Premating Isolation in the Hyla ewingi Complex (Anura: Hylidae)

Littlejohn, M. J.

doi:10.2307/2406376

Cited by 71 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Littlejohn, 1965;Littlejohn and Loftus-Hills, 1968;Grant, 1975;Waage, 1975 and present study). It allows an assessment of the functional significance of the characters involved, the discrimination ability of the species involved, and the degree of divergence necessary to effect isolation.…”

Section: A Comment On the Scarcity Of Examples Of Character Displacementsupporting

confidence: 64%

See 1 more Smart Citation

REPRODUCTIVE CHARACTER DISPLACEMENT IN CALOPTERYX (ODONATA: CALOPTERYGIDAE)

Waage

1979

Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: A Comment On the Scarcity Of Examples Of Character Displacementsupporting

confidence: 64%

“…These stages were stated or implied by Grant (1972Grant ( , 1975 and others (e.g. Alexander, 1969;Littlejohn, 1965;Littlejohn and Loftus-Hills, 1968) and are summarized as follows:…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

REPRODUCTIVE CHARACTER DISPLACEMENT IN CALOPTERYX (ODONATA: CALOPTERYGIDAE)

Waage

1979

Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The advertisement call of L. ewingii comprises a series of similar, rapidly repeated narrowband notes with a dominant frequency of approximately 2.2-2.6 kHz (Littlejohn 1965; Fig. 2; Appendix 1).…”

Section: Analysis Of Callsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The noise of other chorusing frogs and insects can hinder mate choice by female frogs (Gerhardt and Klump 1988) and interfere with territorial interactions between males (Paez et al 1993). Acoustic interference from natural sources of noise could lead to the modification of calls through selection for more efficient communication (Littlejohn 1965), and acoustic interference from human-generated noise may act similarly (Katti and http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art25/ Warren 2004, Warren et al 2006. Frogs are likely to experience acoustic interference from traffic noise when calling at breeding sites close to roads (Bee and Swanson 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frogs Call at a Higher Pitch in Traffic Noise

Parris¹,

Velik-Lord²,

North³

2009

E&S

236

156

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Male frogs call to attract females for mating and to defend territories from rival males. Female frogs of some species prefer lower-pitched calls, which indicate larger, more experienced males. Acoustic interference occurs when background noise reduces the active distance or the distance over which an acoustic signal can be detected. Birds are known to call at a higher pitch or frequency in urban noise, decreasing acoustic interference from low-frequency noise. Using Bayesian linear regression, we investigated the effect of traffic noise on the pitch of advertisement calls in two species of frogs, the southern brown tree frog (Litoria ewingii) and the common eastern froglet (Crinia signifera). We found evidence that L. ewingii calls at a higher pitch in traffic noise, with an average increase in dominant frequency of 4.1 Hz/dB of traffic noise, and a total effect size of 123 Hz. This frequency shift is smaller than that observed in birds, but is still large enough to be detected by conspecific frogs and confer a significant benefit to the caller. Mathematical modelling predicted a 24% increase in the active distance of a L. ewingii call in traffic noise with a frequency shift of this size. Crinia signifera may also call at a higher pitch in traffic noise, but more data are required to be confident of this effect. Because frog calls are innate rather than learned, the frequency shift demonstrated by L. ewingii may represent an evolutionary adaptation to noisy conditions. The phenomenon of frogs calling at a higher pitch in traffic noise could therefore constitute an intriguing trade-off between audibility and attractiveness to potential mates.

show abstract

“…For example, a pair of species often differ more with each other where they are sympatric than where they are allopatric (Brown and Wilson, 1956). This phenomenon, called character displacement, is assumed to reflect the evolution to reduce interspecific competition (Grant, 1972(Grant, , 1975 or prevent interspecific mating (Ehrman, 1965;Littlejohn, 1965;Littlejohn and Luftus-Hills, 1968;Dobzhansky et al ., 1969;Wasserman and Koepfer, 1977;Waage, 1979;Orr, 1989, 1997). In this paper, we examine whether or not the evolution of mate recognition system of Drosophila elegans Bock and Wheeler has been affected by the presence of its sibling D .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%