» Articles » PMID: 28070304

An Exception to the Matched Filter Hypothesis: A Mismatch of Male Call Frequency and Female Best Hearing Frequency in a Torrent Frog

Overview
Journal Ecol Evol
Date 2017 Jan 11
PMID 28070304
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The matched filter hypothesis proposes that the tuning of auditory sensitivity and the spectral character of calls will match in order to maximize auditory processing efficiency during courtship. In this study, we analyzed the acoustic structure of male calls and both male and female hearing sensitivities in the little torrent frog (), an anuran species who transmits acoustic signals across streams. The results were in striking contradiction to the matched filter hypothesis. Auditory brainstem response results showed that the best hearing range was 1.6-2 kHz consistent with the best sensitive frequency of most terrestrial lentic taxa, yet completely mismatched with the dominant frequency of conspecific calls (4.3 kHz). Moreover, phonotaxis tests show that females strongly prefer high-frequency (4.3 kHz) over low-frequency calls (1.6 kHz) regardless of ambient noise levels, although peripheral auditory sensitivity is highest in the 1.6-2 kHz range. These results are consistent with the idea that evolved from nonstreamside species and that high-frequency calls evolved under the pressure of stream noise. Our results also suggest that female preferences based on central auditory system characteristics may evolve independently of peripheral auditory system sensitivity in order to maximize communication effectiveness in noisy environments.

Citing Articles

Peripheral hearing sensitivity is similar between the sexes in a benthic turtle species despite the larger body size of males.

Wang T, Yang J, Lei J, Huang J, Shi H, Wang J Ecol Evol. 2024; 14(8):e70130.

PMID: 39130099 PMC: 11310098. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.70130.


Size matters: individual variation in auditory sensitivity may influence sexual selection in Pacific treefrogs (Pseudacris regilla).

Velez A, Sandoval S J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2024; 210(5):771-784.

PMID: 38367051 DOI: 10.1007/s00359-024-01690-w.


Parasite defensive limb movements enhance acoustic signal attraction in male little torrent frogs.

Zhao L, Wang J, Zhang H, Wang T, Yang Y, Tang Y Elife. 2022; 11.

PMID: 35522043 PMC: 9122496. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.76083.


Geographic variation in the matching between call characteristics and tympanic sensitivity in the Weeping lizard.

Labra A, Reyes-Olivares C, Moreno-Gomez F, Velasquez N, Penna M, Delano P Ecol Evol. 2022; 11(24):18633-18650.

PMID: 35003698 PMC: 8717325. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.8469.


Reciprocal Matched Filtering in the Inner Ear of the African Clawed Frog (Xenopus laevis).

Cobo-Cuan A, Narins P J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2020; 21(1):33-42.

PMID: 31907715 PMC: 7062955. DOI: 10.1007/s10162-019-00740-4.


References
1.
Wilczynski W, Rand A, Ryan M . Evolution of calls and auditory tuning in the Physalaemus pustulosus species group. Brain Behav Evol. 2002; 58(3):137-51. DOI: 10.1159/000047268. View

2.
Zhang D, Cui J, Tang Y . Plasticity of peripheral auditory frequency sensitivity in Emei music frog. PLoS One. 2012; 7(9):e45792. PMC: 3445498. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045792. View

3.
Pfennig K, Pfennig D . Character displacement: ecological and reproductive responses to a common evolutionary problem. Q Rev Biol. 2009; 84(3):253-76. PMC: 3279117. DOI: 10.1086/605079. View

4.
Grafe T, Preininger D, Sztatecsny M, Kasah R, Dehling J, Proksch S . Multimodal communication in a noisy environment: a case study of the Bornean rock frog Staurois parvus. PLoS One. 2012; 7(5):e37965. PMC: 3360010. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037965. View

5.
Brittan-Powell E, Christensen-Dalsgaard J, Tang Y, Carr C, Dooling R . The auditory brainstem response in two lizard species. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010; 128(2):787-94. PMC: 2933256. DOI: 10.1121/1.3458813. View