4.2 Article

The spectral structure of vocalizations match hearing sensitivity but imprecisely in Philautus odontotarsus

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09524622.2016.1221778

Keywords

Auditory brainstem response; auditory sexual difference; the matched filter hypothesis; body size; Philautus odontotarsus

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31270042, 31260518, 31372217]
  2. Youth Professor Project of CIB
  3. Youth Innovation Promotion Association of CAS
  4. Open Fund of the Hainan Province Key Laboratory of Tropical Plant and Animal Ecology (Hainan Normal University)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It is generally thought that for species using vocal communication the spectral properties of the sender's calls should match the frequency sensitivity of the receiver's auditory system. Nevertheless, few studies have investigated both sender and receiver characteristics in anuran species. In the present study, auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) were recorded in the serrate legged treefrog, Philautus odontotarsus, in order to determine if male call spectral structure and hearing sensitivity in males and females have co-evolved in this species. The results showed that the spectral structures of male vocalization match both male and female hearing sensitivity, even though the dominant frequencies of male calls (2.5 kHz) are mismatched with the regions of best frequency sensitivity (1.4 and 2.8 kHz). In addition, the results show that, in contrast with most previous ABR studies in non-human animals, but consistent with human studies, there are noticeable sex differences in peripheral auditory sensitivity in Philautus insofar as females exhibit lower auditory thresholds than males across the entire 1.8-18 kHz frequency range. The results also show that the dominant frequency of male calls is negatively correlated with body size, indicating that call characteristics reflect body size in this species which may be used by females during mate choice.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available