Abstract
Background
Anuran vocalizations, such as advertisement and release calls, are informative for taxonomy because species recognition can be based on those signals. Thus, a proper acoustic description of the calls may support taxonomic decisions and may contribute to knowledge about amphibian phylogeny.
Methods
Here we present a perspective on advertisement call descriptions of the frog subfamily Lophyohylinae, through a literature review and a spatial analysis presenting bioacoustic coldspots (sites with high diversity of species lacking advertisement call descriptions) for this taxonomic group. Additionally, we describe the advertisement and release calls of the still poorly known treefrog, Itapotihyla langsdorffii. We analyzed recordings of six males using the software Raven Pro 1.4 and calculated the coefficient of variation for classifying static and dynamic acoustic properties.
Results and Discussion
We found that more than half of the species within the subfamily do not have their vocalizations described yet. Most of these species are distributed in the western and northern Amazon, where recording sampling effort should be strengthened in order to fill these gaps. The advertisement call of I. langsdorffii is composed of 3–18 short unpulsed notes (mean of 13 ms long), presents harmonic structure, and has a peak dominant frequency of about 1.4 kHz. This call usually presents amplitude modulation, with decreasing intensity along the sequence of notes. The release call is a simple unpulsed note with an average duration of 9 ms, and peak dominant frequency around 1.8 kHz. Temporal properties presented higher variations than spectral properties at both intra- and inter-individual levels. However, only peak dominant frequency was static at intra-individual level. High variability in temporal properties and lower variations related to spectral ones is usual for anurans; The first set of variables is determined by social environment or temperature, while the second is usually related to species-recognition process. Here we review and expand the acoustic knowledge of the subfamily Lophyohylinae, highlighting areas and species for future research.
Keywords: Anura, Bioacoustics, Call repertoire, Hylidae, Taxonomy, Vocalization
Introduction
The acoustic repertoire of a species may include signals encoding information about physiological state, location and social status (Snowdon, 2011). In anurans, the most prevalent acoustic signal is the advertisement call, which is used, at least, for mate attraction, sexual selection and territorial defense (Duellman, 1970; Wells, 2007; Wells & Schwartz, 2007). As a crucial element of reproductive isolation (Gerhardt, 1992; Ryan & Rand, 2001; Padial et al., 2008), such acoustic signals present properties related to species recognition (Ryan & Rand, 2001; Wells & Schwartz, 2007). In this context, the divergent evolution between sister species may modulate acoustic differences (Wilkins, Seddon & Safran, 2013). Generally, spectral properties, such as dominant and minimum frequency, are body size dependent (Gingras et al., 2013) and related to the process of conspecific recognition, since these variables tend to be static (i.e., presenting lower intraspecific variation) (sensu Gerhardt, 1991). However, temporal properties, such as call duration and pulse rate, in turn, show higher variability (Márquez & Eekhout, 2006; Briggs, 2010; Forti, Strüssman & Mott, 2010; Kaefer & Lima, 2012; Forti, Márquez & Bertoluci, 2015; Forti et al., 2016), and are determined by social and climatic conditions (Wong et al., 2004; Lingnau & Bastos, 2007).
Another important acoustic signal for the mate recognition system is the release call, which acts as a negative response to male mating attempt (Toledo et al., 2015). This signal may provide information about the identity of the sender (Sullivan, 1989; Duellman & Trueb, 1994; Castellano et al., 2002), which justifies their formal descriptions as being potentially useful for species diagnosis, taxonomic and phylogenetic studies (Brown & Littlejohn, 1972; Di Tada, Martino & Sinsch, 2001; Köhler et al., 2017).
In order to better understand the taxonomy and the diversity of anuran groups of interest, review articles including comparisons of vocalization properties are important (e.g., Hepp, Lourenço & Pombal Jr, 2017; Forti, Martins & Bertoluci, 2012; Forti, Márquez & Bertoluci, 2015; Forti, Lingnau & Bertoluci, 2017). In addition, the identification of geographical gaps is of great value for future research. Here we apply such an approach for a subfamily of hylid frogs (Lophyohylinae), in which only a fraction of species have their calls formally described. This subfamily has 85 species within 12 genera, which are widely distributed in South and Central America (Frost, 2018).
As in many other Neotropical species, the acoustic repertoire of Itapotihyla langsdorffii (Dumeril & Bibron, 1841), a species in the subfamily Lophyohylinae, is poorly studied and only a short description of the advertisement call from a population from Argentina (far from its type locality) was published (Straneck, Olmedo & De Carrizo, 1993). This is a monotypic taxon described from “baixada fluminense”, municipality of Rio de Janeiro (Frost, 2018). However, the species has a wide distribution with populations occurring along the Atlantic forest (and peripheral areas in the Cerrado Biome), in Brazil from the state of Rio Grande do Sul to the state of Sergipe (Cazelli & Moura, 2012). Populations also occur in northeastern Argentina and southeastern Paraguay (Frost, 2018). Most recent phylogenies place Itapotihyla langsdorffii as sister to species in the genera Aparasphenodon, Argenteohyla, Corythomantis, Dryaderces, Nyctimantis, Osteocephalus, Osteopilus, Phyllodytes, Phytotriades, Tepuihyla and Trachycephalus (Duellman, Marion & Hedges, 2016; Frost, 2018).
Herein we present an overview on the acoustic knowledge of the subfamily Lophyohylinae, pointing to new directions for recording efforts, and describe the advertisement and release calls of Itapotihyla langsdorffii from southeastern Brazil, reporting variations of its call properties.
Methods
Identification of bioacoustic coldspots and acoustic data of Lophyohylinae
For the spatial analysis of bioacoustic coldspots (=areas with the highest number of species lacking call descriptions) of the subfamily Lophyohylinae, we compiled the geographical distribution dataset of species with unknown vocalizations based on the IUCN (2017) database and articles with available information on the species geographical distribution. We created shape files editing minimum convex polygons of each species distribution using the software ArcMap 10.5. Each species occurrence shape file was interpolated in a grid (0.25 degree resolution) Boolean matrix spanning the latitude and longitude range 36°N–60°S; 116°W–132°W. The Boolean matrixes for all species are summed and result in the agglomeration species map, as shown in Fig. 1.
Figure 1. Bioacoustic coldspots and species richness hotspots for the subfamily Lophyohylinae.
(A) Bioacoustic coldspots and (B) species richness hotspots for the subfamily Lophyohylinae. Darker colors represents greater density of species.
We reviewed data from the available literature (scientific journal articles and text books using web search tools, as Google search, Google Scholar and ResearchGate, see Table 1) that present call descriptions of the species within the subfamily Lophyohylinae. This allowed us to compile the information into a comparative table with acoustic data for 39 species.
Table 1. Advertisement call properties of species in the Lophyohylinae subfamily.
Values are present as mean ± SD (range).
| Species | Simple/ complex call | Note type | Tonal/ Pulsed | Notes per call | Duration call (s) | Internote interval (s) | Note duration (s) | Mininum frequency (Hz) | Maximum frequency (Hz) | Peak dominant frequency (Hz) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aparasphenodon arapapa | Simple | – | Pulsed | – | – | – | 0.15 ± 0.02 (0.13–0.18) | 604.82 ± 24.56 (557.9–647.2) | 2,122.42 ± 212.9 (1,847.7–2,588.9) | 1,481.52 ± 36.30 (1,464.3–1,550.4) | Lourenço-De-Moraes et al. (2013) |
| Argenteohyla siemersi | Simple | – | Pulsed | – | 1.180–5.420 | – | – | – | – | (1,700–2,070) | Cajade et al. (2010) |
| Corythomantis greeningi | Simple | A | Pulsed | 0.252 ± 0.047 (0.079–0.3420) | 0.252 ± 0.047 (0.079–0.3420) | 860 ± 98 (730–1,250) | Juncá, Carneiro & Rodrigues (2008) | ||||
| Corythomantis greeningi | Simple | B | Pulsed | 0.071 ± 0.013 (0.039–0.1) | 980 ± 210 (730–1,460) | Juncá, Carneiro & Rodrigues (2008) | |||||
| Itapotihyla langsdorffii* | Simple | – | Tonal | 11.7 ± 7.4 (3–36) | 0.675 ± 0.211 (0.763–2.796) | 0.0713 ± 0.06 (0.006–0.61) | 0.035 ± 0.016 (0.009–0.103) | 1,086 ± 201 (187–1,507) | 2,499 ± 279 (1,406–3,531) | (1,033–2,799) | This study |
| Nyctimantis rugiceps | Simple | – | Pulsed | – | – | – | – | – | – | 847 (478–1,130) | Duellman & Trueb (1976) |
| Osteocephalus buckleyi | Simple | – | Pulsed | – | – | – | – | – | – | 745.66 ± 0.87 (745.04–746.28) | Ron et al. (2012) |
| Osteocephalus cannatellai | Simple | – | Tonal | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1,049.54 ± 247.18 (771.6–1,412.6) | Ron et al. (2012) |
| Osteocephalus deridens | Simple | – | Pulsed | 12.8 (9–16) | 2.40 (1.61–3.25) | 0.142 (0.077–0.22) | 0.061 (0.037–0.115) | – | – | (2,340–2,440) | Jungfer et al. (2000) |
| Osteocephalus leprieurii | Simple | – | Pulsed | 7 | – | – | 0.2352 (0.2189–0.2568) | – | – | 2,083 (1,635.6–2,342.3) | De La Riva, Márquez & Bosch (1995) |
| Osteocephalus leprieurii | Complex | Type 1 | Pulsed and Tonal | – | – | – | 0.1143 (0.099–0.127) | – | – | (1,036–1,740) | Jungfer & Hödl (2002) |
| Osteocephalus leprieurii | Complex | Type 2 | Pulsed and Tonal | – | – | – | 0.0675 (0.0618–0.0779) | – | – | (1,500–2,900) | Jungfer & Hödl (2002) |
| Osteocephalus mutabor | Simple | – | Pulsed | 12.5 (9–19) | 4.41 (3.02–6.43) | 0.17 (0.11–0.30) | – | – | – | (860–1,300) | Jungfer & Hödl (2002) |
| Osteocephalus taurinus | Simple | – | Pulsed | 8 | – | – | 0.7615 (0.7116–0.8461) | – | – | 1,501.2 (1,446.2–1,551) | De La Riva, Márquez & Bosch (1995) |
| Osteopilus dominicensis | Simple | – | Pulsed | 1 | 0.28 ± 0.08 (0.06–0.63) | 77 ± 0.001 (15–150) | – | – | – | 2,058 ± 233 (1,500–2,620) | Galvis et al. (2016) |
| Osteopilus marinae | Simple | – | Pulsed | (15–17) | 1.70 | – | – | – | – | 2,400 | Hedges (1987) |
| Osteopilus pulchrilineatus | Complex | A | Pulsed | (1–2) | 10.69 ± 6.7 (3.8–31) | 0.89 ± 0.41 (0.054–3.5) | – | – | – | 2,950 ± 600 | Galvis et al. (2016) |
| Osteopilus pulchrilineatus | Complex | B | Pulsed | (2–20) | – | – | – | – | – | 2,060 ± 430 | Galvis et al. (2016) |
| Osteopilus septentrionalis | Complex | A | Pulsed | – | – | – | 0.15 | – | – | 2,300 | Blair (1958) |
| Osteopilus septentrionalis | Complex | B | Pulsed | – | – | – | 0.35 | – | – | – | Blair (1958) |
| Phyllodytes amadoi | Simple | – | Pulsed | 13–17 | 3.41 ± 0.28 (2.99–4.10) | 0.204 ± 0.02 (0.137–0.285) | 0.043 ± 0.021 (0.008–0.119) | – | – | 3,962 ± 192.6 (3,789.8–4,306.6) | Vörös, Dias & Solé (2017) |
| Phyllodytes acuminatus | Simple | – | Tonal | 1–4 | 0.10 ± 0.03 (0.03–0.17) | – | – | – | – | 2,070 ± 4,570 | Campos et al. (2014) |
| Phyllodytes edelmoi | Simple | – | Pulsed | 26.46 ± 2.33 (22–29) | 5.2 ± 0.44 (4.28–5.73) | – | 0.1 ± 0.003 (0.044–0.163) | – | – | 2,840 ± 160 (1,490–3,320) | Lima, Lingnau & Skuk (2008) |
| Phyllodytes gyrinaethes | Simple | – | Pulsed | 4.90 ± 0.60 (4–6) | 1.70 ± 0.30 (1.30–2.30) | – | 0.04 ± 0.01 (0.02–0.07) | – | – | 2,750 ± 1,600 (2,530–3,090) | Roberto & Ávila (2013) |
| Phyllodytes kautskyi | Simple | – | Tonal | 21 | 3.55 ± 0.19 | (0.06–0.12) | 0.085 ± 0.012 | – | – | 1,370 (870–1,810) | Simon & Gasparini (2003) |
| Phyllodytes kautskyi | Simple | Tonal | (21–22) | (3.48–3.90) | (0.08–0.14) | 0.074 ± 0.014 | 1,160 (880–1,620) | Simon & Peres (2012) | |||
| Phyllodytes luteolus | Simple | – | Pulsed | 8–15 | 5.0 | – | 0.125 | – | – | (2,000–6,000) | Weygoldt (1981) |
| Phyllodytes megatympanum | Simple | Tonal | 13.37 ± 2.56 (10–19) | 5.91 ± 4.56 (3.20–23.63) | 0.305 ± 0.10 (0.10–0.61) | 0.092 ± 0.08 (0.009–0.245) | 3,980 ± 136 (3,560–4,120) | Marciano-Jr, Lantyer-Silva & Solé (2017) | |||
| Phyllodytes melanomystax | Simple | – | Tonal | 1 | 0.07 ± 0.04 | – | 0.07 ± 0.04 | – | – | (1,390–3,360) | Nunes, Santiago & Juncá (2007) |
| Phyllodytes praeceptor | Simple | – | Pulsed | 8.39 ± 1.55 (6–12) | 5.34 ± 1.53 (3.02–9.41) | – | – | – | – | 3,045 ± 115 (2,928–3,273) | Orrico, Dias & Marciano-Jr (2018) |
| Phyllodytes tuberculosus | Simple | – | Pulsed | 18.60 ± 3.36 (14–23) | 6.72 ± 1.73 (4.65–9.35) | 0.21 ± 0.048 (0.07–0.036) | 0.17 ± 0.047 (0.07–0.25) | – | – | 2,460 ± 4,500 (1,680–3,270) | Juncá et al. (2012) |
| Phyllodytes wuchereri | Simple | – | Pulsed and Tonal | 16.18 ± 3.25 (10–21) | 4.7 ± 1.23 (2.75–6.75) | 0.12 ± 0.02 (0.09–0.21) | 0.19 ± 0.04 (0.11–0.32) | – | – | 1,350 ± 100 (1,290–1,460) | Cruz, Marciano-Jr & Napoli (2014) |
| Phyllodytes wuchereri | Simple | Pulsed | 18 ± 2 (16–20) | 4.30 ± 0.30 (3.90–4.70) | 0.12 ± 0.019 (0.087–0.195) | 0.12 ± 0.013 (0.049–0.140) | 3,250 ± 80 (3,190–3,450) | Magalhães, Juncá & Garda (2015) | |||
| Tepuihyla edelcae | Simple | – | Tonal | (1–4) | 0.25 (0.03–0.4) | 0.025 | 0.03 | – | – | 1,458.8 (1,382.8–1,523.4) | Myers & Donnelly (2008) |
| Tepuihyla obscura | Simple | – | Tonal | 2 (1–3) | 0.18 (0.02–0.83) | 0.09 (0.01–0.13) | 0.08 (0.04–0.11) | – | – | 1,207.29 (775.2–1,378.1) | Kok et al. (2015) |
| Tepuihyla rodriguezi | Simple | – | Tonal | (8–21) | (0.69–1.64) | – | 0.041 (0.013–0.42) | – | – | 1,489.2 (624.5–2,624.1) | Kok et al. (2015) |
| Tepuihyla shushupe | Simple | Tonal | 56–59 | 16.7 ± 0.47 (16.4–17.2) | 515.6 | Ron et al. (2016) | |||||
| Tepuihyla tuberculosa | Simple | Tonal | 35 | (12.2–13.1) | (562.5–632.8) | Ron et al. (2016) | |||||
| Trachycephalus atlas | Simple | – | Pulsed | 12.4 ± 1.0 (10–15) | 0.17 ± 0.02 (0.14–0.22) | 0.009 ± 0.003 (0.007–0.015) | 0.005 ± 0.002 (0.003–0.006) | – | – | 1,840 ± 700 (1,690–1,880) | Santos-Silva, Ferrari & Juncá (2012) |
| Trachycephalus cunauaru | Simple | – | Pulsed and Tonal | 2.08 ± 0.17 (1–3) | – | 0.47 ± 0.17 (0.31–0.96) | 0.47 ± 0.06 (0.26–0.55) | 300 ± 50 (210–380) | 1,980 ± 490 (1,520–2,690) | 830 ± 360 (390–1,400) | Gordo et al. (2013) |
| Trachycephalus dibernardoi | Simple | – | Pulsed | – | (0.35–0.55) | (0.8–3.0) | (0.470–0.760) | – | – | 1,550 (1,100–1,800) | Kwet & Solé (2008) |
| Trachycephalus imitatrix | Simple | – | Pulsed | 1 | 0.1 ± 0.02 | – | – | 477.9 ± 58.1 | 1,859.7 ± 126 | 999.1 ± 206.2 | Garey (2012) |
| Trachycephalus nigromaculatus | Simple | – | Pulsed | 1 | 0.16 ± 0.007 (0.15–0.17) | – | – | – | – | (1,290–1,990) | Abrunhosa, Wogel & Pombal Jr (2001) |
| Trachycephalus resinifictrix | Simple | – | Tonal | 3.3 (1–6) | – | 0.633 (0.471–0.809) | 0.307 ± 26.15 (0.249–0.366) | – | 1,300 | – | Hödl (1991) |
| Trachycephalus typhonius | Simple | – | Tonal | – | – | – | (0.350–0.550) | 2,325 | 2,842 | (1,800–2,500) | Zimmerman & Hödl (1983) |
Notes.
Indicates that the average number for this acoustic variable has no meaning, since peak dominant frequency can be in the first or second harmonic and the average number gives us a frequency position between the harmonics.
Acoustic analysis
Call recordings of Itapotihyla langsdorffii were made on 31 January 2015, between 19 h and 20 h 30 min, in the Parque Estadual da Serra do Mar, Ubatuba (170 km from the species type locality), northern coast of the state of São Paulo, Brazil (23°21′35.34″S 44°50′25.05″W, 10 m a.s.l.). We recorded six unvouchered males using a Tascam recorder model DR-680 with a Sennheiser ME67 directional microphone. All recordings were obtained at 16 bits and 44.1 kHz with the microphone placed at approximately 1 m from the calling individuals. Release calls were elicited by handling one male (pressing the axillary region with fingers) after recording its advertisement call. Animals were captured under a SISBio permit (#42817-2). Our sample size was modest due to the difficulty we had to find many individuals of this species vocalizing in breeding habitats inspected (we recorded all males found). All recordings were deposited in the Fonoteca Neotropical Jacques Vielliard (access codes: FNJV 32363-8). We analyzed the recordings using the software Raven Pro 1.4 (Bioacoustics Research Program, 2011—Cornell Lab of Ornithology). We applied a bandpass filter (lower limit of 500 Hz and upper limit of 4.5 kHz) to decrease background noise. Before the acoustic measurements, calls selected were individually normalized (peak −1.0 dB) using the software Audacity 2.1.1, in order to avoid biases related to variation on call unit intensity. For vocalization analysis, we used the note-centered approach, with calls formed by notes as subunits of the call (Köhler et al., 2017). Temporal properties, such as call duration, note duration and interval between notes were measured in the oscillogram. We measured the following acoustic properties: (1) minimum frequency (Hz), (2) maximum frequency (Hz), (3) peak dominant frequency (Hz), (4) fundamental frequency (Hz) and (5) intensity modulation (dB) using a Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) of 1024 points and 50% of grid overlap for resolution. We obtained these measurements using the following functions of the “choose measurements” menu: (1) Frequency 5% (Hz); (2) Frequency 95% (Hz); (3) Peak frequency (Hz); and (4) Peak power (dB). For intensity modulation measurements we obtained the peak power of the first and the last note for each call. We generated power spectrum images using software Goldwave v.6.19. For each quantitative acoustic property measured we calculated the average and standard deviation. The variation among and within individuals for each acoustic property was calculated through the coefficient of variation (CV), which is obtained by the following equation: “Standard Deviation/Mean × 100”. We followed the classification of static and dynamic call properties proposed by Gerhardt (1991).
Results
Bioacoustic coldspots and acoustic data of Lophyohylinae
The subfamily Lophyohylinae includes 39 (out of 85) species with advertisement calls already described, thus 46 (54.1%) species have their vocalizations still undescribed (Table S1). Most of these species occur in the Amazon basin, mainly in the north and western portions, comprising the Guianas, Peru, and Ecuador (Fig. 1A). At the same time these countries comprise hotspot regions for species diversity in the subfamily Lophyohylinae (Fig. 1B). Many of these species belongs to the genus Osteocephalus (18 of them).
We found a strong variation in general structure of advertisement calls in the species of the subfamily. Most species (92%) present simple calls composed by one type of note, which in some species (18) are repeated sequentially. Such notes could have a pulsed (64%) or a tonal (36%) structure. Details of quantitative acoustic properties are in Table 1.
Advertisement call of Itapotihyla langsdorffii
Males were found calling on leaves of emergent plants and branches of adjacent trees at 101 ± 28 cm from the soil/water surface (n = 5). The advertisement call of Itapotihyla langsdorffii consists of a sequence of 3–18 notes (n = 32) with harmonic structure (Fig. 2). Peak dominant frequency of notes can be in the first or the second harmonic. Most notes (81%) presented peak dominant frequency in the first harmonic (fundamental frequency). The peak dominant frequency of the first harmonic was 1,398 ± 172 Hz (n = 149), while it was 2,369 ± 188 Hz (n = 35) in the second harmonic. Each note has an average duration of 13 ± 5 ms (ranging from 5 to 31 ms; n = 184). In general, notes decrease in intensity (negative intensity modulation) along the call. The average difference in intensity between the first and the last note was 7.8 ± 6 dB (ranging from −5.6 to 17.1 dB; n = 31). Average call duration was 615 ± 330 ms (ranging from 265 to 1,939 ms; n = 32 calls). The average inter-note interval was 90 ± 40 ms (ranging from 9 to 394 ms; n = 144). All temporal properties were considered dynamic (variation above 12%) at both intra- and inter-individual levels. Among spectral properties only peak dominant frequency was recovered as static at intra-individual level. However, peak dominant frequency of the first harmonic presented high variability (12%) at inter-individual level (Fig. 3).
Figure 2. Advertisement call of Itapotihyla langsdorffii from Ubatuba.
Power spectrum (A) and spectrogram (B) of a single note, and spectrogram (C) and waveform (D) of an advertisement call composed by a sequence of notes of Itapotihyla langsdorffii from Ubatuba, Brazil, FNJV 32365. Spectrogram configuration with FFT size = 4,096 samples and 75% window overlap.
Figure 3. Coefficients of variation of some properties of the advertisement call of Itapotihyla langsdorffii.
Coefficients of variation of some properties of the advertisement call of Itapotihyla langsdorffii at two variation levels: intra-individual (A) and inter-individual (B). The dotted lines represent the 5% and 12% limits to classify static and dynamic properties for intra-individual variation according to Gerhardt (1991).
Male release call of Itapotihyla langsdorffii
The release call of Itapotihyla langsdorffii (Fig. 4) is composed of a single and short-unpulsed note with an average duration of 9 ± 2 ms (ranging from 5 to 14 ms; n = 52 calls). Notes are click-like. The minimum and maximum frequencies averaged 1,039 ± 187 Hz (ranging from 560 to 1,378 Hz; n = 52 calls) and 2,850 ± 281 Hz (ranging from 2,110 to 3,402 Hz; n = 52 calls), respectively, and the peak dominant frequency was 1,835 ± 743 Hz (ranging from 1,034 to 3,144; n = 52).
Figure 4. Release calls of Itapotihyla langsdorffii from Ubatuba.
Power spectrum (A) and spectrogram (B) of a release call, and spectrogram (C) and waveform (D) of a sequence of release calls of Itapotihyla langsdorffii from Ubatuba, Brazil, FNJV 3236. Spectrogram configuration with FFT size = 256 samples and 50% window overlap.
Discussion
Straneck, Olmedo & De Carrizo (1993) briefly reported on the vocalization of I. langsdorffii using a recording from Argentina and provided a spectrum figure, but there is no numerical data on spectral and temporal parameters of the call. It is possible to recognize resemblance with the call we described here, as the sequence of harmonic notes (Straneck, Olmedo & De Carrizo, 1993). However, here we present a detailed description of this call, and provide voucher recordings deposited in a scientific sound collection, which enable comparison with other species. The advertisement calls of species in the subfamily Lophyohylinae may vary from simple (one note per call) to complex calls (more than one note per call). Among the species with multi-note advertisement calls, similar intensity modulation to that of I. langsdorffii was found in Osteocephalus leprieurii and Osteopilus pulchrilineatus (Jungfer & Hödl, 2002; Galvis et al., 2016).
Bioacoustic data are helpful in integrative taxonomy (Padial et al., 2010; Köhler et al., 2017), often allowing a better resolution of species delimitations. Extensive bioacoustic comparisons in monophyletic groups may help to establish acoustic boundaries among species and a better understanding of how acoustic signals evolved. However, in the case of the subfamily Lophyohylinae, this endeavor is drastically limited by the low number of species for which advertisement calls are reported.
Most species of the genera Aparasphenodon (80%) and Osteocephalus (75%) have undescribed calls, while species from other genera, such as Phyllodytes and Tepuihyla have a lower percentage (19 and 44% respectively) of species with undescribed advertisement calls (see Table 1). Some species may be more easily accessible (as those in the Atlantic forest), when compared to those in the middle of Amazonia. In order to reduce such gaps in the Amazon, future efforts should focus on species from Peru, Ecuador and the Guianas. The genus Osteocephalus, for example, has a large number of underestimated species (Jungfer et al., 2013) and new call descriptions will help to better understand the real diversity of this genus.
The release call of I. langsdorffii is similar to that of Trachycephalus cunauaru: in both species this signal presents short unpulsed notes without harmonic structure, but with large range of frequencies (Gordo et al., 2013). The acoustic simplicity of this call appears to be a universal feature of frog release calls (Stănescu et al., 2018), possibly because, unlike for advertisement calls, release calls may face convergent evolution among species (Leary, 2001). However, release calls are unknown for all other species of the subfamily Lophyohylinae, and should be the subject of further research, given that this signal may provide relevant taxonomic and phylogenetic information (Brown & Littlejohn, 1972; Di Tada, Martino & Sinsch, 2001; Köhler et al., 2017).
Temporal and spectral properties of anuran calls have different levels of variation (Gerhardt, 1991; Gerhardt & Huber, 2002). Usually, in anuran species the spectral properties show low intra-individual variation and are considered static (CV < 5%), while temporal properties may have higher variation and are considered dynamic (CV > 12%) (Márquez & Eekhout, 2006; Forti, Strüssman & Mott, 2010; Briggs, 2010; Morais et al., 2012; Carvalho et al., 2013; Forti, Márquez & Bertoluci, 2015; Forti et al., 2016; Köhler et al., 2017). The variation in acoustic properties of I. langsdorffii calls corroborates this pattern, with spectral variables presenting lower variation than temporal ones. This pattern is related to the fact that spectral properties are generally used for species recognition, and the auditory frequency sensibility often matches the frequency range of the conspecific advertisement call (Capranica, Frishkoff & Nevo, 1973). Temporal components of the advertisement call, on the other hand, may be subjected to changes regarding social environment and temperature (Gerhardt, 1991; Gerhardt & Huber, 2002).
Conclusion
Here we used the term “bioacoustic coldspots” to designate sites with high diversity of species lacking advertisement call descriptions. Based on our spatial analysis in Lophyohylinae, we highlight that recording efforts should be concentrated in the western and northern Amazon regions. Our work presents comparisons of advertisement calls of the Lophyohylinae species, including the description of the advertisement and release calls of I. langdorffii, a still poorly studied anuran with a wide distribution. This taxonomic group presents a diversified call structure, varying from simple calls with one or few notes to complex calls presenting a sequence of different notes. Our study may guide future studies targeting those species without proper advertisement call descriptions.
Supplemental Information
Acknowledgments
Anna Bárbara B.S. Forti contributed with fieldwork and recordings. Simone Dena made audio deposits in the FNJV collection. We thank Vinícius Guerra Batista, Kayla Wirthwein, Mirco Solé and Philippe Kok for critically reviewing previous versions of the manuscript.
Funding Statement
Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) provided a scholarship to Roseli Maria Foratto. The São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) provided financial support to Lucas Rodriguez Forti (#2013/21519–4) and Luís Felipe Toledo (#2014/23388-7, #2016/25358-3). The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) provided a fellowship to Luís Felipe Toledo (#300896/2016-6), and to Lucas Rodriguez Forti (#438675/2016-9). Partial call analyses and call deposit were funded by project TATANKA (CGL2011-25062), Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, PI, RM. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Additional Information and Declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare there are no competing interests.
Author Contributions
Lucas Rodriguez Forti conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
Roseli Maria Foratto analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, approved the final draft.
Rafael Márquez authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
Vânia Rosa Pereira analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, approved the final draft.
Luís Felipe Toledo conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
Animal Ethics
The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):
Access to the field station was approved and animals were captured under SISBio permit #42817-2.
Data Availability
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
Forti. (2018). Current knowledge on bioacoustics of the subfamily Lophyohylinae (Hylidae, Anura) and description of the vocalizations of the ocellated treefrog Itapotihyla langsdorffii. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1183802.
References
- Abrunhosa, Wogel & Pombal Jr (2001).Abrunhosa PA, Wogel H, Pombal Jr JP. Vocalização de quatro espécies de anuros do estado do Rio de Janeiro, Sudeste do Brasil (Amphibia, Hylidae, Leptodactylidae) Boletim Do Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro. 2001;472:1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Bioacoustics Research Program (2011).Bioacoustics Research Program . The Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Ithaca: 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Blair (1958).Blair WF. Call structure and species groups in US Treefrogs (Hyla) The Southwestern Naturalist. 1958;3:77–89. doi: 10.2307/3669039. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Briggs (2010).Briggs VS. Call trait variation in Morelett’s tree frog, Agalychnis moreletii, of Belize. Herpetologica. 2010;66(3):241–249. doi: 10.1655/HERPETOLOGICA-D-09-00011.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Brown & Littlejohn (1972).Brown LE, Littlejohn MJ. Male release call in the Bufo americanus group. In: Blair WF, editor. Evolution in the genus Bufo. Austin: University of Texas Press; 1972. pp. 310–323. [Google Scholar]
- Cajade et al. (2010).Cajade R, Schaefer EF, Duré MI, Kehr AI, Marangoni F. Reproductive biology of Argentohyla siemersi pederseni Willims and Bosso, (Anura: Hylidae) in Northeastern Argentina. Journal of Natural History. 2010;44(31–32):1953–1978. doi: 10.1080/00222931003642590. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Campos et al. (2014).Campos TF, Lima MG, Nascimento AC, Santos EM. Larval morphology and advertisement call of Phyllodytes acuminatus Bokermann, 1966 (Anura: Hylidae) from Notheastern Brazil. Zootaxa. 2014;3779(1):93–100. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.3779.1.10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Capranica, Frishkoff & Nevo (1973).Capranica RR, Frishkoff LS, Nevo E. Encoding of geographic dialects in the auditory system of the cricket frog. Science. 1973;182:272–1275. doi: 10.1126/science.182.4118.1272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Carvalho et al. (2013).Carvalho TR, Teixeira BFV, Martins LB, Giaretta AA. Intraspecific variability of the advertisement call of Chiasmocleis albopunctata (Anura: Microhylidae): note structure as additional diagnostic character within the genus. Herpetology Notes. 2013;6:439–446. [Google Scholar]
- Castellano et al. (2002).Castellano S, Tontini L, Giacoma C, Lattes A, Balletto E. The evolution of release and advertisement calls in green toads (Bufo viridis complex) Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2002;77:379–391. doi: 10.1046/j.1095-8312.2002.00118.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Cazelli & Moura (2012).Cazelli H, Moura MR. First record of Itapotihyla langsdorffii (Duméril and Bibron, 1841) (Amphibia: Hylidae) from a Cerrado region in Minas Gerais state, Brazil. Check List. 2012;8(3):510–512. doi: 10.15560/8.3.510. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Cruz, Marciano-Jr & Napoli (2014).Cruz D, Marciano-Jr E, Napoli MF. Advertisement and courtship calls of Phyllodytes wuchereri (Peters, 1873) (Anura: Hylidae) Zootaxa. 2014;3774(1):097–100. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.3774.1.8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- De La Riva, Márquez & Bosch (1995).De La Riva I, Márquez R, Bosch J. Advertisement calls of eight Bolivian Hylids (Amphibia, Anura) Journal of Herpetology. 1995;29:113–118. doi: 10.2307/1565094. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Di Tada, Martino & Sinsch (2001).Di Tada IE, Martino A, Sinsch U. Release vocalizations in neotropical toads (Bufo): ecological constraints and phylogenetic implications. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research. 2001;39(1–2):13–24. doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0469.2001.00147.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Duellman (1970).Duellman WE. The hylid frogs of Middle America. Monographs of the Museum of Natural History of the University of Kansas; Lawrence: 1970. p. 53. [Google Scholar]
- Duellman, Marion & Hedges (2016).Duellman WE, Marion AB, Hedges SB. Phylogenetics, classification, and biogeography of the treefrogs (Amphibia: Anura: Arboranae) Zootaxa. 2016;4104:1–109. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4104.1.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Duellman & Trueb (1976).Duellman WE, Trueb L. The systematic status and relationships of the Hylidae frog Nyctimantis rugiceps Boulenger. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Natural History University of Kansas. 1976;58:1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Duellman & Trueb (1994).Duellman WE, Trueb L. Biology of amphibians. Baltimore: JHU Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Forti et al. (2016).Forti LR, Costa WP, Martins LB, Nunes-De-Almeida CHL, Toledo LF. Advertisement call and genetic structure conservatism: good news for an endangered Neotropical frog. PeerJ. 2016;4:e2014. doi: 10.7717/peerj.2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Forti, Lingnau & Bertoluci (2017).Forti LR, Lingnau R, Bertoluci J. Acoustic variation in the advertisement call of the Lime treefrog Sphaenorhynchus caramaschii (Anura: Hylidae) Vertebrate Zoology. 2017;67(2):197–205. [Google Scholar]
- Forti, Márquez & Bertoluci (2015).Forti LR, Márquez R, Bertoluci J. Advertisement call of Dendropsophus microps (Anura: Hylidae) from two populations from southeastern Brazil. Zoologia. 2015;32(3):187–194. doi: 10.1590/S1984-46702015000300002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Forti, Martins & Bertoluci (2012).Forti LR, Martins FAM, Bertoluci J. Advertisement call and geographical variation in call features of Dendropsophus berthalutzae (Anura: Hylidae) from the Atlantic rainforest of southeastern Brazil. Zootaxa. 2012;3310:66–68. [Google Scholar]
- Forti, Strüssman & Mott (2010).Forti LR, Strüssman C, Mott T. Acoustic communication and vocalization microhabitat in Ameerega braccata (Steindachner, 1864) (Anura, Dendrobatidae) from Midwestern Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology. 2010;70(1):211–216. doi: 10.1590/S1519-69842010000100029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Frost (2018).Frost DR. Amphibian species of the world: an online reference. Version 6. http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html. [21 April 2018];2018
- Galvis et al. (2016).Galvis PA, Caorsi VZ, Sánchez-Pacheco SJ, Rada M. The Advertisement calls of three hylids frogs from Hispaniola. Bioacoustics. 2016;25(1):89–97. doi: 10.1080/09524622.2015.1116410. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Garey (2012).Garey MV. PhD Thesis. 2012. Estrutura da comunidade de anfíbios do Parque Nacional da Serra da Bocaina, São Paulo, Brasil. 167 f. [Google Scholar]
- Gerhardt (1991).Gerhardt HC. Female mate choice in treefrogs: static and dynamic acoustic criteria. Animal Behaviour. 1991;42:615–635. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80245-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Gerhardt (1992).Gerhardt HC. Multiple messages in acoustic signals. Seminars in the Neurosciences. 1992;4:391–400. doi: 10.1016/1044-5765(92)90047-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Gerhardt & Huber (2002).Gerhardt HC, Huber F. Acoustic communication in insects and frogs: common problems and diverse solutions. University of Chicago Press; Chicago: 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Gingras et al. (2013).Gingras B, Boeckle M, Herbst CT, Fitch WT. Call acoustics reflect body size across four clades of anurans. Journal of Zoology. 2013;289:143–150. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2012.00973.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Gordo et al. (2013).Gordo M, Toledo LF, Suárez P, Kawashita-Ribeiro RA, Ávila RW, Morais DH, Nunes I. A new species of milk frog of the genus Trachycephalus tschudi (Anura, Hylidae) from the Amazonian rainforest. Herpetologica. 2013;69(4):466–479. doi: 10.1655/HERPETOLOGICA-D-11-00086. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hedges (1987).Hedges BS. Vocalization and habitat preference of the Jamaican treefrog, Hyla marianae (Anura, Hylidae) Caribian Journal of Science. 1987;23(3–4):380–384. [Google Scholar]
- Hepp, Lourenço & Pombal Jr (2017).Hepp F, Lourenço ACC, Pombal Jr JP. Bioacoustics of four Scinax species and a review of acoustic traits in the Scinax catharinae species group (Amphibia: Anura: Hylidae) Salamandra. 2017;53:212–230. [Google Scholar]
- Hödl (1991).Hödl W. Phrynohyas resinifictrix (Hylidae, Anura)—calling behavior. Wiss Film. 1991;42:63–70. [Google Scholar]
- IUCN (2017).IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/55796/0. [26 January 2017]]. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/55796/0
- Juncá, Carneiro & Rodrigues (2008).Juncá FA, Carneiro MCL, Rodrigues NN. Is a dwarf population of Corythomantis greeningi Boulenger, 1896 (Anura, Hylidae) a new species? Zootaxa. 2008;1686:48–56. [Google Scholar]
- Juncá et al. (2012).Juncá FA, Napoli MF, Cedraz J, Nunes I. Acoustic characteristics of the advertisement and territorial calls of Phyllodytes tuberculosus Bokermann, 1966 (Amphibia: Anura: Hylidae) Zootaxa. 2012;3506:87–88. [Google Scholar]
- Jungfer et al. (2013).Jungfer KH, Faivovich J, Padial JM, Castroviejo-Fisher S, Lyra ML, Berneck BM, Iglesias PP, Kok PJR, MacCulloch RD, Rodrigues MT, Verdade VK, Torres-Gastello CP, Chaparro JC, Valdujo PH, Reichle S, Moravec J, Gvoždík V, Gagliardi-Urrutia G, Ernst R, De la Riva I, Means DB, Lima AP, Señaris JC, Wheeler WC, Haddad CFB. Systematics of spiny-backed treefrogs (Hylidae: Osteocephalus): an Amazonian puzzle. Zoologica Scripta Stockholm. 2013;42:351–380. doi: 10.1111/zsc.12015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Jungfer & Hödl (2002).Jungfer KH, Hödl W. A new species of Osteocephalus from Ecuador and a redescription of O. leprieurii (Duméril & Bibron, 1841) (Anura: Hylidae) Amphibia-Reptilia. 2002;23:21–46. doi: 10.1163/156853802320877609. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Jungfer et al. (2000).Jungfer KH, Ron S, Seipp R, Almendáriz A. Two new species of hylid frogs, genus Osteocephalus, from Amazonian Ecuador. Amphibia-Reptilia. 2000;21:327–340. doi: 10.1163/156853800507525. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Kaefer & Lima (2012).Kaefer IL, Lima AP. Sexual signals of the Amazonian frog Allobates paleovarzensis: geographic variation and stereotypy of acoustic traits. Behaviour. 2012;149(1):15–33. doi: 10.1163/156853912X623757. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Köhler et al. (2017).Köhler J, Jansen M, Rodríguez A, Kok PJR, Toledo LF, Emmrich M, Glaw F, Haddad CFB, Rödel M-O, Vences M. The use of bioacoustics in anuran taxonomy: theory, terminology, methods and recommendations for best practice. Zootaxa. 2017;4251:1–124. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4251.1.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kok et al. (2015).Kok PJR, Ratz S, Tegelaar M, Aubret F, Means DB. Out of taxonomic limbo: a name for the species of Tepuihyla (Anura:Hylidae) from the Chimantá Massif, Pantepui region, northern South America. Salamandra. 2015;51(4):283–314. [Google Scholar]
- Kwet & Solé (2008).Kwet A, Solé M. A new species of Trachycephalus (Anura: Hylidae) from the Atlantic Rain Forest in southern Brazil. Zootaxa. 2008;1947:53–67. [Google Scholar]
- Leary (2001).Leary CJ. Evidence of convergent character displacement in release vocalizations of Bufo fowleri and Bufo terrestris (Anura; Bufonidae) Animal Behavior. 2001;61(2):431–438. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1597. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Lima, Lingnau & Skuk (2008).Lima MG, Lingnau R, Skuk GO. The advertisement call of Phyllodytes edelmoi (Anura, Hylidae) South American Journal of Herpetology. 2008;3(2):118–121. doi: 10.2994/1808-9798(2008)3[118:TACOPE]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Lingnau & Bastos (2007).Lingnau R, Bastos RP. Vocalizations of the Brazilian torrent frog Hylodes heyeri (Anura: Hylodidae): repertoire and influence of air temperature on advertisement call variation. Journal of Natural History. 2007;41:1227–1235. doi: 10.1080/00222930701395626. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Lourenço-De-Moraes et al. (2013).Lourenço-De-Moraes R, Lantyer-Silva ASF, Toledo LF, Solé M. Tadpole, oophagy, advertisement call, and geographic distribution of Aparasphenodon arapapa Pimenta, Napoli and Haddad 2009 (Anura, Hylidae) Journal of Herpetology. 2013;47(4):575–579. doi: 10.1670/11-326. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Magalhães, Juncá & Garda (2015).Magalhães FDM, Juncá FA, Garda AA. Tadpole and vocalisations of Phyllodytes wuchereri (Anura: Hylidae) from Bahia, Brazil. Salamandra. 2015;51:83–90. [Google Scholar]
- Marciano-Jr, Lantyer-Silva & Solé (2017).Marciano-Jr E, Lantyer-Silva AS, Solé M. A new species of Phyllodytes Wagler, 1830 (Anura, Hylidae) from the Atlantic Forest of southern Bahia, Brazil. Zootaxa. 2017;4238:135–142. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4238.1.11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Márquez & Eekhout (2006).Márquez R, Eekhout XR. Advertisement calls of six species of anurans from Bali, Republic of Indonesia. Journal of Natural History. 2006;40(9–10):571–588. doi: 10.1080/00222930600712129. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Morais et al. (2012).Morais AR, Batista VG, Gambale PG, Signorelli L, Bastos RP. Acoustic communication in a Neotropical frog (Dendropsophus minutus): vocal repertoire, variability and individual discrimination. Herpetological Journal. 2012;22:249–257. [Google Scholar]
- Myers & Donnelly (2008).Myers CW, Donnelly MA. The summit herpetofauna of Auyántepui, Venezuela: report from the Robert G. Goelet American Museum-Terramar Expedition. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 2008;308:1–147. doi: 10.1206/308.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Nunes, Santiago & Juncá (2007).Nunes I, Santiago RS, Juncá FA. Advertisement calls of four hylid frogs from the State of Bahia, northeastern Brazil. South American Journal of Herpetology. 2007;2:89–96. doi: 10.2994/1808-9798(2007)2[89:ACOFHF]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Orrico, Dias & Marciano Jr (2018).Orrico VGD, Dias IR, Marciano Jr E. Another new species of Phyllodytes (Anura: Hylidae) from the Atlantic Forest of northeastern Brazil. Zootaxa. 2018;4407:101–110. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4407.1.6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Padial et al. (2008).Padial JM, Köhler J, Muñoz A, De La Riva I. Assessing the taxonomic status of tropical frogs through bioacoustics: geographical variation in the advertisement calls in the Eleutherodactylus discoidalis species group (Anura) Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2008;152(2):353–365. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2007.00341.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Padial et al. (2010).Padial JM, Miralles A, De la Riva I, Vences M. The integrative future of taxonomy. Frontiers in Zoology. 2010;7(16):1–14. doi: 10.1186/1742-9994-7-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Roberto & Ávila (2013).Roberto IJ, Ávila RW. The advertisement call of Phyllodytes gyrinaethes Peixoto, Caramaschi & Freire, 2003 (Anura, Hylidae) Zootaxa. 2013;3669(2):193–196. doi: 10.11646/Zootaxa.3669.2.13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ron et al. (2016).Ron SR, Venegas PJ, Ortega-Andrade HM, Gagliardi-Urrutia G, Salerno P. Systematics of Ecnomiohyla tuberculosa with the description of a new species and comments on the taxonomy of Trachycephalus typhonius (Anura, Hylidae) ZooKeys. 2016;630:115–154. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.630.9298. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ron et al. (2012).Ron S, Venegas P, Toral E, Read V, Ortiz D, Manzano A. Systematics of the Osteocephalus buckleyi species complex (Anura, Hylidae) from Ecuador and Peru. ZooKeys. 2012;229:1–52. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.229.3580. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ryan & Rand (2001).Ryan MJ, Rand AS. Feature weighting in signal recognition and discrimination by túngara frogs. In: Ryan MJ, editor. Anuran communication. Smithsonian Institution; Washington: 2001. pp. 86–101. [Google Scholar]
- Santos-Silva, Ferrari & Juncá (2012).Santos-Silva CR, Ferrari SF, Juncá FA. Acoustic characteristics of the advertisement call of Trachycephalus atlas Bokermann, 1966 (Anura: Hylidae) Zootaxa. 2012;3424:66–68. [Google Scholar]
- Simon & Gasparini (2003).Simon JE, Gasparini JL. Descrição da vocalização de Phyllodytes kautskyi Peixoto e Cruz, 1988 (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae) Boletim Do Museu de Biologia Mello Leitão. 2003;16:47–54. [Google Scholar]
- Simon & Peres (2012).Simon JE, Peres J. Revisão da distribuição geográfica de Phyllodytes kautskyi Peixoto & Cruz, 1988 (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae) Boletim do Museu de Biologia Mello Leitao. 2012;29:17–30. [Google Scholar]
- Snowdon (2011).Snowdon CT. Comunicação. In: Yamamoto ME, Volpato GL, editors. Comportamento animal. 2a edição Natal, RN: EDUFRN; 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Stănescu et al. (2018).Stănescu F, Forti LR, Cogălniceanu D, Márquez R. Release and distress calls in European spadefoot toads genus Pelobates. Bioacoustics. 2018;28:1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Straneck, Olmedo & De Carrizo (1993).Straneck R, Olmedo EV, De Carrizo GR. Catalogo de voces de anfíbios argentinos. Parte 1. Ediciones L.O.L.A; Buenos Aires: 1993. p. 131. [Google Scholar]
- Sullivan (1989).Sullivan BK. Interpopulational variation in vocalizations of Bufo woodhousii. Journal of Herpetology. 1989;23:368–373. doi: 10.2307/1564048. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Toledo et al. (2015).Toledo LF, Martins IA, Bruschi DP, Passos MA, Alexandre C, Haddad CFB. The anuran calling repertoire in the light of social context. Acta Ethologica. 2015;18:87–89. doi: 10.1007/s10211-014-0194-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Vörös, Dias & Solé (2017).Vörös J, Dias IR, Solé M. A new species of Phyllodytes (Anura: Hylidae) from the Atlantic Rainforest of southern Bahia, Brazil. Zootaxa. 2017;4337(4):584–594. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4337.4.9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wells (2007).Wells KD. The ecology and behavior of amphibians. The University of Chicago Press; Chicago and London: 2007. p. 1148. [Google Scholar]
- Wells & Schwartz (2007).Wells K, Schwartz J. The behavioral ecology of anuran communication. In: Narins P, Feng A, editors. Hearing and sound communication in amphibians. New York: Springer; 2007. pp. 57–99. [Google Scholar]
- Weygoldt (1981).Weygoldt P. Beobachtungen zur Fortpflanzungsbiologie von Phyllodytes luteolus (Wied 1824) im Terrarium (Amphibia: Salientia: Hylidae) Salamandra. 1981;17:1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Wilkins, Seddon & Safran (2013).Wilkins MR, Seddon N, Safran RJ. Evolutionary divergence in acoustic signals: causes and consequences. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2013;28:156–166. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wong et al. (2004).Wong BBM, Cowling ANN, Cunningham RB, Donnelly CF, Cooper PD. Do temperature and social environment interact to affect call rate in frogs (Crinia signifera)? Austral Ecology. 2004;29:209–214. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2004.01338.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Zimmerman & Hödl (1983).Zimmerman R, Hödl W. Distinction of Phrynohyas resinifictrix (Goeldi, 1907) from Phrynohyas venulosa (Laurenti, 1768) based on acoustical and behavioural parameters (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae) Zoologischer Anzeiger. 1983;211:341–353. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
Forti. (2018). Current knowledge on bioacoustics of the subfamily Lophyohylinae (Hylidae, Anura) and description of the vocalizations of the ocellated treefrog Itapotihyla langsdorffii. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1183802.