Phonotactic approach pattern in the neotropical frog Allobates femoralis: A spatial and temporal analysis

Abstract

Phonotactic approaches by 17 male Allobates femoralis were videotaped and analysed in terms of spatial and temporal patterns to assess this species' ability to localise sound. Jump angles of consecutive jumps and the straightness of paths were measured to quantify the accuracy of approach. The effect of interbout intervals on phonotactic approach was examined by comparing movement parameters of two tests, using a standard call with interbout intervals, and a continuous call without interbout intervals. Phonotactic approach occurred almost exclusively during calling bouts. Interbout intervals interrupted movement and did not alter the accuracy of approach. Our results suggest that only the calling bouts, but not the silent interbout intervals, play a crucial role for male phonotaxis in this species. Furthermore, anuran phonotactic approach is not strictly axis-alternated and, thus, not appropriately described by the generally used term 'zig-zagging'.

Only distance matters – non-choosy females in a poison frog population

“…In accordance with other studies on dendrobatid frogs [e.g. [158]] we scored a positive phonotactic response when females approached a speaker within a 20 cm radius or less. Between each experiment, the side used for one stimulus was switched.…”

Spatio-Temporal Characteristics of the Prolonged Courtship in Brilliant-Thighed Poison Frogs, Allobates femoralis

“…We sporadically played a conspecific call from a portable loudspeaker (SRS-M30, Sony Corp., Tokyo, Japan; frequency range ¼ 250-20,000 Hz) simulating a territorial intrusion (i.e., conspecific males calling inside the territory) for short time intervals in order to catch male frogs (phonotactic approach behavior; cf. Ursprung et al 2009), but not during courtship observations. We used the distinct ventral patterns for individual recognition of all frogs (cf.…”

Spatial hearing in Cope’s gray treefrog: II. Frequency-dependent directionality in the amplitude and phase of tympanum vibrations

“…Both male (Gerhardt and Rheinlaender 1980; Shen et al 2008; Ursprung et al 2009) and female (Rheinlaender et al 1979; Gerhardt and Rheinlaender 1982; Caldwell and Bee 2014) frogs exhibit accurate phonotaxis toward calling males, but because their behavioral roles differ, males and females may assess conspecific calls differently. The potential for sex differences in spatial hearing among anurans has received very little research attention thus far.…”

“…Female frogs, which commonly exhibit robust phonotaxis toward calling males (e.g., Gerhardt 1995; Baugh and Ryan 2010; Christie et al 2010), must often locate potential mates in structurally and acoustically complex environments, such as a breeding chorus in a densely vegetated wetland or forest. Likewise, male frogs, which often defend discreet calling sites or territories using both vocalizations and physical aggression (e.g., Wells 1978; Robertson 1986; Wagner 1989), must be able to locate reproductive rivals that begin calling in close proximity (Gerhardt and Rheinlaender 1980; Wilczynski and Brenowitz 1988; Ursprung et al 2009). In some species, the sounds of the chorus itself may function as an acoustic beacon that frogs use to localize breeding aggregations (e.g., Gerhardt and Klump 1988; Bee 2007a).…”