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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |