Literature DB >> 19141428

Task differences confound sex differences in receiver permissiveness in túngara frogs.

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

Abstract

In many mating systems, both sexes respond to the same sexual signal. In frogs, males typically call in response to advertisement calls, while females approach male calls in choosing a mate. The costs of signal detection errors are expected to differ between the sexes. Missed opportunities are costly for males because ignoring a signal results in failing to compete with rivals for mates, while their cost for misidentification is lower (time and energy displaying to the incorrect target). By contrast, for females, the cost of misidentification is high (mating with incorrect species or low-quality partner), while their cost for missed opportunity is lower because the operational sex ratio puts females at a premium. Consequently, females should be more selective in their response to signal variation than males. We report that presumed sexual differences in selectivity in túngara frogs (Physalaemus pustulosus) are task-specific rather than sex-specific. As predicted, male túngara frogs are less selective in their vocal responses than are females in their phonotactic responses. Males exhibiting phonotaxis to the same calls, however, are as selective as females, and are significantly more selective than when they respond vocally to the same calls. Our study shows that apparent differences between the sexes emerge from differences in the behaviours themselves and are not intrinsic to each sex. Analogous behavioural differences might confound sex differences in other systems; thus, we suggest consideration of the behavioural plasticity of sex as well as its stereotypy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19141428      PMCID: PMC2660951          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2008.0935

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  11 in total

1.  A functional circuit underlying male sexual behaviour in the female mouse brain.

Authors:  Tali Kimchi; Jennings Xu; Catherine Dulac
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2007-08-05       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  "Sexual" behavior in parthenogenetic lizards (Cnemidophorus).

Authors:  D Crews; K T Fitzgerald
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1980-01       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Masculinized dominant females in a cooperatively breeding species.

Authors:  Nadia Aubin-Horth; Julie K Desjardins; Yehoda M Martei; Sigal Balshine; Hans A Hofmann
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 6.185

4.  Candidate neural locus for sex differences in reproductive decisions.

Authors:  Kim L Hoke; Michael J Ryan; Walter Wilczynski
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2008-10-23       Impact factor: 3.703

5.  Selective phonotaxis by males in the Majorcan midwife toad.

Authors:  S L Bush; M L Dyson; T R Halliday
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  1996-07-22       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Evoked vocal response in male túngara frogs: pre-existing biases in male responses?

Authors: 
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 2.844

7.  Phylogenetic influence on mating call preferences in female túngara frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus.

Authors: 
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.844

8.  Sexual selection in female perceptual space: how female túngara frogs perceive and respond to complex population variation in acoustic mating signals.

Authors:  Michael J Ryan; A Stanley Rand
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 3.694

9.  Sexual Parasitism in the Green Tree Frog (Hyla cinerea).

Authors:  S A Perrill; H C Gerhardt; R Daniel
Journal:  Science       Date:  1978-06-09       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Female responses to ancestral advertisement calls in tungara frogs.

Authors:  M J Ryan; A S Rand
Journal:  Science       Date:  1995-07-21       Impact factor: 47.728

View more
  8 in total

1.  Sexually dimorphic sensory gating drives behavioral differences in tungara frogs.

Authors:  Kim L Hoke; Michael J Ryan; Walter Wilczynski
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2010-10-15       Impact factor: 3.312

2.  Sex-specific visual performance: female lizards outperform males in motion detection.

Authors:  Saúl S Nava; Mirela Conway; Emília P Martins
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2009-08-05       Impact factor: 3.703

3.  Sensory biases in response to novel complex acoustic signals in male and female grey treefrogs, Hyla chrysoscelis.

Authors:  Michael S Reichert; Iván de la Hera
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-10-05       Impact factor: 5.530

4.  Social signals increase monoamine levels in the tegmentum of juvenile Mexican spadefoot toads (Spea multiplicata).

Authors:  Verónica G Rodriguez Moncalvo; Verónica G Moncalvo; Sabrina S Burmeister; Karin S Pfennig
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2013-05-17       Impact factor: 1.836

5.  Vasotocin induces sexually dimorphic effects on acoustically-guided behavior in a tropical frog.

Authors:  Alexander T Baugh; Michael J Ryan
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2017-03-10       Impact factor: 1.836

Review 6.  Development of communication behaviour: receiver ontogeny in Túngara frogs and a prospectus for a behavioural evolutionary development.

Authors:  Alexander T Baugh; Kim L Hoke; Michael J Ryan
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2012-05-02

7.  Decoupled Evolution between Senders and Receivers in the Neotropical Allobates femoralis Frog Complex.

Authors:  Mileidy Betancourth-Cundar; Albertina P Lima; Walter Hӧdl; Adolfo Amézquita
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Methods for invasive species control are transferable across invaded areas.

Authors:  Takashi Haramura; Michael R Crossland; Hirohiko Takeuchi; Richard Shine
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-11-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.