A test of the matched filter hypothesis in two sympatric frogs, Chiromantis doriae and Feihyla vittata

References

• Amézquita A, Hödl W, Lima AP, Castellanos L, Erdtmann L, Araújo M. 2006. Masking interference and the evolution of the acoustic communication system in the Amazonian dendrobatid frog Allobates femoralis. Evolution. 60(9):1874–1887.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amézquitaa A, Flechasa SV, Limab AP, Gasserc H, Hödlc W. 2011. Acoustic interference and recognition space within a complex assemblage of dendrobatid frogs. Proceedings National Academy of Sciences USA. 108(41):17058–17063.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bee MA, Micheyl C. 2008. The cocktail party problem: what is it? How can it be solved? and Why should animal behaviorists study it? Journal of Comparative Psychology. 122(3):235–251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boersma PPG. 2002. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International. 5(9/10):341345.
   Google Scholar
• Brittan-Powell EF, Christensen-Dalsgaard J, Tang Y, Carr C, Dooling RJ. 2010. The auditory brainstem response in two lizard species. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America. 128(2):787–794.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buerkle NP, Schrode KM, Bee MA. 2014. Assessing stimulus and subject influences on auditory evoked potentials and their relation to peripheral physiology in green treefrogs (Hyla cinerea). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology. 178:68–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capranica RR, Moffat AJM. 1983. Neurobehavioral correlates of sound communication in anurans. In: Ewert JP, Capranica RR, Ingle D, editors. Advances in vertebrate neuroethology. New York, NY: Plenum Press; p. 701–730.
   Google Scholar
• Castellano S, Rosso A, Doglio S, Giacoma C. 1999. Body size and calling variation in the green toad (Bufo viridis). Journal of Zoology, Lond. 248:83–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen JF, Jono T, Cui JG, Yue X, Tang YZ. 2016. The acoustic properties of low intensity vocalizations match hearing sensitivity in the webbed-toed gecko, Gekko subpalmatus. PLoS One. 11(1):e0146677.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cui JG, Zhu BC, Fang GZ, Smith E, Brauth SE, Tang YZ. 2017. Effect of the level of anesthesia on the auditory brainstem response in the Emei music frog (Babina daunchina). PLoS One. 12(1):e0169449.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feng AS, Schul J. 2007. Sound processing in real-world environments. In: Narins PM, Feng As and Fay Rr, edited by. Hearing and sound communication in amphibians. 323–350. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Gall MD, Brierley LE, Lucas JR. 2011. Species and sex effects on auditory processing in brown-headed cowbirds and red-winged blackbirds. Animal Behaviour. 81(5):973–982.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gall MD, Lucas JR. 2010. Sex differences in auditory filters of brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater). Journal of Comparative Physiology Neuroethology Sensory Neural Behavioral Physiology. 196(8):559–567.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerhardt HC. 1974. The significance of some spectral features in mating call recognition in the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea). Journal of Experimental Biology. 61:229–241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerhardt HC, Schwartz JJ. 2001. Auditory tuning and frequency preferences in anuran. In: Ryan MJ, edited by. Anuran communication. 73–85. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gerhardt HC, Doherty JA. 1988. Acoustic communication in the gray treefrog, Hyla versicolor: evolutionary and neurobiological implications. Journal of Comparative Physiology A. 162(2):261–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall IC, Woolley SMN, Kwong-Brown U, Kelley DB. 2016. Sex differences and endocrine regulation of auditory-evoked, neural responses in African clawed frogs (Xenopus). Journal of Comparative Physiology A. 202(1):17–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jerger J, Hall J. 1980. Effects of age and sex on auditory brainstem response. Archives Otolaryngology. 106(7):387.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Keddy-Hector AC, Wilczynski W, Ryan MJ. 1992. Call patterns and basilar papilla tuning in cricket frogs. II. intrapopulation variation and allometry. Brain Behaviour and Evolution. 39(4):238–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kime NM, Burmeister SS, Ryan MJ. 2004. Female preferences for socially variable call characters in the cricket frog, Acris crepitans. Animal Behaviour. 68(6):1391–1399.
   Google Scholar
• Klump GM, Gerhardt HC. 1987. Use of non-arbitrary acoustic criteria in mate choice by female gray tree frogs. Nature. 329(19):286–288.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kostarakos K, Hartbauer M, Romer H. 2008. Matched filters, mate choice and the evolution of sexually selected traits. PLoS One. 3(8):e3005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kostarakos K, Hennig MR, Romer H. 2009. Two matched filters and the evolution of mating signals in four species of cricket. Frontiers in Zoology. 6(22):1–12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ladich F, Yan HY. 1998. Correlation between auditory sensitivity and vocalization in anabantoid . Fishes. Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology. 182:737–746.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li J-T, Li Y, Klaus S, Rao D-Q, Hillis DM, Zhang Y-P. 2013. Diversification of rhacophorid frogs provides evidence for accelerated faunal exchange between India and Eurasia during the Oligocene. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences U S A. 110(9):3441–3446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loftus-Hills JJ. 1973. Comparative aspects of auditory function in Australian anurans. Australian Journal of Zoology. 21(3):353–367.
   Google Scholar
• Luther D. 2009. The influence of the acoustic community on songs of birds in a neotropical rain forest. Behavioral Ecology. 20(4):864–871.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcclelland BE, Wilczynski W, Ryan MJ. 1996. Correlations between call characteristics and morphology in male cricket frogs (Acris crepitans). Journal of Experimental Biology. 199:1907–1919.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno-Gómez FN, Sueur J, Soto-Gamboa M, Penna M. 2013. Female frog auditory sensitivity, male calls, and background noise: potential influences on the evolution of a peculiar matched filter. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 110:814–827.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narins PM, Capranica RR. 1976. Sexual differences in the auditory system of the tree frog Eleutherodactylus coqui. Science. 192:378–380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narins PM, Feng AS, Fay RR, Popper AN. 2007. Hearing and sound communication in amphibians. New York, NY: Springier.
   Google Scholar
• Penna M, Feng AS, Narins PM. 1997. Temporal selectivity of evoked vocal responses of Batrachyla antartandica (Amphibia: Leptodactylidae). Animal Behaviour. 54:833–848.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penna M, Velasquez N, Solis R. 2008. Correspondence between evoked vocal responses and auditory thresholds in Pleurodema thaul (Amphibia; Leptodactylidae). Journal of Comparative Physiology A. 194(4):361–371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfennig KS, Pfennig DW. 2009. Character displacement ecological and reproductive reaponses to a common evolution problem. The Quartely Review of Biology. 84(3):253–276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robert D, Amoroso J, Hoy RR. 1992. The evolutionary convergence of hearing in a parasitoid fly and its cricket host. Science. 258(13):1135–1137.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ryan MJ. 1986. Factors influencing the evolution of acoustic communication: biological constraints. Brain Behaviour and Evolution. 28:70–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan MJ. 1988. Constraints and patterns in the evolution of anuran acoustic communication. In: Fritzsch B, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, Hetherington TE, Walkowiak W, editors. The evolution of the amphibia auditory system. New York, NY: Wiley; p. 637–677.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan MJ, Perrill SA, Wilczynski W. 1992. Auditory tuning and call frequency predict population-based mating preferences in the cricket frog, Acris crepitans. The American Naturalist. 139(6):1370–1383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan MJ, Rand W, Hurd PL, Phelps SM, Rand AS. 2003. Generalization in response to mate recognition signals. The American Naturalist. 161(3):380–394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt AK, Riede K, Romer H. 2011. High background noise shapes selective auditory filters in a tropical cricket. Journal of Experimental Biology. 214(Pt 10):1754–1762.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schrode KM, Buerkle NP, Brittan-Powell EF, Bee MA. 2014. Auditory brainstem responses in Cope’s gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis): effects of frequency, level, sex and size. Journal of Comparative Physiology A Neuroethology Sensory Neural Behavioral Physiology. 200(3):221–238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz JJ. 1987. The importance of spectral and temporal properties in species and call recognition in a neotropical treefrog with a complex vocal repertoire. Animal Behaviour. 35:340–347.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegert ME, Römer H, Hartbauer M. 2013. Maintaining acoustic communication at a cocktail party: heterospecific masking noise improves signal detection through frequency separation. Journal of Experimental Biology. 216(Pt 24):4655–4665.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmons AM. 2013. “To ear is human, to forgive is divine”: Bob Capranica’s legacy to auditory neuroethology. Journal of Comparative Physiology A Neuroethology Sensory Neural Behavioral Physology. 199(3):169–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sisneros JA, Bass AH. 2003. Seasonal plasticity of peripheral auditory frequency sensitivity. Journal of Neuroscience. 23(3):1049–1058.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vignal C, Kelley D. 2007. Significance of temporal and spectral acoustic cues for sexual recognition in Xenopus laevis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 274(1609):479–488.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilczynski W, Keddy-Hector AC, Ryan MJ. 1992. Call patterns and Basilar papilla tuning in cricket frogs. I.differences among populations and between sexes. Brain Behaviour Evolution. 39(4):229–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilczynski W, Zakon HH, Brenowitz EA. 1984. Acoustic communication in spring peepers, Hyla crucifer: call characteristics and neurophysiological aspects. Journal of Comparative Physiology A. 155(5):577–584.
   Google Scholar
• Witte K, Farris HE, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W. 2005. How cricket frog females deal with a noisy world: habitat-related differences in auditory tuning. Behavioral Ecology. 16(3):571–579.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zakon HH, Wilczynski W. 1988. The physiology of the anuran eighth nerve. In: Fritzsch B., Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, Hetherington TE, Walkowiak W, editors. The evolution of the amphibian auditory system. New York, NY: Wiley; p. 125–155.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao LH, Wang JC, Yang Y, Zhu BC, Brauth SE, Tang YZ, Cui JG. 2017. An exception to the matched filter hypothesis: a mismatch of male call frequency and female best hearing frequency in a torrent frog. Ecology and Evolution. 7(1):419–428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou X, Jen PH-S, Seburn KL, Frankel WN, Zheng QY. 2006. Auditory brainstem responses in 10 inbred strains of mice. Brain Research. 1091(1):16–26.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhu BC, Wang JC, Brauth SE, Tang YZ, Cui JG. 2017. The spectral structure of vocalizations match hearing sensitivity but imprecisely in Philautus odontotarsus. Bioacoustics. 26(2):121–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar