Body condition of females during tadpole attendance and its potential costs in a Neotropical foam-nesting frog (Leptodactylus podicipinus)

REFERENCES

• Alho CJR, Mamede SB, Benites M, Andrade BS, Sepúlveda JJO. 2019. Threats to the biodiversity of the Brazilian Pantanal due to land use and occupation. Ambiente Soc. 22:e01891. doi:10.1590/1809-4422asoc201701891vu2019l3ao
   Google Scholar
• Alonso-Alvarez C, Velando A. 2012. Benefits and costs of parental care. In: Royle NJ, et al., editors. The evolution of parental care. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; p. 40–61.
   Google Scholar
• Bickford D. 2002. Male parenting of New Guinea froglets. Nature. 418:601–602. doi:10.1038/418601b
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bickford DP. 2004. Differential parental care behaviors of arboreal and terrestrial microhylid frogs from Papua New Guinea. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 55:402–409. doi:10.1007/s00265-003-0717-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolger DT, Morrison TA, Vance B, Lee D, Farid H. 2012. A computer-assisted system for photographic mark–recapture analysis. Methods Ecol Evol. 3:813–822. doi:10.1111/j.2041-210X.2012.00212.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowen SH. 1983. Quantitative description of the diet. In: Nielsen LA, Johnson DL, editors. Fisheries techniques. Bethesda (MD): American Fisheries Society; p. 325–336.
   Google Scholar
• Brown JL, Morales V, Summers K. 2010. A key ecological trait drove the evolution of biparental care and monogamy in an amphibian. Am Nat. 175:436–446. doi:10.1086/650727
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burrowes PA. 2000. Parental care and sexual selection in the Puerto Rican cave-dwelling frog, Eleutherodactylus cooki. Herpetologica. 56:375–386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camera BF, Krinski D, Calvo IA. 2014. Diet of the Neotropical frog Leptodactylus mystaceus (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Herpetol Notes. 7:31–36.
   Google Scholar
• Ceron K, Moroti MT, Benício RA, Balboa ZP, Marçola Y, Pereira LB, Santana DJ. 2018. Diet and first report of batracophagy in Leptodactylus podicipinus (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Neotrop Biodivers. 4:70–74. doi:10.1080/23766808.2018.1467173
   Google Scholar
• Colancecco M, Rypstra AL, Persons MH. 2007. Predation and foraging costs of carrying eggsacs of different mass in the wolf spider Pardosa milvina. Behaviour. 144:1003–1018. doi:10.1163/156853907781871888
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortez T, Castro BG, Guerra A. 1995. Reproduction and condition of female Octopus mimus (Mollusca: Cephalopoda). Mar Biol. 123:505–510. doi:10.1007/BF00349229
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crump ML. 1996. Parental care among the Amphibia. In: Rosenblatt JS, Snowdon CT, editors. Parental care: evolution, mechanisms, and adaptive significance. Advances in the study of behavior. San Diego (CA): Academic Press; p. 109–144.
   Google Scholar
• Crump ML. 2015. Anuran reproductive modes: evolving perspectives. J Herpetol. 49:1–16. doi:10.1670/14-097
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delia J, Bravo-Valencia L, Warkentin KM. 2017. Patterns of parental care in Neotropical glassfrogs: fieldwork alters hypotheses of sex-role evolution. J Evol Biol. 30:898–914. doi:10.1111/jeb.13059
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delia J, Bravo-Valencia L, Warkentin KM. 2020. The evolution of extended parental care in glassfrogs: do egg-clutch phenotypes mediate coevolution between the sexes? Ecol Monogr. 90:e01411. doi:10.1002/ecm.1411
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Sá RO, Grant T, Camargo A, Heyer WR, Ponssa ML, Stanley E. 2014. Systematics of the Neotropical genus Leptodactylus Fitzinger, 1826 (Anura: Leptodactylidae): phylogeny, the relevance of non-molecular evidence, and species accounts. S Am J Herpetol. 9:S1–S128. doi:10.2994/SAJH-D-13-00022.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dugas MB, Wamelink CN, Richards-Zawacki CL. 2015. Both sexes pay a cost of reproduction in a frog with biparental care. Biol J Linn Soc. 115:211–218. doi:10.1111/bij.12461
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frost DR. 2021. Amphibian species of the world: an online reference. Version 6.1. New York (NY): American Museum of Natural History. Available from: https://amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org/index.php [Accessed 2021 Jul 7].
   Google Scholar
• Furness AI, Capellini I. 2019. The evolution of parental care diversity in amphibians. Nat Commun. 10:4709. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-12608-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gadgil M, Bossert WH. 1970. Life history consequences of natural selection. Am Nat. 104:1–24. doi:10.1086/282637
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillooly JF, Baylis JR. 1999. Reproductive success and the energetic cost of parental care in male smallmouth bass. J Fish Biol. 54:573–584. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1999.tb00636.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomez-Mestre I, Pyron RA, Wiens JJ. 2012. Phylogenetic analyses reveal unexpected patterns in the evolution of reproductive modes. Evolution. 66:3687–3700. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01715.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross MR. 2005. The evolution of parental care. Q Rev Biol. 80:37–46. doi:10.1086/431023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann H. 2006. Observations on behaviour and parental care of Leptodactylus melanonotus (Hallowell) in Costa Rica. Salamandra. 42:109–116.
   Google Scholar
• Huang WS, Pike DA. 2013. Testing cost-benefit models of parental care evolution using lizard populations differing in the expression of maternal care. PLoS ONE. 8:e54065. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054065
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurme KJ. 2011. Parental care and tadpole schooling in the neotropical frog, Leptodactylus insularum [Ph.D. Thesis]. Mansfield (CT): University of Connecticut.
   Google Scholar
• Hurme KJ. 2015. Reproductive and spatial ecology of Leptodactylus insularum (Anura, Leptodactylidae) in Panama. J Herpetol. 49:36–45. doi:10.1670/13-214
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hynes HBN. 1950. The food of freshwater sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus and Pygosteus pungitius), with a review of methods used in studies of the food of fishes. J Anim Ecol. 19:36–58. doi:10.2307/1570
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorgensen CB. 1992. Growth and reproduction. In: Feder ME, Burggren WW, editors. Environmental physiology of the amphibians. Chicago (IL): The University of Chicago Press; p. 439–466.
   Google Scholar
• Junk WJ, da Cunha CN. 2018. The Pantanal: a brief review of its ecology, biodiversity, and protection status. In: Finlayson CM, et al., editors. The wetland book. Dordrecht (The Netherlands): Springer; p. 797–811. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4001-3_129
   Google Scholar
• Kawakami E, Vazzoler G. 1980. Método gráfico e estimativa de índice alimentar aplicado no estudo de alimentação de peixes [Graphic method and food index estimation applied in the study of fish feeding]. Bol Inst Oceanogr. 29:205–207. Portuguese. doi:10.1590/S0373-55241980000200043
   Google Scholar
• Kenagy GJ, Masman D, Sharbaugh SM, Nagy KA. 1990. Energy expenditure during lactation in relation to litter size in free-living golden-mantled ground squirrels. J Anim Ecol. 59:73–88. doi:10.2307/5159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klug H, Alonzo SH, Bonsall MB. 2012. Theoretical foundations of parental care. In: Royle NJ, et al., editors. The evolution of parental care. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; p. 21–39.
   Google Scholar
• Lange L, Bégué L, Brischoux F, Lourdais O. 2021. The costs of being a good dad: egg-carring and clutch size impair locomotor performance in male midwife toads (Alytes obstetricans). Biol J Linn Soc. 132:270–282. doi:10.1093/biolinnean/blaa185
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieberman S, Dock CF. 1982. Analysis of the leaf litter arthropod fauna of a lowland tropical evergreen forest site (La Selva, Costa Rica). Rev Biol Trop. 30:27–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long DR. 1987. A comparison of energy substrates and reproductive patterns of two anurans, Acris crepitans and Bufo woodhousei. Comp Biochem Physiol. 87:81–91. doi:10.1016/0300-9629(87)90429-4
   Google Scholar
• Martins IA. 2001. Parental care behavior in Leptodactylus podicipinus (Cope, 1862) (Anura, Leptodactylidae). Herpetol J. 11:29–32. doi:10.1643/0045-8511
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDiarmid RW. 1994. Preparing amphibians as scientific specimens. In: Heyer WR, et al., editors. Measuring and monitoring biological diversity. Standard methods for amphibians. Washington (DC): Smithsonian; p. 289–297.
   Google Scholar
• Menin M, Rodrigues DJ, de Azevedo CS. 2005. Predation on amphibians by spiders (Arachnida, Araneae) in the Neotropical region. Phyllomedusa. 4(1):39–47. doi:10.11606/.2316-9079.v4i1p39-47
   Google Scholar
• Oksanen O, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, et al. 2020. vegan: an R package for community ecologists. Version 2.5-7. Available from: https://github.com/vegandevs/vegan [Accessed 2020 May 16].
   Google Scholar
• Poo S, Bickford DP. 2013. The adaptive significance of egg attendance in a South-East Asian tree frog. Ethology. 119:671–679. doi:10.1111/eth.12108
   Web of Science ®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
• Prado CPA, Uetanabaro M, Haddad CFB. 2002. Description of a new reproductive mode in Leptodactylus (Anura, Leptodactilydae), with a review of the reproductive specialization toward terrestriality in the genus. Copeia. (4):1128–1133. doi:10.1643/0045-8511
   Google Scholar
• Prado CPA, Uetanabaro M, Haddad CFB. 2005. Breeding activity patterns, reproductive modes, and habitat use by anurans (Amphibia) in a seasonal environment in the Pantanal, Brazil. Amphibia-Reptilia. 26:211–221. doi:10.1163/1568538054253375
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prado CPA, Uetanabaro M, Lopes FS. 2000. Reproductive strategies of Leptodactylus chaquensis and L. podicipinus in the Pantanal. J Herpetol. 34:135–139. doi:10.2307/1565249
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pröhl H, Hödl W. 1999. Parental investment, potential reproductive rates, and mating system in the strawberry dart-poison frog, Dendrobates pumilio. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 46:215–220. doi:10.1007/s002650050612
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/ [Accessed 2020 May 16].
   Google Scholar
• Rodrigues AP, Giaretta AA, Da Silva DR, Facure KG. 2011. Reproductive features of three maternal-caring species of Leptodactylus (Anura: Leptodactylidae) with a report on alloparental care in frogs. J Nat Hist. 45:33–34. doi:10.1080/00222933.2011.574799
   Google Scholar
• Rodrigues DJ, Uetanabaro M, Prado CPA. 2004. Seasonal and ontogenetic variation in diet composition of Leptodactylus podicipinus (Anura, Leptodactylidae) in the southern Pantanal, Brazil. Rev Esp Herpetol. 18:19–28.
   Google Scholar
• Roff DA, Fairbairn DJ. 2007. The evolution of trade-offs: where are we? J Evol Bio. 20:433–447. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01255.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saidapur SK, Hoque B. 1996. Long-term effects of ovariectomy on abdominal fat body and body masses in the frog Rana tigrina during the recrudescent phase. J Herpetol. 30:70–73. doi:10.2307/1564709
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santos EM, Amorim FO. 2006. Cuidado parental em Leptodactylus natalensis (Amphibia, Anura, Leptodactylidae) [Parental care in Leptodactylus natalensis (Amphibia, Anura, Leptodactylidae)]. Iheringia Sér Zool. 96:491–494. Portuguese. doi:10.1590/S0073-47212006000400015
   Google Scholar
• Santos ESA, Nakagawa S. 2012. The costs of parental care: a meta-analysis of the trade-off between parental effort and survival in birds. J Evol Biol. 25:1911–1917. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02569.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saweki J, Miros E, Border SE, Dijkstra PD. 2019. Reproduction and maternal care increase oxidative stress in a mouthbrooding cichlid fish. Behav Ecol. 30(6):1662–1671. doi:10.1093/beheco/arz133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulte LM, Ringler E, Rojas B, Stynoski JL. 2020. Developments in amphibian parental care research: history, present advances, and future perspectives. Herpetol Monogr. 34:71–97. doi:10.1655/HERPMONOGRAPHS-D-19-00002.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon MP. 1983. The ecology of parental care in a terrestrial breeding frog from New Guinea. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 14:61–68. doi:10.1007/BF00366657
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toft CA. 1981. Feeding ecology of Panamanian litter anurans: patterns in diet and foraging mode. J Herpetol. 15:139–144. doi:10.2307/1563372
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Townsend DS. 1986. The costs of male parental care and its evolution in a Neotropical frog. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 19:187–195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Triplehorn CA, Johnson NF. 2011. Estudo dos insetos [Study of insects]. São Paulo (Brazil): Cengage Learning. Portuguese.
   Google Scholar
• Trivers RL. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B, editor. Sexual selection and the descent of man. Chicago (IL): Aldine Publish Company; p. 136–207.
   Google Scholar
• Trivers RL. 1974. Parent-offspring conflict. Am Zool. 14:249–264. doi:10.1093/icb/14.1.249
   Google Scholar
• Vági B, Végvári Z, Liker A, Freckleton RP, Székely T. 2019. Parental care and the evolution of terrestriality in frogs. Proc Biol Sci. 286:20182737. doi:10.1098/rspb.2018.2737
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valencia-Aguilar A, Guayasamin JM, Prado CPA. 2020b. Male care status influences the risk-taking decisions in a glassfrog. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 74:84. doi:10.1007/s00265-020-02869-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valencia-Aguilar A, Guayasamin JM, Prado CPA. 2021. Alloparental care in glassfrogs: males care for unrelated clutches only when associated with their own. Sci Rep. 11:1386. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-80771-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valencia-Aguilar A, Zamudio KR, Haddad CFB, Bogdanowicz SM, Prado CPA. 2020a. Show me you care: female mate choice based on egg attendance rather than male or territorial traits. Behav Ecol. 31:1054–1064. doi:10.1093/beheco/araa051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welham SJ, Gezan SA, Clark SJ, Mead A. 2014. Statistical methods in biology: design and analysis of experiments and regression. New York (NY): CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wells KD. 2007. The ecology and behavior of amphibians. Chicago (IL): The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wells KD, Bard KM. 1988. Parental behavior of an aquatic-breeding tropical frog, Leptodactylus bolivianus. J Herpetol. 22:361–364. doi:10.2307/1564166
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitfield SM, Donnelly MA. 2006. Ontogenetic and seasonal variation in the diet of Costa Rican leaf-litter herpetofauna. J Trop Ecol. 22:409–415. doi:10.1017/S0266467406003245
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams GC. 1966. Natural selection, the costs of reproduction, and a refinement of Lack’s principle. Am Nat. 100:687–690. doi:10.1086/282461
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar