Literature DB >> 17230403

Cues for eavesdroppers: do frog calls indicate prey density and quality?

Ximena E Bernal1, Rachel A Page, A Stanley Rand, Michael J Ryan.   

Abstract

Predators and parasites that eavesdrop on the mating signals of their prey often preferentially select individuals within a prey/host species that produce specific cues. Mechanisms driving such signal preferences are poorly understood. In the tungara frog Physalaemus pustulosus, conspecific females, frog-eating bats, and blood-sucking flies all prefer complex to simple mating calls. In this study we assess the natural signal variation in choruses in the wild and test two hypotheses for why eavesdroppers prefer complex calls: (1) prey quality: complex calls indicate better quality of prey/host, and (2) prey density: complex calls indicate higher prey/host density. Call complexity is not correlated with frog length, mass, or body condition, but it does signal higher abundance of prey/host. Thus, increased effectiveness of attack may have played a role favoring the preference for complex calls in eavesdropping heterospecifics.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17230403     DOI: 10.1086/510729

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Nat        ISSN: 0003-0147            Impact factor:   3.926


  12 in total

1.  Eavesdropping and signal matching in visual courtship displays of spiders.

Authors:  David L Clark; J Andrew Roberts; George W Uetz
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 3.703

2.  Linking amphibian call structure to the environment: the interplay between phenotypic flexibility and individual attributes.

Authors:  Lucía Ziegler; Matías Arim; Peter M Narins
Journal:  Behav Ecol       Date:  2011-03-11       Impact factor: 2.671

3.  Damsel in distress: captured damselfish prey emit chemical cues that attract secondary predators and improve escape chances.

Authors:  Oona M Lönnstedt; Mark I McCormick
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2015-11-07       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Coevolution of cognitive abilities and identity signals in individual recognition systems.

Authors:  Sara E Miller; Michael J Sheehan; H Kern Reeve
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  MEMRI for visualizing brain activity after auditory stimulation in frogs.

Authors:  Eva Ringler; Melissa Coates; Ariadna Cobo-Cuan; Neil G Harris; Peter M Narins
Journal:  Behav Neurosci       Date:  2019-05-02       Impact factor: 1.912

6.  Predation risks of signalling and searching: bats prefer moving katydids.

Authors:  Inga Geipel; Ciara E Kernan; Amber S Litterer; Gerald G Carter; Rachel A Page; Hannah M Ter Hofstede
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2020-04-22       Impact factor: 3.703

7.  Effects of intracerebroventricular arginine vasotocin on a female amphibian proceptive behavior.

Authors:  Sunny K Boyd
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 1.836

8.  Mid-flight prey switching in the fringed-lipped bat (Trachops cirrhosus).

Authors:  Ciara E Kernan; A N Yiambilis; Z E Searcy; R M Pulica; R A Page; M S Caldwell
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2022-08-15

9.  Harmonic calls and indifferent females: no preference for human consonance in an anuran.

Authors:  Karin L Akre; Ximena Bernal; A Stanley Rand; Michael J Ryan
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-08-22       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 10.  Reciprocal Trophic Interactions and Transmission of Blood Parasites between Mosquitoes and Frogs.

Authors:  Laura V Ferguson; Todd G Smith
Journal:  Insects       Date:  2012-04-03       Impact factor: 2.769

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.