Cargando…

Evidence of auditory insensitivity to vocalization frequencies in two frogs

The emergence and maintenance of animal communication systems requires the co-evolution of signal and receiver. Frogs and toads rely heavily on acoustic communication for coordinating reproduction and typically have ears tuned to the dominant frequency of their vocalizations, allowing discrimination...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Goutte, Sandra, Mason, Matthew J., Christensen-Dalsgaard, Jakob, Montealegre-Z, Fernando, Chivers, Benedict D., Sarria-S, Fabio A., Antoniazzi, Marta M., Jared, Carlos, Almeida Sato, Luciana, Felipe Toledo, Luís
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5608807/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28935936
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-12145-5
_version_ 1783265499198521344
author Goutte, Sandra
Mason, Matthew J.
Christensen-Dalsgaard, Jakob
Montealegre-Z, Fernando
Chivers, Benedict D.
Sarria-S, Fabio A.
Antoniazzi, Marta M.
Jared, Carlos
Almeida Sato, Luciana
Felipe Toledo, Luís
author_facet Goutte, Sandra
Mason, Matthew J.
Christensen-Dalsgaard, Jakob
Montealegre-Z, Fernando
Chivers, Benedict D.
Sarria-S, Fabio A.
Antoniazzi, Marta M.
Jared, Carlos
Almeida Sato, Luciana
Felipe Toledo, Luís
author_sort Goutte, Sandra
collection PubMed
description The emergence and maintenance of animal communication systems requires the co-evolution of signal and receiver. Frogs and toads rely heavily on acoustic communication for coordinating reproduction and typically have ears tuned to the dominant frequency of their vocalizations, allowing discrimination from background noise and heterospecific calls. However, we present here evidence that two anurans, Brachycephalus ephippium and B. pitanga, are insensitive to the sound of their own calls. Both species produce advertisement calls outside their hearing sensitivity range and their inner ears are partly undeveloped, which accounts for their lack of high-frequency sensitivity. If unheard by the intended receivers, calls are not beneficial to the emitter and should be selected against because of the costs associated with signal production. We suggest that protection against predators conferred by their high toxicity might help to explain why calling has not yet disappeared, and that visual communication may have replaced auditory in these colourful, diurnal frogs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5608807
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56088072017-10-10 Evidence of auditory insensitivity to vocalization frequencies in two frogs Goutte, Sandra Mason, Matthew J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, Jakob Montealegre-Z, Fernando Chivers, Benedict D. Sarria-S, Fabio A. Antoniazzi, Marta M. Jared, Carlos Almeida Sato, Luciana Felipe Toledo, Luís Sci Rep Article The emergence and maintenance of animal communication systems requires the co-evolution of signal and receiver. Frogs and toads rely heavily on acoustic communication for coordinating reproduction and typically have ears tuned to the dominant frequency of their vocalizations, allowing discrimination from background noise and heterospecific calls. However, we present here evidence that two anurans, Brachycephalus ephippium and B. pitanga, are insensitive to the sound of their own calls. Both species produce advertisement calls outside their hearing sensitivity range and their inner ears are partly undeveloped, which accounts for their lack of high-frequency sensitivity. If unheard by the intended receivers, calls are not beneficial to the emitter and should be selected against because of the costs associated with signal production. We suggest that protection against predators conferred by their high toxicity might help to explain why calling has not yet disappeared, and that visual communication may have replaced auditory in these colourful, diurnal frogs. Nature Publishing Group UK 2017-09-21 /pmc/articles/PMC5608807/ /pubmed/28935936 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-12145-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Goutte, Sandra
Mason, Matthew J.
Christensen-Dalsgaard, Jakob
Montealegre-Z, Fernando
Chivers, Benedict D.
Sarria-S, Fabio A.
Antoniazzi, Marta M.
Jared, Carlos
Almeida Sato, Luciana
Felipe Toledo, Luís
Evidence of auditory insensitivity to vocalization frequencies in two frogs
title Evidence of auditory insensitivity to vocalization frequencies in two frogs
title_full Evidence of auditory insensitivity to vocalization frequencies in two frogs
title_fullStr Evidence of auditory insensitivity to vocalization frequencies in two frogs
title_full_unstemmed Evidence of auditory insensitivity to vocalization frequencies in two frogs
title_short Evidence of auditory insensitivity to vocalization frequencies in two frogs
title_sort evidence of auditory insensitivity to vocalization frequencies in two frogs
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5608807/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28935936
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-12145-5
work_keys_str_mv AT gouttesandra evidenceofauditoryinsensitivitytovocalizationfrequenciesintwofrogs
AT masonmatthewj evidenceofauditoryinsensitivitytovocalizationfrequenciesintwofrogs
AT christensendalsgaardjakob evidenceofauditoryinsensitivitytovocalizationfrequenciesintwofrogs
AT montealegrezfernando evidenceofauditoryinsensitivitytovocalizationfrequenciesintwofrogs
AT chiversbenedictd evidenceofauditoryinsensitivitytovocalizationfrequenciesintwofrogs
AT sarriasfabioa evidenceofauditoryinsensitivitytovocalizationfrequenciesintwofrogs
AT antoniazzimartam evidenceofauditoryinsensitivitytovocalizationfrequenciesintwofrogs
AT jaredcarlos evidenceofauditoryinsensitivitytovocalizationfrequenciesintwofrogs
AT almeidasatoluciana evidenceofauditoryinsensitivitytovocalizationfrequenciesintwofrogs
AT felipetoledoluis evidenceofauditoryinsensitivitytovocalizationfrequenciesintwofrogs