4.7 Article

Sensory biases in response to novel complex acoustic signals in male and female grey treefrogs, Hyla chrysoscelis

Journal

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2022.1306

Keywords

sensory bias; signal evolution; sexual selection; complex signal; treefrog; playback

Ask authors/readers for more resources

By studying the preferences of both sexes in response to novel mating signals in grey treefrogs, evidence of sensory bias was found in both males and females: males exhibited more intense responses to complex stimuli, while females sometimes preferred complex stimuli.
The sensory bias hypothesis proposes that female preferences for male sexual signalling traits evolved in contexts other than mating. Individuals of both sexes may experience similar selection pressures in these contexts; thus males may have similar biases to females for variation in signal traits. We tested this prediction in the grey treefrog, Hyla chrysoscelis, in which males produce simple advertisement calls, but females are more attracted to certain novel complex stimuli. We recorded males' responses to playbacks of both simple advertisement calls and complex calls consisting of the advertisement call with an acoustic appendage (filtered noise, or heterospecific call pulses) either leading or following the call. We tested females' preferences for the same stimuli in phonotaxis tests. We found evidence for a sensory bias in both sexes: males gave more aggressive calls in response to complex stimuli and females sometimes preferred complex over simple calls. These biases were not universal and depended on both temporal order and appendage characteristics, but how these effects manifested differed between the sexes. Ultimately, our approach of studying biases of both sexes in response to novel mating signals will shed light on the origin of mating preferences, and the mechanisms by which sensory biases operate.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available