Temporal and spectral variation in advertisement call of males Microhyla achatina (Tschudi, 1838) are sufficient for individual discrimination

Individual variation in advertisement calls of the pale-shouldered horned toad (Xenophrys boettgeri)

“…This is in agreement with findings for other anuran species that variability of acoustic properties between individuals can be used as a recognition cue for individual discrimination (Pröhl 2003;Gasser et al 2009;Padial and De la Riva 2009;Pettitt et al 2013;Arini et al 2016;Guerra et al 2017). Some acoustic properties of calls emitted by frogs and toads are sufficient to determine individuality (Bee et al 2001;Pettitt et al 2013;Arini et al 2016). Male X. boettgeri in this study showed higher acoustic variation between individuals than within individuals, which might indicate genetic divergence, different adopted tactics, and directional sexual selection (Morais et al 2012;Velásquez et al 2013;Guerra et al 2017).…”

“…Moreover, the CV b /CV w ratio was above 1.0 for all acoustic parameters analyzed, with between-individual variation being higher than withinindividual variation. This is in agreement with findings for other anuran species that variability of acoustic properties between individuals can be used as a recognition cue for individual discrimination (Pröhl 2003;Gasser et al 2009;Padial and De la Riva 2009;Pettitt et al 2013;Arini et al 2016;Guerra et al 2017). Some acoustic properties of calls emitted by frogs and toads are sufficient to determine individuality (Bee et al 2001;Pettitt et al 2013;Arini et al 2016).…”

“…Acoustic properties are classified as dynamic, intermediate, or static based on the level of variability (Gerhardt 1991;Bee et al 2001;Pröhl 2003;Arini et al 2016). In X. boettgeri, considering within-individual variation, most acoustic properties (note number, call duration, and dominant frequency) were static, whereas call interval was intermediate.…”

“…Several previous studies have documented that anuran vocalization behavior exhibits a continuum of variation, which ensures the recognition of conspecific calls and enables discrimination between individuals (Bee et al 2001;Gasser et al 2009;Rodríguez et al 2010;Arini et al 2016;Bosch et al 2017). There are three levels of variation in call properties: within a single individual, among individuals of the same species, and among individuals of different species (Gerhardt 1991;.…”

“…Static properties have low levels of withinindividual variation (usually < 5%) and tend to be under stabilizing or weakly directional selection. By contrast, dynamic properties exhibit high levels of within-individual variation (> 12%) and tend to be under directional selection (Arini et al 2016;Bosch et al 2017). Static properties (e.g., dominant frequency) are more likely to be used for species recognition because the values are at or near the population mean (Pettitt et al 2013), whereas dynamic properties (e.g., call duration) can potentially be used to determine individual identity because of the high level of among-individual variation (Bee et al 2001;.…”