Larger is not better: no mate preference by European common frog (Rana temporaria) males
In: BehaviourBerlin–Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), Berlin, Germany
Search for other papers by Carolin Dittrich in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Melanie Tietje in
Current site
Google Scholar
Berlin–Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), Berlin, Germany
Search for other papers by Mark-Oliver Rödel in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
In explosive breeding frogs, high intrasexual competition between males leads to a sexual coercion ruled mating system, where males presumably evolved preferences for specific female traits. We tested these preferences in the European Common Frog by excluding intrasexual competition. We hypothesized that all males show preferences towards larger female body size, due to higher fecundity. Our results did not show any preference considering female body size, neither in the attempt to amplex a female nor during the formation of pairs. Additionally, we witnessed a high failure rate of male mating attempts, which hints at high mating costs and offers an explanation for the lack of preferences in males. Nonetheless, we observed a non-random mating pattern in successfully formed pairs, where in the absence of size dimorphism females were on average larger than males. This indicates a different mechanism for selection which is independent from male mating preference or scramble competition.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Arak, A. (1983). Male–male competition and mate choice in anuran amphibians. — In: Mate choice (Bateson, P., ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 181-210.
-
Arntzen, J.W. (1999). Sexual selection and male mate choice in the common toad, Bufo bufo. — Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 11: 407-414.
-
Barry, K.L. & Kokko, H. (2010). Male mate choice: why sequential choice can make its evolution difficult. — Anim. Behav. 80: 163-169.
-
Bartoń, K. (2019). MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. — R package version 1.43.15. Available online at https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn.
-
Bernal, X.E., Rage, R.A., Rand, A.S. & Ryan, M.J. (2007). Cues for eavesdroppers: do frog calls indicate prey density and quality? — Am. Nat. 169: 409-415.
-
Berven, K.A. (1981). Mate choice in the wood frog, Rana sylvatica. — Evolution 35: 707-722.
-
Bossuyt, F., Schulte, L.M., Maex, M., Janssenswillen, S., Novikova, P.Y., Biju, S.D., Van de Peer, Y., Matthijs, S., Roelants, K., Martel, A. & Van Bocxlaer, I. (2019). Multiple independent recruitment of sodefrin precursor-like factors in anuran sexually dimorphic glands. — Mol. Biol. Evol. 36: 19211930.
-
Clarke, G.S., Shine, R. & Phillips, B.L. (2019). May the (selective) force be with you: spatial sorting and natural selection exert opposing forces on limb length in an invasive amphibian. — J. Evol. Biol. 32: 994-1001.
-
Cotton, S., Small, J. & Pomiankowski, A. (2006). Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preference. — Curr. Biol. 16: R755-R765.
-
Davies, N.B. & Halliday, T.R. (1979). Competitive mate searching in male common toads, Bufo bufo. — Anim. Behav. 27: 1253-1267.
-
Dechaume-Moncharmont, F.X., Brom, T. & Cézilly, F. (2016). Opportunity costs resulting from scramble competition within the choosy sex severely impair mate choosiness. — Anim. Behav. 114: 249-260.
-
Dittrich, C., Rodríguez, A., Segev, O., Drakulić, S., Feldhaar, H., Vences, M. & Rödel, M.O. (2018). Temporal migration patterns and mating tactics influence size-assortative mating in Rana temporaria. — Behav. Ecol. 29: 418-428.
-
Dittrich, C. & Rödel, M.O. (2020). Description of female release calls of the European common frog, Rana temporaria (Anura: Ranidae). — Salamandra 56: 91-94.
-
Edward, D.A. & Chapman, T. (2011). The evolution and significance of male mate choice. — Trends Ecol. Evol. 26: 647-654.
-
Elmberg, J. (1987). Random mating in a boreal population of European common frogs Rana temporaria. — Holarct. Ecol. 10: 193-195.
-
Elmberg, J. (1991). Factors affecting male yearly mating success in the common frog, Rana temporaria. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 28: 125-131.
-
Emlen, S.T. & Oring, L.W. (1977). Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. — Science 197: 215-223.
-
Engeler, B. & Reyer, H.-U. (2001). Choosy females and indiscriminate males: mate choice in mixed populations of sexual and hybridogenetic water frogs (Rana lessonae, Rana esculenta). — Behav. Ecol. 12: 600-606.
-
Fawcett, T.W. & Johnstone, R.A. (2003). Mate choice in the face of costly competition. — Behav. Ecol. 14: 771-779.
-
Formica, V.A., Donald-Cannon, H. & Perkins-Taylor, I.E. (2016). Consistent patterns of male mate preference in the laboratory and field. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 70: 1805-1812.
-
Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. (2019). An (R) companion to applied regression. — Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
-
Geisselmann, R., Flindt, R. & Hemmer, H. (1971). Studien zur Biologie, Ökologie und Merkmalsvariabilität der beiden Braunfroscharten Rana temporaria L. und Rana dalmatina Bonaparte. — Zool. Jb. Abt. Syst. 98: 521-568.
-
Gollmann, B., Borkin, L., Grossenbacher, K. & Weddeling, K. (2014). Rana temporaria Linnaeus 1758 — Grasfrosch. — In: Handbuch der Reptilien und Amphibien Europas, Vol. 5/IIIA: Froschlurche (Anura) IIIA, (Ranidae I) (Grossenbacher, K., ed.). Aula-Verlag, Wiebelsheim, p. 305-437.
-
Gross, M.R. (1996). Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: diversity within sexes. — Trends Ecol. Evol. 11: 92-98.
-
Halliday, T.R. & Tejedo, M. (1995). Intrasexual selection and alternative mating behaviour. — In: Amphibian Biology: vol. II: social behaviour (Heatwole, H. & Sullivan, B.K., eds). Surrey Beatty, Chipping Norton, p. 419-468.
-
Halliday, T.R. & Verrell, P.A. (1988). Body size and age in amphibians and reptiles. — J. Herpetol. 22: 253-265.
-
Härdling, R. & Kokko, H. (2005). The evolution of prudent choice. — Evol. Ecol. 7: 697-715.
-
Hettyey, A., Hegyi, G., Puurtinen, M., Hoi, H., Török, J. & Penn, D.J. (2010). Mate choice for genetic benefits: time to put the pieces together. — Ethology 116: 1-9.
-
Höglund, J. (1989). Pairing and spawning patterns in the common toad, Bufo bufo: the effects of sex ratios and the time available for male–male competition. — Anim. Behav. 38: 423-429.
-
Höglund, J. & Robertson, J.G. (1987). Random mating by size in a population of common toads (Bufo bufo). — Amphibia-Reptilia 8: 321-330.
-
Höglund, J. & Robertson, J.G. (1988). Chorusing behaviour, a density-dependent alternative mating strategy in male common toads (Bufo bufo). — Ethology 79: 324-332.
-
Howard, R.D. & Kluge, A.G. (1985). Proximate mechanisms of sexual selection in wood frogs. — Evolution 93: 260-277.
-
Izzo, T.J., Rodrigues, D.J., Menin, M., Lima, A.P. & Magnusson, W.E. (2012). Functional necrophilia: a profitable anuran reproductive strategy? — J. Nat. Hist. 46: 2961-2967.
-
Janetos, A.C. (1980). Strategies of female mate choice: a theoretical analysis. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 7: 107-112.
-
Jennions, M.D. & Petrie, M. (1997). Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. — Biol. Rev. 72: 283-327.
-
Johnstone, R.A., Reynolds, J.D. & Deutsch, J.C. (1996). Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. — Evolution 50: 1382-1391.
-
Kokko, H. & Lindström, J. (1996). Evolution of female preference for old mates. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 263: 1533-1538.
-
Krupa, J.J. (1995). How likely is male mate choice among anurans? — Behaviour 132: 643-664.
-
Lodé, T., Holveck, M.J., Lesbarrères, D. & Pagano, A. (2004). Sex-biased predation by polecats influences the mating systems of frogs. — Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 271: S399-S401.
-
Magnhagen, C. (1991). Predation risk as a cost of reproduction. — Trends Ecol. Evol. 6: 183-186.
-
Marco, A. & Lizana, M. (2002). The absence of species and sex recognition during mate search by male common toads, Bufo bufo. — Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 14: 1-8.
-
Møller, A.P. & Alatalo, R.V. (1999). Good-genes effects in sexual selection. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 266: 85-91.
-
Monnet, J.M. & Cherry, M.I. (2002). Sexual size dimorphism in anurans. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 269: 2301-2307.
-
Nali, R.C., Zamudio, K.R., Haddad, C.F.B. & Prado, C.P.A. (2014). Size-dependent selective mechanisms on males and females and the evolution of sexual size dimorphism in frogs. — Am. Nat. 184: 727-740.
-
Narayan, E.J., Cockrem, J.F. & Hero, J.M. (2012a). Effects of temperature on urinary corticosterone metabolite responses to short-term capture and handling stress in the cane toad (Rhinella marina). — Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 178: 301-305.
-
Narayan, E.J., Molinia, F.C., Cockrem, J.F. & Hero, J.M. (2012b). Individual variation and repeatability in urinary corticosterone metabolite responses to capture in the cane toad (Rhinella marina). — Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 175: 284-289.
-
Olson, D.H., Blaustein, A.R. & O’Hara, R.K. (1986). Mating pattern variability among western toad (Bufo borealis) populations. — Oecologia 70: 351-356.
-
Parker, G.A. (1974). Courtship persistence and female-guarding as male time investment strategies. — Behaviour 48: 15-184.
-
Parker, G.A. (1982). Phenotype-limited evolutionarily stable strategies. — In: Current problems in sociobiology (King’s College Sociobiology Group, ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 173-201.
-
Paul, A. (2002). Sexual selection and mate choice. — Int. J. Primatol. 23: 877-904.
-
Peters, R.H. (1986). The ecological implications of body size, Vol. 2. — Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
-
Qvarnström, A. & Forsgren, E. (1998). Should females prefer dominant males? — Trends Ecol. Evol. 13: 498-501.
-
R Core Team (2020). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. — R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, available online at https://www.R–project.org/.
-
Ryan, M.J. & Keddy-Hector, A. (1992). Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. — Am. Nat. 139: S4-S35.
-
Savage, R.M. (1961). The ecology and life history of the common frog (Rana temporaria temporaria). — Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, London.
-
Shine, R. (1988). The evolution of large body size in females: a critique of Darwin’s “fecundity advantage” model. — Am. Nat. 131: 124-131.
-
Starnberger, I., Preininger, D. & Hödl, W. (2014). From uni- to multimodality: towards an integrative view on anuran communication. — J. Comp. Physiol. A 200: 777-787.
-
Sullivan, M.S. (1994). Mate choice as an information gathering process under time constraint: implications for behaviour and signal design. — Anim. Behav. 47: 141-151.
-
Swierk, L. & Langkilde, T. (2019). Fitness costs of mating with preferred females in a scramble mating system. — Behav. Ecol. 30: 658-665.
-
Swierk, L. & Langkilde, T. (2021). Size-assortative mating in explosive breeders: a case study of adaptive male mate choice in anurans. — Behaviour 158: 849-868.
-
Taylor, R.C., Buchanan, B.W. & Doherty, J.L. (2007). Sexual selection in the squirrel treefrog Hyla squirella: the role of multimodal cue assessment in female choice. — Anim. Behav. 74: 1753-1763.
-
Thomas, M.L. (2011). Detection of female mating status using chemical signals and cues. — Biol. Rev. 86: 1-13.
-
Trauth, S.E., McCallum, M.L. & Cartwright, M.E. (2000). Breeding mortality in the wood frog, Rana sylvatica (Anura: Ranidae), from northcentral Arkansas. — J. Ark. Acad. Sci. 54: 154-156.
-
Vági, B. & Hettyey, A. (2016). Intraspecific and interspecific competition for mates: Rana temporaria males are effective satyrs of Rana dalmatina females. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 70: 1477-1484.
-
Vieites, D.R., Nieto-Román, S., Barluenga, M., Palanca, A., Vences, M. & Meyer, A. (2004). Post-mating clutch piracy in an amphibian. — Nature 431: 305-308.
-
Vojar, J., Chajma, P., Kopecký, O., Puš, V. & Šálek, M. (2015). The effect of sex ratio on size-assortative mating in two explosively breeding anurans. — Amphibia-Reptilia 36: 149-154.
-
Wells, K.D. (1977). The social behaviour of anuran amphibians. — Anim. Behav. 25: 666-693.
-
Wells, K.D. (2007). The ecology and behaviour of amphibians. — University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
-
Wickham, H. (2011). The split — apply — combine strategy for data analysis. — J. Stat. Softw. 40: 1-29.
-
Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. — Springer, New York, NY.
-
Willaert, B., Bossuyt, F., Janssenswillen, S., Adriaens, D., Baggerman, G., Matthjis, S., Pauwels, E., Proost, P., Raepsaet, A., Schoofs, L., Steegen, G., Treer, D., Van Hoorebeke, L., Vandebergh, W. & Van Bocxlaer, I. (2013). Frog nuptial pads secrete mating season-specific proteins related to salamander pheromones. — J. Exp. Biol. 216: 4139-4143.
-
Woodward, B. (1982). Male persistence and mating success in Woodhouse’s toad (Bufo woodhousei). — Ecology 63: 583-585.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1044 | 138 | 8 |
| Full Text Views | 36 | 8 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 66 | 18 | 0 |
Larger is not better: no mate preference by European common frog (Rana temporaria) males
In: BehaviourBerlin–Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), Berlin, Germany
Search for other papers by Carolin Dittrich in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Melanie Tietje in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Berlin–Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), Berlin, Germany
Search for other papers by Mark-Oliver Rödel in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
In explosive breeding frogs, high intrasexual competition between males leads to a sexual coercion ruled mating system, where males presumably evolved preferences for specific female traits. We tested these preferences in the European Common Frog by excluding intrasexual competition. We hypothesized that all males show preferences towards larger female body size, due to higher fecundity. Our results did not show any preference considering female body size, neither in the attempt to amplex a female nor during the formation of pairs. Additionally, we witnessed a high failure rate of male mating attempts, which hints at high mating costs and offers an explanation for the lack of preferences in males. Nonetheless, we observed a non-random mating pattern in successfully formed pairs, where in the absence of size dimorphism females were on average larger than males. This indicates a different mechanism for selection which is independent from male mating preference or scramble competition.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1044 | 138 | 8 |
| Full Text Views | 36 | 8 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 66 | 18 | 0 |