The functions and evolution of graded complex calls in a treefrog

References

• Aguiar PL, Souza RF, De Oliveira EB, Nali RC. 2022. Male aggressiveness in the tree frog Dendropsophus branneri (Anura, Hylidae): physical combat, fighting call, and escalated behavior. Caldasia. 44(1):203–207. doi: 10.15446/caldasia.v44n1.88112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akre KL, Ryan MJ. 2010. Complexity increases working memory for mating signals. Curr Biol. 20(6):502–505. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.01.021.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbadillo E, Castanet M. 2002. Effects of age, size and temperature on the advertisement calls of two Spanish populations of Pelodytes punctatus. Amphibia-Reptilia. 23(3):249–258. doi: 10.1163/15685380260449135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bardou P, Mariette J, Escudié F, Djemiel C, Klopp C. 2014. Jvenn: an interactive Venn diagram viewer. BMC Bioinform. 15(1):293. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-15-293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernal XE, Akre KL, Baugh AT, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2009. Female and male behavioral response to advertisement calls of graded complexity in túngara frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 63(9):1269–1279. doi: 10.1007/s00265-009-0795-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berz A, Pasquini de Souza C, Wohr M, Schwarting RKW. 2021. Limited generalizability, pharmacological modulation, and state-dependency of habituation towards pro-social 50-kHz calls in rats. iScience. 24(5):102426. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.102426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhat AS, Sane VA, Seshadri KS, Krishnan A. 2022. Behavioural context shapes vocal sequences in two anuran species with different repertoire sizes. Anim Behav. 184:111–129. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.12.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bohn KM, Schmidt-French B, Schwartz C, Smotherman M, Pollak GD, Reby D. 2009. Versatility and stereotypy of free-tailed bat songs. PLoS One. 4(8):e6746. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006746.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braaten RF, Petzoldt M, Colbath A. 2006. Song perception during the sensitive period of song learning in zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). J Comp Psychol. 120(2):79–88. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.120.2.79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brakels P, Nguyen TV, Pawangkhanant P, Idiiatullina SS, Lorphengsy S, Suwannapoom C, Poyarkov NA. 2023. Mountain jade: A new high-elevation microendemic species of the genus Zhangixalus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Laos. Zool Res. 44(2):374–379. doi: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2022.382.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briseno-Jaramillo M, Biquand V, Estrada A, Lemasson A. 2017. Vocal repertoire of free-ranging black howler monkeys’ (Alouatta pigra): Call types, contexts, and sex-related contributions. Am J Primatol. 79(5):e22630. doi: 10.1002/ajp.22630.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burke EJ, Murphy CG. 2007. How female barking treefrogs, Hyla gratiosa, use multiple call characteristics to select a mate. Anim Behav. 74(5):1463–1472. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.02.017.
   Google Scholar
• Calsbeek R, Duryea MC, Goedert D, Bergeron P, Cox RM. 2015. Intralocus sexual conflict, adaptive sex allocation, and the heritability of fitness. J Evol Biol. 28(11):1975–1985. doi: 10.1111/jeb.12713.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Candolin U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 78(4):575–595. doi: 10.1017/s1464793103006158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castellano S, Cuatto B, Rinella R, Rosso A, Giacoma C. 2002. The advertisement call of the European treefrogs (Hyla arborea): a multilevel study of variation. Ethology. 108(1):75–89. doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0310.2002.00761.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charlton BD, Reby D, McComb K. 2007. Female red deer prefer the roars of larger males. Biol Lett. 3(4):382–385. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen W, Yu G, Cheng Z, Meng T, Wei H, Zhou G, Lu Y. 2021. A new species of Leptobrachella (Anura: Megophryidae) from central Guangxi, China. Zool Res. 42(6):783–788. doi: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2021.179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark DL. 1994. Sequence analysis of courtship behavior in the dimorphic jumping spider Maevia inclemens (Araneae, Salticidae). J Arachnol. 22(2):94–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa TRN, Toledo LF. 2013. Physalaemus spiniger (Anura: Leiuperinae): a frog with an extensive vocal repertoire. J Herpetol. 47:530–538. doi:10.1670/12-083.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox RM, Calsbeek R. 2010. Cryptic sex-ratio bias provides indirect genetic benefits despite sexual conflict. Science. 328(5974):92–94. doi: 10.1126/science.1185550.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deb R, Bhattacharya M, Balakrishnan R. 2012. Females of a tree cricket prefer larger males but not the lower frequency male calls that indicate large body size. Anim Behav. 84(1):137–149. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.04.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elie JE, Theunissen FE. 2018. Zebra finches identify individuals using vocal signatures unique to each call type. Nat Commun. 9(1):4026. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06394-9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Engesser S, Townsend SW. 2019. Combinatoriality in the vocal systems of nonhuman animals. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 10(4):e1493. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Escalona Sulbaran MD, Ivo Simoes P, Gonzalez-Voyer A, Castroviejo-Fisher S. 2019. Neotropical frogs and mating songs: the evolution of advertisement calls in glass frogs. J Evol Biol. 32(2):163–176. doi: 10.1111/jeb.13406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang G, Yang P, Xue F, Cui J, Brauth SE, Tang Y. 2015. Sound classification and call discrimination are decoded in order as revealed by event-related potential components in frogs. Brain Behav Evol. 86(3–4):232–245. doi: 10.1159/000441215.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang K, Zhang B, Brauth SE, Tang Y, Fang G. 2018. The first call note of the Anhui treefrog (Rhacophorus zhoukaiya) is acoustically suited for enabling individual recognition. Bioacoustics. 28(2):155–176. doi: 10.1080/09524622.2017.1422805.
   Google Scholar
• Fan P, Liu R, Grueter CC, Li F, Wu F, Huang T, Yao H, Liu D, Liu X. 2019. Individuality in coo calls of adult male golden snub-nosed monkeys (Rhinopithecus roxellana) living in a multilevel society. Anim Cogn. 22(1):71–79. doi: 10.1007/s10071-018-1222-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan P, Liu X, Liu R, Li F, Huang T, Wu F, Yao H, Liu D. 2018. Vocal repertoire of free-ranging adult golden snub-nosed monkeys (Rhinopithecus roxellana). Am J Primatol. 80(6):e22869. doi: 10.1002/ajp.22869.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan P, Li J, Yang L, Sun T, Wu S, Grueter CC, Huang C, Zhou Q, Li M. 2022. Vocal repertoire of the critically endangered white-headed langur (Trachypithecus leucocephalus): call types, acoustic structures, and related social-ecological contexts. Zool Res. 43(5):875–879. doi: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2022.147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flechas S, Ortega J, Arenas LM, Amézquita A. 2018. The function of supplementary notes in the communication system of Johnstone’s whistling frog. Eleutherodactylus johnstonei. Herpetol Rev. 49:626–632.
   Google Scholar
• Freeberg TM, Dunbar RI, Ord TJ. 2012. Social complexity as a proximate and ultimate factor in communicative complexity. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 367(1597):1785–1801. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeberg TM, Lucas JR, Clucas B. 2003. Variation in chick-a-dee calls of a Carolina chickadee population, Poecile carolinensis: identity and redundancy within note types. J Acoust Soc Am. 113:2127–2136. doi:10.1121/1.1559175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuss T. 2021. Mate choice, sex roles and sexual cognition in vertebrates: mate choice turns cognition or cognition turns mate choice? Front Ecol Evol. 9. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2021.749495.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerhardt HC. 1991. Female mate choice in treefrogs: static and dynamic acoustic criteria. Anim Behav. 42(4):615–635. doi: 10.1016/s0003-3472(05)80245-3.
   Google Scholar
• Gerhardt HC, Huber F. 2002. Acoustic communication in insects and frogs. University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.1515/9780691207247-012.
   Google Scholar
• Gerhardt HC, Roberts JD, Bee MA, Schwartz JJ. 2000. Call matching in the quacking frog (Crinia georgiana). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 48(3):243–251. doi: 10.1007/s002650000226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gingras B, Boeckle M, Herbst CT, Fitch WT. 2012. Call acoustics reflect body size across four clades of anurans. J Zool. 289(2):143–150. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2012.00973.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grace MK, Noss RF. 2018. Evidence for selective avoidance of traffic noise by anuran amphibians. null. 21(4):343–351. doi: 10.1111/acv.12400.
   Google Scholar
• Gridi-Papp M, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2006. Complex call production in the túngara frog. Nature. 441(7089):38. doi: 10.1038/441038a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustison ML, Johnson TE, Beehner JC, Bergman TJ. 2019. The social functions of complex vocal sequences in wild geladas. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 73(1). doi: 10.1007/s00265-018-2612-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howell C, Anderson R, Derryberry EP. 2019. Female cognitive performance and mass are correlated with different aspects of mate choice in the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata). Anim Cogn. 22(6):1085–1094. doi: 10.1007/s10071-019-01299-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang K, Ren JL, Lyu ZT, Wang D, Wang Z, Lv K, Wu J, Li J. 2021. Taxonomic revision of Amolops chunganensis (Pope, 1929) (Amphibia: Anura) and description of a new species from southwestern China, with discussion on Amolops monticola group and assignment of species groups of the genus Amolops. Zool Res. 42(5):574–591. doi: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2021.107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolliker M. 1999. Offspring sex ratio is related to male body size in the great tit (Parus major). Behav Ecol. 10(1):68–72. doi: 10.1093/beheco/10.1.68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koren L, Geffen E. 2008. Complex call in male rock hyrax (Procavia capensis): a multi-information distributing channel. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 63(4):581–590. doi: 10.1007/s00265-008-0693-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozhevnikova JD, Volodin IA, Zaytseva AS, Ilchenko OG, Volodina EV. 2021. Pup ultrasonic isolation calls of six gerbil species and the relationship between acoustic traits and body size. R Soc Open Sci. 8(3):201558. doi: 10.1098/rsos.201558.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kroodsma DE, Verner J. 1987. Use of song repertoires among marsh wren populations. The Auk. 104(1):63–72. doi: 10.2307/4087234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LaBarbera K, Nelson PB, Bee MA. 2020. Mate choice and the ‘opposite miss’ to Weber’s law: proportional processing governs signal preferences in a treefrog. Anim Behav. 168:199–209. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2020.08.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leger DW, Brooks KE, O’Brien JE. 2000. Versatility from a single song: the case of the nightingale wren. The Auk. 117(4):1038–1042. doi: 10.1093/auk/117.4.1038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leighton GM, Birmingham T, Ridley A, Ridley A. 2021. Multiple factors affect the evolution of repertoire size across birds. Behav Ecol. 32(3):380–385. doi: 10.1093/beheco/araa139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leverett MC, McLister JD, Desaivre SS, Desaivre SS, Conway S, Boyd SK. 2022. Social modulation of spatial dynamics in treefrog choruses. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 76(4). doi: 10.1007/s00265-022-03163-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manser MB, Jansen DAWAM, Graw B, Hollén LI, Bousquet CAH, Furrer RD, Roux AL. 2014. Vocal complexity in meerkats and other mongoose species. Adv Stud Behav. 46:281–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Márquez R, Pargana JM, Crespo EG, Montgomery WL. 2001. Acoustic competition in male Pelodytes ibericus (Anura: Pelodytidae): interactive playback tests. Copeia. 2001(4):1142–1150. doi: 10.1643/0045-8511(2001)001[1142:ACIMPI]2.0.CO;2.
   Google Scholar
• Matrosova VA, Ivanova AD, Volodina EV, Volodin IA, Alexandrov DY, Sibiryakova OV, Ermakov OA. 2019. Phylogenetic relationship and variation of alarm call traits of populations of red‐cheeked ground squirrels (Spermophilus erythrogenys sensu lato) suggest taxonomic delineation. Integr Zool. 14(4):341–353. doi: 10.1111/1749-4877.12383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moors HB, Terhune JM. 2004. Repetition patterns in Weddell seal (Leptonychotes weddellii) underwater multiple element calls. J Acoust Soc Am. 116(2):1261–1270. doi: 10.1121/1.1763956.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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(4):249–257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morino L, Pasquaretta C, Sueur C, MacIntosh AJJ. 2021. Communication network reflects social instability in a wild siamang (Symphalangus syndactylus) population. Int J Primatol. 42(4):618–639. doi: 10.1007/s10764-021-00227-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nali RC, Prado CPA. 2014. Complex call with different messages in Bokermannohyla ibitiguara (Anura, Hylidae), a gladiator frog of the Brazilian Cerrado. J Herpetol. 48(3):407–414. doi: 10.1670/13-090.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nali RC, Zamudio KR, Prado CPA. 2023. Hybridization despite elaborate courtship behavior and female choice in neotropical treefrogs. Integr Zool. 18(2):208–224. doi: 10.1111/1749-4877.12628.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollard KA, Blumstein DT. 2012. Evolving communicative complexity: insights from rodents and beyond. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 367(1597):1869–1878. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rauber R, Kranstauber B, Manser MB. 2020. Call order within vocal sequences of meerkats contains temporary contextual and individual information. BMC Biol. 18(1):119. doi: 10.1186/s12915-020-00847-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichert MS. 2009. Aggressive thresholds in Dendropsophus ebraccatus: habituation and sensitization to different call types. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 64(4):529–539. doi: 10.1007/s00265-009-0868-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichert MS. 2013. Sources of variability in advertisement and aggressive calling in competitive interactions in the grey treefrog, Hyla versicolor. Bioacoustics. 22(3):195–214. doi: 10.1080/09524622.2013.777942.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichert MS, Hobel G. 2018. Phenotypic integration and the evolution of signal repertoires: a case study of treefrog acoustic communication. Ecol Evol. 8(6):3410–3429. doi: 10.1002/ece3.3927.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson CM, Snyder KT, Creanza N. 2019. Correlated evolution between repertoire size and song plasticity predicts that sexual selection on song promotes open-ended learning. Elife. 8. doi: 10.7554/eLife.44454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz JJ. 1989. Graded aggressive calls of the spring peeper, Pseudacris crucifer. Herpetologica. 45(2):172–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sigafoos J, Gevarter C. 2019. Introduction to the special issue: communication intervention for individuals with complex communication needs. Behav Modif. 43(6):767–773. doi: 10.1177/0145445519868809.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun C, Zhang C, Lucas JR, Gu H, Feng J, Jiang T. 2022. Vocal performance reflects individual quality in male Great Himalayan leaf-nosed bats (Hipposideros armiger). Integr Zool. 17(5):731–740. doi: 10.1111/1749-4877.12545.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suzuki TN, Wheatcroft D, Griesser M. 2016. Experimental evidence for compositional syntax in bird calls. Nat Commun. 7(1):10986. doi: 10.1038/ncomms10986.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Toledo LF, Martins IA, Bruschi DP, Passos MA, Alexandre C, Haddad CFB. 2014. The anuran calling repertoire in the light of social context. Acta Ethol. 18(2):87–99. doi: 10.1007/s10211-014-0194-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tumulty JP, Fouilloux CA, Vallejos JG, Bee MA. 2022. Predicting and measuring decision rules for social recognition in a neotropical frog. Am Nat. 200(2):E77–E92. doi: 10.1086/720279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velez A, Guajardo AS. 2021. Individual variation in two types of advertisement calls of Pacific tree frogs, Hyliola (=Pseudacris) regilla, and the implications for sexual selection and species recognition. Bioacoustics. 30(4):437–457. doi: 10.1080/09524622.2020.1803133.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vesely M, Batista A. 2021. A new species of Atelopus (Amphibia: Bufonidae) from eastern Panama. Zool Res. 42(3):272–279. doi: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vilaça T, Silva JRDS, Solé M. 2011. Vocalization and territorial behaviour of Phyllomedusa nordestina Caramaschi, 2006 (Anura: Hylidae) from southern Bahia, Brazil. J Biogeogr. 45(29–30):1823–1834. doi: 10.1080/00222933.2011.561018.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner WE. 1989. Graded aggressive signals in Blanchard’s cricket frog: vocal responses to opponent proximity and size. Anim Behav. 38(6):1025–1038. doi: 10.1016/s0003-3472(89)80141-1.
   Google Scholar
• Wang J, Ma L, Liang W, Yang C. 2020. Responses of cuckoo hosts to alarm signals of different nest intruders in non-nesting areas. Zool Res. 41(3):345–350. doi: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells KD. 1977. The social behaviour of anuran amphibians. Anim Behav. 25:666–693. doi:10.1016/0003-3472(77)90118-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells KD. 1980. Behavoral ecology and social organization of a dendrobatid frog (Colostethus inguinalis). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 6:199–209. doi:10.1007/BF00569201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiley RH. 2006. Signal detection and animal communication. Adv Stud Behav. 36:217–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao Y, Wang L, Hoyt JR, Jiang T, Lin A, Feng J. 2018. Stereotypy and variability of social calls among clustering female big-footed myotis (Myotis macrodactylus). Zool Res. 39(2):114–122. doi: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2018.026.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu X, Peng Y, Aowphol A, Ding L, Brauth SE, Tang Y. 2011. Geographic variation in the advertisement calls of Gekko gecko in relation to variations in morphological features: implications for regional population differentiation. Ethol Ecol Evol. 23(3):211–228. doi: 10.1080/03949370.2011.566581.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang F, Yuan C, Feng AS. 2020. Female concave-eared torrent frogs prefer smaller males. J Zool. 311(4):239–245. doi: 10.1111/jzo.12775.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu B, Wang J, Brauth SE, Tang Y, Cui J. 2016a. The spectral structure of vocalizations matches hearing sensitivity but imprecisely in Philautus odontotarsus. Bioacoustics. 26(2):121–134. doi: 10.1080/09524622.2016.1221778.
   Google Scholar
• Zhu B, Wang J, Sun Z, Yang Y, Wang T, Brauth SE, Tang Y, Cui J. 2017a. Competitive pressures affect sexual signal complexity in Kurixalus odontotarsus: insights into the evolution of compound calls. Biol Open. 6(12):1913–1918. doi: 10.1242/bio.028928.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu B, Wang J, Zhao L, Chen Q, Sun Z, Yang Y, Brauth SE, Tang Y, Cui J. 2017b. Male-male competition and female choice are differentially affected by male call acoustics in the serrate-legged small treefrog, Kurixalus odontotarsus. Peer J. 5:e3980. doi:10.7717/peerj.3980.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu B, Wang J, Zhao L, Sun Z, Brauth SE, Tang Y, Cui J, Papadopoulos NT. 2016b. Bigger is not always better: females prefer males of mean body size in Philautus odontotarsus. PLoS One. 11(2):e0149879. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149879.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar