Abstract
Male Great Plains toads, Bufo cognatus, exhibit two mating tactics. At any time, most males give advertisement calls to attract females, while other males, 'satellites', remain silent and station themselves near callers in an attempt to intercept females. Females are usually capable of moving through choruses undetected by males. Those females detected by males can avoid being clasped by quickly darting away; but if clasped, can detach the male by inflating. Females initiated amplexus with callers; subsequently calling males mated with 92% of the females and satellites mated with the remaining 8%. Toads employing the satellite tactic associated with males that had longer calls and that were larger, although call duration was the stronger predictor. The percentage of males exhibiting satellite behaviour during a sampling period varied from 0 to 57%. Several hypotheses explaining satellite frequency were explored, including variation in male density, male quality, and operational sex ratio. Of the variables considered, only two aspects of male density (namely, the number of unmated males per m of shoreline and number of calling males per m shoreline) affected satellite frequency. High male density may cause at least some calling males to lose vocal conspicuousness, thereby favouring satellite behaviour. However, male density accounted for only 17% of the observed variation in satellite frequency. This, plus the fact that up to 74% of marked males switched between tactics, suggests that factors such as higher energetic demands of calling may affect satellite frequency.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1035-1043 |
Number of pages | 9 |
Journal | Animal Behaviour |
Volume | 37 |
Issue number | PART 6 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Jun 1989 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:Thanks are extended to C. Davis, L. MacIvor, M. Paulissen, B. Ploger and S. Secor for their field assistance; to C. Carpenter, T. Lamey, D. Mock, F. Sonleitner, P. Schwagmeyer, G. Shugart and B. Vestal for their helpful suggestions on various drafts of this manuscript; and to the Oklahoma Biological Survey for financial support during the study. Additional funding was provided by the University of Oklahoma Associates’ Fund, the University of Oklahoma Graduate Student Association Grant-in-Aid Program and the Society of Sigma Xi.
Funding
Thanks are extended to C. Davis, L. MacIvor, M. Paulissen, B. Ploger and S. Secor for their field assistance; to C. Carpenter, T. Lamey, D. Mock, F. Sonleitner, P. Schwagmeyer, G. Shugart and B. Vestal for their helpful suggestions on various drafts of this manuscript; and to the Oklahoma Biological Survey for financial support during the study. Additional funding was provided by the University of Oklahoma Associates’ Fund, the University of Oklahoma Graduate Student Association Grant-in-Aid Program and the Society of Sigma Xi.
Funders | Funder number |
---|---|
University of Oklahoma Associates | |
University of Oklahoma Graduate Student Association | |
Sigma-Aldrich |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
- Animal Science and Zoology