CSIRO Publishing blank image blank image blank image blank imageBooksblank image blank image blank image blank imageJournalsblank image blank image blank image blank imageAbout Usblank image blank image blank image blank imageShopping Cartblank image blank image blank image You are here: Journals > Australian Journal of Zoology   
Australian Journal of Zoology
Journal Banner
  Evolutionary, Molecular and Comparative Zoology
 
blank image Search
 
blank image blank image
blank image
 
  Advanced Search
   

Journal Home
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Contacts
Content
Online Early
Current Issue
Just Accepted
All Issues
Special Issues
Sample Issue
For Authors
General Information
Notice to Authors
Submit Article
Open Access
For Referees
Referee Guidelines
Review Article
Annual Referee Index
For Subscribers
Subscription Prices
Customer Service
Print Publication Dates

blue arrow e-Alerts
blank image
Subscribe to our Email Alert or RSS feeds for the latest journal papers.

red arrow Connect with us
blank image
facebook twitter youtube

red arrow Supplementary Series
blank image
All volumes of the Australian Journal of Zoology Supplementary Series are online and available to subscribers of Australian Journal of Zoology.

 

Article << Previous     |     Next >>   Contents Vol 60(2)

Assessing the information content of calls of Litoria chloris: quality signalling versus individual recognition

Morgan J. McLean A C , Phillip J. Bishop A , Jean-Marc Hero B and Shinichi Nakagawa A

A Department of Zoology, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand.
B Environmental Futures Centre, School of Environment, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Qld 4222, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: morganmclean16@gmail.com

Australian Journal of Zoology 60(2) 120-126 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/ZO12014
Submitted: 8 February 2012  Accepted: 29 July 2012   Published: 14 September 2012


 
PDF (256 KB) $25
 Supplementary Material
 Export Citation
 Print
  
Abstract

In many species, male animals produce costly signals to attract females. Intersexual indicator theories propose that these signals are indicative of male quality, whereas individual recognition models are based on the idea that male signals are used primarily to allow for individual discrimination. These two types of models make differing predictions about the nature of male signals. In particular, these models’ predictions differ in the information about a male’s quality that will be included in his signal, the frequency distributions of male signals in a population, and the ways in which the different traits that make up a signal will covary. Calls from the Australian frog Litoria chloris were tested for consistency with the predictions of intersexual indicator models and individual recognition models. The calls were found to contain minimal information on male quality, and the covariance between different signal traits was consistent with the individual recognition models. However, the frequency distributions of male signal traits agreed with intersexual indicator models. In addition, this study found evidence that the information content of calls may instead mediate intrasexual interactions, although more research is required to determine if this is the case.





References

Alatalo, R. V., Hoglund, J., and Lundberg, A. (1988). Patterns of variation in tail ornament size in birds. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. Linnean Society of London 34, 363–374.
CrossRef |

Andersson, M. (1986). Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences – sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution 40, 804–816.
CrossRef |

Andersson, M. (1994). ‘Sexual Selection.’ (Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.)

Andersson, M., and Simmons, L. W. (2006). Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21, 296–302.
CrossRef |

Barker, J., Grigg, G., and Tyler, M. (1995). ‘A Field Guide to Australian Frogs.’ (Surrey Beatty: Sydney.)

Barnard, C. J., and Burk, T. (1979). Dominance hierarchies and the evolution of individual recognition. Journal of Theoretical Biology 81, 65–73.
CrossRef | CAS |

Bee, M. A., and Gerhardt, H. C. (2001). Neighbour–stranger discrimination by territorial male bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana): I. Acoustic basis. Animal Behaviour 62, 1129–1140.
CrossRef |

Bee, M. A., Kozich, C. E., Blackwell, K. J., and Gerhardt, H. C. (2001). Individual variation in advertisement calls of territorial male green frogs, Rana clamitans: implications for individual discrimination. Ethology 107, 65–84.
CrossRef |

Beecher, M. D. (1982). Signature systems and kin recognition. American Zoologist 22, 477–490.

Beecher, M. D. (1989). Signaling systems for individual recognition – an information theory approach. Animal Behaviour 38, 248–261.
CrossRef |

Castellano, S., and Giacoma, C. (1998). Stabilizing and directional female choice for male calls in the European green toad. Animal Behaviour 56, 275–287.
CrossRef |

Dale, J. (2000). Ornamental plumage does not signal male quality in red-billed queleas. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 267, 2143–2149.
CrossRef | CAS |

Dale, J., Lank, D. B., and Hudson Kern, R. (2001). Signaling individual identity versus quality: a model and case studies with ruffs, queleas, and house finches. American Naturalist 158, 75–86.
CrossRef | CAS |

Davies, N. B., and Halliday, T. R. (1977). Optimal mate selection in the toad Bufo bufo. Nature 269, 56–58.
CrossRef |

Davies, N. B., and Halliday, T. R. (1978). Deep croaks and fighting assessment in toads Bufo bufo. Nature 274, 683–685.
CrossRef |

Davies, M., and McDonald, K. R. (1979). A study of intraspecific variation in the green tree frog Litoria chloris (Boulenger) (Hylidae). Australian Zoologist 20, 347–359.

Dyson, M. L., Henzi, S. P., Halliday, T. R., and Barrett, L. (1998). Success breeds success in mating male reed frogs (Hyperolius marmoratus). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 265, 1417–1421.
CrossRef | CAS |

Gasser, H., Amézquita, A., and Hödl, W. (2009). Who is calling? Intraspecific call variation in the aromobatid frog Allobates femoralis. Ethology 115, 596–607.
CrossRef |

Gibbons, M. M., and Mccarthy, T. K. (1986). The reproductive output of frogs Rana temporaria with particular reference to body size and age. Journal of Zoology 209, 579–593.
CrossRef |

Halliday, T. R., and Verrell, P. A. (1988). Body size and age in amphibians and reptiles. Journal of Herpetology 22, 253–265.
CrossRef |

Hill, G. E. (1992). Proximate basis of variation in carotenoid pigmentation in male house finches. The Auk 109, 1–12.

Hill, G. E. (1996). Redness as a measure of the production cost of ornamental coloration. Ethology Ecology and Evolution 8, 157–175.
CrossRef |

Johnstone, R. A. (1997). Recognition and the evolution of distinctive signatures: when does it pay to reveal identity? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 264, 1547–1553.
CrossRef |

Jones, A. G., and Ratterman, N. L. (2009). Mate choice and sexual selection: what have we learned since Darwin? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106, 10 001–10 008.
CrossRef | CAS |

Kodric-Brown, A., and Brown, J. H. (1984). Truth in advertising – the kinds of traits favored by sexual selection. American Naturalist 124, 309–323.
CrossRef |

Kokko, H., Jennions, M. D., and Brooks, R. (2006). Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 37, 43–66.
CrossRef |

Maynard Smith, J. (1982). ‘Evolution and the theory of games.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge)

Møller, A.P., and Jennions, M.D. (2001). How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection? Naturwissenschaften 88, 401–415.

Møller, A. P., and Pomiankowski, A. (1993). Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 32, 167–176.
CrossRef |

Morris, M. R. (1989). Female choice of large males in the treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis – the importance of identifying the scale of choice. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 25, 275–281.
CrossRef |

Morris, M. R., and Yoon, S. L. (1989). A mechanism for female choice of large males in the treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 25, 65–71.
CrossRef |

Morrison, C., Hero, J. M., and Smith, W. P. (2001). Mate selection in Litoria chloris and Litoria xanthomera: females prefer smaller males. Austral Ecology 26, 223–232.
CrossRef |

Pinheiro, J. C., and Bates, D. M. (2000). ‘Mixed Effects Models in S and S-Plus.’ (Springer-Verlag: New York.)

Prohl, H. (2003). Variation in male calling behaviour and relation to male mating success in the strawberry poison frog (Dendrobates pumilio). Ethology 109, 273–290.
CrossRef |

R Development CoreTeam (2010). ‘R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.’ (R Foundation For Statistical Computing: Vienna.)

Richardson, C., Joly, P., Léna, J., Plénet, S., and Lengagne, T. (2010). The challenge of finding a high-quality male: a treefrog solution based on female assessment of male calls. Behaviour 147, 1737–1752.
CrossRef |

Roberts, D.W. (2007). Labdsv: Ordination and multivariate analysis for ecology. R package version 1.

Robertson, J. G. M. (1986). Female choice, male strategies and the role of vocalizations in the Australian frog Uperoleia rugosa. Animal Behaviour 34, 773–784.
CrossRef |

Ryan, M. J. (1986). Factors influencing the evolution of acoustic communication – biological constraints. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 28, 70–82.
CrossRef | CAS |

Ryan, M. J. (1991). Sexual selection and communication in frogs. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 6, 351–355.
CrossRef | CAS |

Schielzeth, H. (2010). Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 1, 103–113.
CrossRef |

Schulte-Hostedde, A. J., and Schank, C. M. M. (2009). Secondary sexual traits and individual phenotype in male green frogs (Rana clamitans). Journal of Herpetology 43, 89–95.
CrossRef |

van Rhijn, J. G., and Vodegel, R. (1980). Being honest about one’s intentions – an evolutionary stable strategy for animal conflicts. Journal of Theoretical Biology 85, 623–641.
CrossRef | CAS |

Venables, W. N., and Ripley, B. D. (2002). ‘Modern Applied Statistics with S.’ 4th edn. (Springer: New York.)

Wagner, W. E. (1989). Fighting assessment, and frequency alteration in blanchard cricket frogs. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 25, 429–436.
CrossRef |

Welch, A. M. (2003). Genetic benefits of a female mating preference in gray tree frogs are context-dependent. Evolution 57, 883–893.

Welch, A. M., Semlitsch, R. D., and Gerhardt, H. C. (1998). Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280, 1928–1930.
CrossRef | CAS |

Wells, K. D. (1977). Territoriality and male mating success in the green frog (Rana clamitans). Ecology 58, 750–762.
CrossRef |

Wolfenbarger, L. L. (1999). Red coloration of male northern cardinals correlates with mate quality and territory quality. Behavioral Ecology 10, 80–90.
CrossRef |

Woodward, B. D. (1987). Paternal effects on offspring traits in Scaphiopus couchi (Anura, Pelobatidae). Oecologia 73, 626–629.
CrossRef |

Ydenberg, R. C., Giraldeau, L. A., and Falls, J. B. (1988). Neighbours, strangers, and the asymmetric war of attrition. Animal Behaviour 36, 343–347.
CrossRef |

Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection – selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology 53, 205–214.
CrossRef | CAS |


   
Subscriber Login
Username:
Password:  

 
    
Legal & Privacy | Contact Us | Help

CSIRO

© CSIRO 1996-2014