Female Preferences for Call Traits and Male Mating Success in the Neotropical Frog Physalaemus enesefae

Abstract

Female preferences for male call traits may affect male mating success and the evolution of exaggerated secondary sexual traits. We used phonotaxis experiments to examine female preferences in the frog Physalaemus enesefae in relation to variation in male call duration, dominant frequency, intercall interval and amplitude (dB SPL). Females preferred long calls, low and average dominant frequency calls, short intercall intervals and more intense calls. We compared the patterns of female preferences with those of acoustic variation among males to test the prediction that properties with low within‐male variation are associated with stabilizing or weakly directional female preferences, whereas properties with high within‐male variation are associated with directional preferences. Females had weakly directional preferences for the dominant frequency of the call and strongly directional preferences for call duration and call rate. We also determined whether the temporal relationship between calls influenced preferences based on the dominant frequency of the call. Preferences for low‐frequency over high‐frequency calls disappeared when calls partially overlapped. Females preferred the leading call regardless of its dominant frequency. We also investigated mating patterns in the field. There was size‐assortative mating, as male and female body sizes snout‐vent length (SVL) were positively correlated. In addition, differences in the frequency distributions of body length (SVL) between mated and unmated males approached significance; lower SVL classes were underrepresented among mated males. These patterns may reflect female preferences for lower dominant frequency calls, as there is a negative correlation between male mass and the dominant frequency of the call.

Arginine Vasotocin Promotes Calling Behavior and Call Changes in Male Túngara Frogs

“…In addition, túngara frog choruses shut down quickly after presentation of a predatory bat model, suggesting that the presence of the bat is rapidly communicated among mem- bers of the chorus . Although we are not aware of data testing female preferences for call rate in túngara frogs, females in other species prefer higher call rates [Ryan and Keddy-Hector, 1992;Tarano and Herrera, 2003]. In the current study, we also observed changes in whine production (call rate) with AVT.…”

“…Whines are energetically expensive to produce and the cost of whine production increases with call rate [Bucher et al, 1982;Ryan, 1988]. Although we are not aware of any studies that directly address female preferences for call rate in túngara frogs, females prefer higher call rates in several other anuran species [reviewed in Ryan and Keddy-Hector, 1992], including the congener P. enesefae [Tarano and Herrera, 2003]. As with chucks, the role of call rate in direct male-male interactions is unknown.…”

Female preferences for spectral call properties in the western genetic lineage of Cope's gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis)

“…Female preferences for lower-frequency calls provide a mechanistic explanation for large-male mating advantages reported in some frogs (Morris 1989; Morris and Yoon 1989; Morris 1991; Wollerman 1998). In other species, however, females exhibit stabilizing or only weakly directional preferences for spectral properties (e.g., Castellano and Giacoma 1998; Murphy and Gerhardt 2000; Tarano and Herrera 2003; Gerhardt 2005; Poole and Murphy 2007). In still others, females exhibit no frequency-based preferences when choosing among alternatives falling within the natural range of variation (e.g., Rosso et al 2006).…”

Mating patterns of Rana kukunoris from three populations along an altitudinal gradient on the Tibetan Plateau

“…Although random mating patterns have been documented in some anuran species (Okuno, 1986;Elmberg, 1987;Höglund and Robertson, 1987;Crump and Townsend, 1990;Friedl and Klump, 2005), there is substantial evidence for nonrandom mating in several frog species (Gatz, 1981;Halliday and Tejedo, 1995;reviewed by Sullivan et al, 1995;Tárano and Herrera, 2003;Gutiérrez and Lüd-decke, 2004;Benard, 2007;Briggs, 2008;Lu et al, 2009). Among anurans, considerable variation in mating pattern can be found in different populations of the same species (Gittins et al, 1980;Höglund and Robertson, 1987;Briggs, 2008), or even within different breeding seasons in the same population (Olson et al, 1986;Morris, 1989;Wagner and Sullivan, 1995).…”