Vocalizations of Hypsiboas goianus (Lutz, 1968) (Anura: Hylidae) in Central Brazil

References

• Antunes AP, Faivovich J, Haddad CFB. 2008. A new species of Hypsiboas from the Atlantic forest of southeastern Brazil (Amphibia: Anura: Hylidae). Copeia. 2008:179–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bastos RP, Alcantara MB, Morais AR, Lignau R, Signorelli L. 2011. Vocal behaviour and conspecifc call response in Scinax centralis. Herpetol J. 21:43–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bastos RP, Motta JAO, Lima LP, Guimarães LD. 2003. Anfíbios da Floresta Nacional de Silvânia, Estado de Goiás. 1st ed. Goiânia: Stylo gráfica e editora.
   Google Scholar
• Bee MA. 2004. Within-individual variation in bullfrog vocalizations: implications for a vocally mediated social recognition system. J Acoust Soc Am. 116:3770–3781.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bee MA, Gerhardt HC. 2001. Neighbour-stranger discrimination by territorial bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana): I. Acoustic Basis Anim Behav. 62:1129–1140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bee MA, Kozich CE, Blackwell KJ, Gerhardt HC. 2001. Individual variation in advertisement calls of territorial male green frogs, Rana clamitans: implications for individual discrimination. Ethology. 107:65–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blankenhorn HJ. 1972. Meteorological variables affecting onset and duration of calling in Hyla arborea L. and Bufo calamita calamita Laur. Oecologia. 9:223–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Both C, Grant T. 2012. Biological invasions and the acoustic niche: the effect of bullfrog calls on the acoustic signals of white-banded tree frogs. Biol Lett. 8:714–716.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs VS. 2010. Call trait variation in Morelett’s tree frog, Agalychnis moreletii, of Belize. Herpetologica. 66:241–249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooke PN, Alford RA, Schwarzkopf L. 2000. Environmental and social factors influence chorusing behaviour in a tropical frog: examining various temporal and spatial scales. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 49:79–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dias TM, Bastos RP, Siqueira MN, Morais AR. 2014. The release call of Hypsiboas goianus (B. Lutz, 1968) (Anura: Hylidae) from Central Brazil. Herpetol Notes. 7:215–217.
   Google Scholar
• Faivovich J, Haddad CFB, Garcia PCA, Frost DR, Campbell JA, Wheeler WC. 2005. Systematic review of the frog family Hylidae, with special reference to Hylinae: phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist. 294:1–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gambale PG, Signorelli L, Bastos RP. 2014. Individual variation in the advertisement calls of a Neotropical treefrog (Scinax constrictus). Amphibia-Reptilia. 35:271–281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia PCA, Haddad CFB. 2008. Vocalizations and comments on the relationships of Hypsiboas ericae (Amphibia, Hylidae). Iheringia. 98:161–166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gasser H, Amézquita A, Hödl W. 2009. Who is calling? Intraspecific call variation in the aromobatid frog Allobates femoralis. Ethology. 115:596–607.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerhardt HC. 1991. Female mate choice in treefrogs: static and dynamic acoustic criteria. Anim Behav. 42:615–635.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerhardt HC, Bee MA. 2007. Recognition and localization of acoustic signals. In: Narins PM, Feng AS, Fay RR, Popper AN, editors. Hearing and sound communication in amphibians. New York: Springer Handbook of Auditory Research. p. 113–146.
   Google Scholar
• Gerhardt HC, Huber F. 2002. Acoustic communication in insects and frogs: common problems and diverse solutions. 1st ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guimarães LD, Lima LP, Juliano RF, Bastos RP. 2001. Vocalizações de espécies de anuros (Amphibia) no Brasil Central. Bol Mus Nac Nova sér Zool. 474:1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Guttman L. 1954. Some necessary conditions for common factor analysis. Psychometrika. 19:149–161.
   Google Scholar
• Heyer WR, Rand AS, Cruz CAG, Peixoto OL, Nelson CE. 1990. Frogs of Boracéia. Arq Zool. 31:231–410.
   Google Scholar
• Howard RD, Young JR. 1998. Individual variation in male vocal traits and female mating preferences in Bufo americanus. Anim Behav. 55:1165–1179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manly BFJ. 2008. Métodos estatíticos multivariados: uma introdução. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
   Google Scholar
• Márquez R, Eekhout XR. 2006. Advertisement calls of six species of anurans from Bali, Republic of Indonesia. J Nat Hist. 40:571–588.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martof BS. 1953. Territoriality in the green frog Rana clamitans. Ecology. 34:165–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menin M, Silva RA, Giaretta AA. 2004. Reproductive biology of Hyla goiana (Anura, Hylidae). Iheringia. 94:49–52.
   Google Scholar
• Morais AR, Batista VG, Gambale PG, Signorelli L, Bastos RP. 2012. Acoustic communication in a Neotropical frog (Dendropsophus minutus): vocal repertoire, variability, and individual discrimination. Herpetol J. 22:249–257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morais AR, Siqueira MN, Bastos RP. 2015. How do males of Hypsiboas goianus (Hylidae: anura) respond to conspecific acoustic stimuli? Zoologia (Curitiba). 32:431–437.
   Google Scholar
• Morais AR, Siqueira MN, Márquez R, Bastos RP. 2016. Males of Hypsiboas goianus (Anura; Hylidae) do not assess neighbor fighting ability through acoustic interactions. Acta Ethol. 19:43–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Navas CA, Bevier CR. 2001. Thermal dependency of calling performance in the eurythermic frog, Colostethus subpunctatus. Herpetologica. 57:384–395.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Navas CA, Gomes FR, Carvalho JE. 2008. Thermal relationships and exercise physiology in anuran amphibians: integration and evolutionary implications. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 153:344-–362.
   Google Scholar
• Pettitt BA, Bourne GR, Bee MA. 2013. Advertisement call variation in the golden rocket frog (Anomaloglossus beebei): evidence for individual distinctiveness. Ethology. 199:244–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robisson P, Aubin T, Bremond JC. 1993. Individuality in the voice of the emperor penguin Aptenodytes forsteri: adaptation to a noisy environment. Ethology. 94:279–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez A, de la Nuez D, Alonso R. 2010. Intraspecific variation in the advertisement call of the cloud-forest frog Eleutherodactylus glamyrus (Anura: Eleutherodactylidae). J Herpetol. 44:457–466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner WE. 1989. Fighting, assessment, and frequency alteration in Blanchard’s cricket frog. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 25:429–436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells KD. 1977. The courtship of frogs. In: Taylor DH, Guttman SI, editors. The reproductive biology of amphibians. New York (NY): Plenum Press. p. 233–262.
   Google Scholar
• Wells KD. 1988. The effect of social interactions on anurans vocal behavior. In: Fritzsch B, Walkowiak W, Hetherington T, Wilczynski W, Ryan M, editors. The evolution of the amphibian auditory system. New York (NY): John Wiley and Sons. p. 433–454.
   Google Scholar
• Wells KD. 2007. The ecology and behavior of amphibians. 1st ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wong BBM, Cowling ANN, Cunningham RB, Donnelly CF, Cooper PD. 2004. Do temperature and social environment interact to affect call rate in frogs (Crinia signifera)? Austral Ecol. 29:209–214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziegler L, Arim M, Narins PM. 2011. Linking amphibian call structure to the environment: the interplay between phenotypic flexibility and individual attributes. Behav Ecol. 22:520–526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar