In front of a mirror: visual displays may not be aggressive signals in nocturnal tree frogs

References

• Alvares CA, Stape JL, Sentelha PC, de Moraes Gonçalves JL, Sparovek G. 2013. Köppen´s climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorol Z. 22:711–728.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amézquita A, Hödl W. 2004. How, when, and where to perform visual displays: the case of the Amazonian frog Hyla parviceps. Herpetologica. 60:420–429.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barros AB, Feio RN. 2011. Visual communication in Scinax maracaya (Cardoso & Sazima, 1980) (Anura: Hylidae) at the Serra da Canastra National Park, southeastern Brazil. Herpetol Notes. 4:103–104.
   Google Scholar
• Bee MA, Reichert MS, Tumulty J. 2016. Advances in the study of behavior. Cambridge: Elsevier. Chapter 4, Assessment and recognition of rivals in anuran contests; p. 161–249.
   Google Scholar
• Bradbury LW, Vehrencamp SL. 2011. Principles of animal communication. Macmillan Education. Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Caldwell MS, Johnston GR, McDaniel JG, Warkentin KM. 2010. Vibrational signaling in the agonistic interactions of red-eyed treefrogs. Curr Biol. 20:1–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Luna AG, Hödl W, Amézquita A. 2010. Colour, size and movement as visual subcomponents in multimodal communication by the frog Allobates femoralis. Anim Behav. 79:739–745.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duellman WE, Trueb L. 1994. Biology of amphibians. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Dyson ML, Reichert MS, Halliday TR. 2013. Animal contests. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 11, Contests in amphibians; p. 228–257.
   Google Scholar
• Fite KV. 1973. The visual fields of the frog and toad: a comparative study. Behav Biol. 9:707–718.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Frost DR. 2015. Amphibian species of the world 6.0: an online reference [Internet]. New York (NY): American Museum of Natural History. [ cited 2015 Oct 8]. Available from: http://research.amnh.org/vz/herpetology/amphibia
   Google Scholar
• Furtado R, Nomura F. 2014. Visual signals or displacement activities? The function of visual displays in agonistic interactions in nocturnal tree frogs. Acta Ethol. 17:9–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giasson LOM, Haddad CFB. 2006. Social interactions in Hypsiboas albomarginatus (Anura: Hylidae) and the significance of acoustic and visual signals. J Herpetol. 40:171–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomez D, Théry M, Gauthier AL, Lengagne T. 2011. Costly help of audiovisual bimodality for female mate choice in a nocturnal anuran (Hyla arborea). Behav Ecol. 22:889–898.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guimarães LD, Bastos RP. 2003. Vocalizações e interações acústicas em Hyla raniceps (Anura, Hylidae) durante a atividade reprodutiva. Iheringia Sér Zool. 93:149–158.
   Google Scholar
• Haddad CFB, Giaretta AA. 1999. Visual and acoustic communication in the Brazilian torrent frog, Hylodes asper (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Herpetologica. 55:324–333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartmann MT, Giasson LOM, Hartmann PA, Haddad CFB. 2005. Visual communication in Brazilian species of anurans from the Atlantic forest. J Nat Hist. 39:1675–1685.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartmann MT, Hartmann PA, Haddad CFB. 2004. Visual signaling and reproductive biology in a nocturnal treefrog, genus Hyla (Anura: Hylidae). Amphibia-Reptilia. 25:395–406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirschmann W, Hödl W. 2006. Visual signaling in Phrynobatrachus krefftii Boulenger, 1909 (Anura: Ranidae). Herpetologica. 62:18–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hödl W, Amézquita A. 2001. Anuran communication. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press. Chapter 10, Visual signaling in anuran amphibians; p. 121–141.
   Google Scholar
• Horne EA, Foulks S, Bello NM. 2014. Visual display in Blanchard’s cricket frogs (Acris blanchardi). Southwesr Nat. 59:409–413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huberty CJ, Morris JD. 1989. Multivariate analysis versus multiple univariate analyses. Psychol Bull. 105:302–308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishna SN, Krishna SB. 2006. Visual and acoustic communication in an endemic stream frog, Micrixalus saxicolus in the Western Ghats, India. Amphibia-Reptilia. 27:143–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehner PN. 1996. Handbook of ethological methodology. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lindquist ED, Hetherington TE. 1998. Semaphoring in an earless frog: the origin of a novel visual signals. Anim Cogn. 1:83–87.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lipinski VM, Caldart VM, Iop S. 2012. Visual communication in Hypsiboas curupi (Anura: Hylidae) at Parque Estadual do Turvo, southern Brazil. Phyllomedusa. 11:71–74.
   Google Scholar
• Maestripieri D, Schino G, Aureli F, Troisi A. 1992. A modest proposal: displacement activities as an indicator of emotion in primates. Anim Behav. 44:967–979.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martins IA, Jim J. 2003. Bioacoustic analysis of advertisement call in Hyla nana and Hyla sanborni (Anura, Hylidae) in Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil. Braz J Biol. 63:507–516.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maynard-Smith J, Harper D. 2003. Animal signals. Oxford (UK): Oxford Series on Ecology and Evolution, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miranda DB, Garey MV, Monteiro-Filho ELA, Hartmann MT. 2008. Sinalização visual e biologia reprodutiva de Dendropsophus werneri (Anura: Hylidae) em área de Mata Atlântica no Estado do Paraná, Brasil. Pap Avulsos de Zool (São Paulo). 48:335–343.
   Google Scholar
• Montanarin A, Kaefer IL, Lima AP. 2011. Courtship and mating behaviour of the brilliant-thighed frog Allobates femoralis from Central Amazonia: implications for the study of a species complex. Ethol Ecol Evol. 23:141–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narins PM. 1995. Active hearing. New York (NY): Elsevier Science. Chapter, Comparative aspects of interactive communication; p. 363−372.
   Google Scholar
• Narins PM, Grabul DS, Soma K, Gaucher P, Hödl W. 2005. Cross-modal integration in a dart-poison frog. P Natl Acad Sci USA. 102:2425−2429.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narins PM, Hödl W, Grabul DS. 2003. Bimodal signal requisite for agonistic behavior in a dart-poison frog, Epipedobates femoralis. P Natl Acad Sci USA. 100:577–580.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nosil P. 2012. Ecological speciation. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prado CPA. 2003. Estratégias reprodutivas em uma comunidade de anuros no Pantanal, Estado de Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil [thesis]. Campo Grande (MS): Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul.
   Google Scholar
• Prado CPA, Haddad CFB. 2005. Size-fecundity relationships and reproductive investment in female frogs in the Pantanal, South-Western Brazil. Herpetol J. 15:181–189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preininger D, Boeckle M, Freudmann A, Starnberger I, Sztatecsny M, Hödl W. 2013. Multimodal signaling in the small torrent frog (Micrixalus saxicola) in a complex acoustic environment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 67:1449–1456.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team. 2015. R: a language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [ cited 2015 Oct 8]. Available from: http://www.r-project.org
   Google Scholar
• Reichert MS, Höbel G. 2015. Modality interactions alter the shape of acoustic mate preference functions in gray treefrogs. Evolution. 69:2384–2398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenthal GG, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2004. The vocal sac as a visual cue in anuran communication: an experimental analysis using video playback. Anim Behav. 68:55–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santana DJ, Queiroz SS, Wanderley PS, São-Pedro VA, Leite FSF, Garda AA. 2013. Calls and tadpole of the species of Lysapsus (Anura, Hylidae, Pseudae). Amphibia-Reptilia. 34:201–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sebeok TA. 1968. Animal communication: techniques of study and results of research. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sloggett JJ, Zeilstra I. 2008. Waving or tapping? Vibrational stimuli and the general function of toe twitching in frogs and toads (Amphibia: Anura). Anim Behav. 76:e1–e4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. 1995. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. New York (NY): W. H. Freeman and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Souza RF. 2014. Efeito do contexto social e ambiental na emissão de sinais acústicos e visuais em hilídeos noturnos (Amphibia, Anura) [dissertation]. Goiânia (GO): Universidade Federal de Goiás.
   Google Scholar
• Sztatecsny M, Strondl C, Baierl A, Ries C, Hödl W. 2010. Chin up: are the bright throats of male common frogs a condition-independent visual cue? Anim Behav. 79:779–786.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tinbergen N. 1952. “Derived” activities; their causation, biological significance, origin, and emancipation during evolution. Q Rev Biol. 27:1–32.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Toledo LF, Araújo OGS, Guimarães LD, Lingnau R, Haddad CFB. 2007. Visual and acoustic signaling in three species of Brazilian nocturnal tree frogs (Anura, Hylidae). Phyllomedusa. 6:61–68.
   Google Scholar
• Toledo LF, Haddad CFB. 2005. Reproductive biology of Scinax fuscomarginatus (Anura, Hylidae) in South-Eastern Brazil. J Nat Hist. 39:3029–3037.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uetanabaro M, Prado CPA, Rodrigues DJ, Gordo M, Campos Z. 2008. Guia de campo dos anuros do Pantanal e planaltos de entorno. Campo Grande (MS): Editora UFMS.
   Google Scholar
• Wells KD. 2007. The Ecology and behavior of amphibians. London (UK): The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar