Male green frogs lower the pitch of acoustic signals in defense of territories: a possible dishonest signal of size?
By M. Bee, S. A. Perrill, Patrick C. Owen. 2000
174 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Developmental Biology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Global and Planetary Change
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9697577b1d1ad180d6293905931c6eee7472345c
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Developmental Biology
In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
In Global and Planetary Change
Citations in the corpus
- The Behavioral Ecology of Anuran Communication (2007, background): “For example, the playback tests of Bee et al. (2000) indicate that such a bluffing strategy is conditional in green frogs, Rana clamitans, depending on the relative size of the interactants.”
- The use of bioacoustics in anuran taxonomy: theory, terminology, methods and recommendations for best practice. (2017, background): “Similarly, male green frogs (Lithobates clamitans) can lower the dominant frequency of their calls in response to broadcasts of conspecific calls (Bee & Perrill 1996; Bee et al. 2000), and males of Anaxyrus americanus emitted calls with lower frequencies when their calls overlapped with calls of oth”
- Multisensory synesthetic interactions in the speeded classification of visual size (2006, background): “Furthermore, information regarding vocalization pitch is used by certain species of animals to estimate the size of their competitors (see, e.g., Bee, Perrill, & Owen, 2000; Harrington, 1987).6 However, further developmental research will be needed to determine whether synesthetic associations bet”
- Territorial vocal rallying in the green woodhoopoe: influence of rival group size and composition (2003, unknown): “Despite the expected rarity of dishonest signalling (Dawkins & Krebs 1978; Grafen 1990) and the limited empirical evidence of its occurrence (Steger & Caldwell 1983; Bee et al. 2000), several models have been developed to show that a low frequency of dishonest signals can be stable in a population (”
- Recognition and Localization of Acoustic Signals (2007, background): “1988), males of most other species either lowered the fundamental frequency of their calls (e.g., Wagner 1989b; Grafe 1995; Bee et al. 2000; Bee and Bowling 2002; Burmeister et al. 2002) or shifted the acoustic energy within their broadband signals toward lower frequencies (e.”
- Plasticity in the vocalizations of anurans in response to traffic noise (2010, background): “, 2009) and anurans (Bee, 2000; Lardner and bin Lakim, 2002; Penna and Hamilton-West, 2007; Parris et al., 2009) it is not yet knownwhether this is a plastic or fixed response.”
- Research, part of a Special Feature on Effects of Roads and Traffic on Wildlife Populations and Landscape Function Frogs Call at a Higher Pitch in Traffic Noise (2009, background): “…of their advertisement calls by up to 180 Hz when they hear other males calling nearby (e.g., Wagner 1989, Howard and Young 1998, Given 1999, Bee et al. 2000, Giacoma and Castellano 2001, Owen and Gordon 2005), even though call frequency is generally considered to be a static property…”