Is congener abundance related to vocal adjustments that minimize acoustic interference?

Eleutherodactylusfrogs show frequency but no temporal partitioning: implications for the acoustic niche hypothesis

“…A study that tested the effect of two levels of density of sympatric E. portoricensis on the dominant frequency of the notes of E. coqui found that the “co” did not change, while the acoustic frequency of the “qui” was lower in sites with high densities of E. portoricensis ( Luther et al, 2012 ). E. coqui might be trying to avoid masking of the noise or the higher densities of E. portoricensis could be triggering a suppression of the call in individuals with higher overlap in the frequency range ( Zelick & Narins, 1982 ).…”

“…However, it seems the partitioning of the acoustic resource of anurans is not a simple phenomenon to study and previous studies have been too limited to provide evidence for or against it. Although there have been suggestions for the study of this problem using null models and by comparing sympatric and allopatric communities ( Gerhardt, 1994 ), few studies have used this type of comparison and the ones that have do not present a clear consistent result in anuran acoustic communities ( Chek, Bogart & Lougheed, 2003 ; Lemmon, 2009 ; Luther et al, 2012 ). The models against which the data would be tested need to take into account the special cases of species will multiple notes.…”

Eleutherodactylus frogs show frequency but no temporal partitioning: implications for the acoustic niche hypothesis

“…A study that tested the effect of two levels of density of sympatric E. portoricensis on the dominant frequency 134 of the notes of E. coqui found that the "co" did not changed, while the acoustic frequency of the "qui" was lower 135 in sites with high densities of E. portoricensis (Luther et al, 2012). E. coqui might be trying to avoid masking 136 of the noise or the higher densities of E. portoricensis could be triggering a suppression of the call in individuals 137 with higher overlap in the frequency range (Zelick and Narins, 1982).…”

“…However, it seems the partitioning of the 163 acoustic resource of anurans is not a simple phenomenon to study and previous studies have been too limited to 164 provide evidence for or against it. Although there have been suggestions for the study of this problem using null 165 models and by comparing sympatric and allopatric communities (Gerhardt, 1994), few studies have used this type 166 of comparison and the ones that have do not present a clear consistent result in anuran acoustic communities (Chek 167 et al, 2003;Lemmon, 2009;Luther et al, 2012). Confounding factors, like evolutionary history, in particular when 168 dealing with several families of anurans that congregate at the same site, and diversity of reproductive strategies 169 should be taken into account in future studies to determine which are the determining factors in these acoustic 170 community assemblages.…”