Environmental and morphological constraints interact to drive the evolution of communication signals in frogs

Abstract

word count: 295 words. 8 9 Total word count: 2982 words.

Amplification of frog calls by leaf substrates: implications for terrestrial and arboreal species

“…Indeed, male rocket frogs have smaller body size (SVL = 14-17 mm, Savage 2002) than glass frogs (SVL = 19-28 mm, Savage 2002), and consequently call at higher frequencies. Interspecific body size variation in frogs is related to the utilization of different calling posts, such as aquatic and non-aquatic sites (Muñoz et al 2020), and also to environmental factors relevant for heat and water balance (Amado et al 2019). For example, male spring pepper frogs ( Pseudacris crucifer ) calling from above the ground are larger and their calls propagate further, but experience a six-fold increase in desiccation rate relative to frogs calling near the ground (Cicchino et al 2020).…”

“…Frequency-dependent effects of calling sites are probably more widespread than currently appreciated, and include the leaves investigated here, but also other structures like resonant cavities (e.g, Muñoz and Penna 2016). Furthermore, calling sites may also have a direct impact on sound production mechanisms, with consequences for the frequency content and attractiveness of signals (e.g., Smit et al 2019, Goutte et al 2020, Muñoz et al 2020). Yet, understanding how evolutionary changes in intrinsic factors, such as body size, can impact the way organism interact with display sites is still a gap in our knowledge.…”