerhardt 1974), Dryophytes versicolor x D. chrysoscelis (Mable & Bogart 1991), Dryophytes versicolor x Hyla arborea (Mable & Bogart 1991), Spea bombifrons x S. hammondii (Forester 1973), Geocrinia laevis x G. victoriana (Littlejohn & Watson 1976), Crinia pseudinsignifera x C. subinsignifera (Roberts 2010), and toads of the genus Anaxyrus (Blair 1956a, b;Zweifel 1968). In other cases, however, hybrids produce calls more similar to those of one of the parental species and sometimes, calls that include unique traits (e.g., in European water frogs of the genus Pelophylax; Wycherley et al 2002b) where call variation also is in line with genome dosage effects in triploid hybrids (Hoffmann & Reyer 2013).…”
Section: Effects Of Hybridizationmentioning
confidence: 63%
“…Where documented, hybrid calls often have been described to some degree being intermediate between the calls of the parental species (Duellman & Trueb 1994;Wells 2007). This has been described, among others, for Dryophytes cinereus x D. gratiosus (Mecham 1960;Gerhardt et al 1980), Dryophytes avivoca x D. chrysoscelis (Gerhardt 1974), Dryophytes versicolor x D. chrysoscelis (Mable & Bogart 1991), Dryophytes versicolor x Hyla arborea (Mable & Bogart 1991), Spea bombifrons x S. hammondii (Forester 1973), Geocrinia laevis x G. victoriana (Littlejohn & Watson 1976), Crinia pseudinsignifera x C. subinsignifera (Roberts 2010), and toads of the genus Anaxyrus (Blair 1956a, b;Zweifel 1968). In other cases, however, hybrids produce calls more similar to those of one of the parental species and sometimes, calls that include unique traits (e.g., in European water frogs of the genus Pelophylax; Wycherley et al 2002b) where call variation also is in line with genome dosage effects in triploid hybrids (Hoffmann & Reyer 2013).…”
Section: Effects Of Hybridizationmentioning
confidence: 63%
“…The species groups emerging from the cluster analysis seem to reflect the correlation between body size and the acoustic properties of the calls, in which call duration and dominant frequency are positively and negatively correlated with body size, respectively (Zweifel 1968, Zimmerman 1983, Sullivan and Wagner 1988, Giacoma et al 1997. Moreover, in the syntopic species -C. atlantica and C. capixaba in Reserva BiolĂłgica UniĂŁo, RJ, and C. capixaba and C. schubarti in Reserva BiolĂłgica de Duas Bocas, ES -the members of species pairs possess distinct advertisement calls.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The summary of the numerical information obtained from sound analysis is shown in Table 1. The range of temperature variation for all recordings never exceeded 4ÂșC, thus the influence of the air temperature on the acoustic features measured (Zweifel, 1968) should be minimal.…”
Section: Recordingsmentioning
confidence: 93%