Task Differences Confound Sex Differences in Receiver Permissiveness in Túngara Frogs

In many mating systems, both sexes respond to the same sexual signal. In frogs, males typically call in response to advertisement calls, while females approach male calls in choosing a mate. The costs of signal detection errors are expected to differ between the sexes. Missed opportunities are costl...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Proceedings: Biological Sciences. - The Royal Society. - 276(2009), 1660, Seite 1323-1329
1. Verfasser: Bernal, Ximena E. (VerfasserIn)
Weitere Verfasser: Rand, A. Stanley, Ryan, Michael J.
Format: Online-Aufsatz
Sprache:English
Veröffentlicht: 2009
Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk:Proceedings: Biological Sciences
Schlagworte:mating signals Physalaemus pustulosus receiver permissiveness sexual differences sexual selection signal selectivity Behavioral sciences Biological sciences Physical sciences Philosophy Social sciences
LEADER 01000caa a22002652 4500
001 JST069316813
003 DE-627
005 20240622174959.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 150325s2009 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)JST069316813 
035 |a (JST)30243994 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a Bernal, Ximena E.  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Task Differences Confound Sex Differences in Receiver Permissiveness in Túngara Frogs 
264 1 |c 2009 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a In many mating systems, both sexes respond to the same sexual signal. In frogs, males typically call in response to advertisement calls, while females approach male calls in choosing a mate. The costs of signal detection errors are expected to differ between the sexes. Missed opportunities are costly for males because ignoring a signal results in failing to compete with rivals for mates, while their cost for misidentification is lower (time and energy displaying to the incorrect target). By contrast, for females, the cost of misidentification is high (mating with incorrect species or low-quality partner), while their cost for missed opportunity is lower because the operational sex ratio puts females at a premium. Consequently, females should be more selective in their response to signal variation than males. We report that presumed sexual differences in selectivity in túngara frogs (Physalaemus pustulosus) are task-specific rather than sex-specific. As predicted, male túngara frogs are less selective in their vocal responses than are females in their phonotactic responses. Males exhibiting phonotaxis to the same calls, however, are as selective as females, and are significantly more selective than when they respond vocally to the same calls. Our study shows that apparent differences between the sexes emerge from differences in the behaviours themselves and are not intrinsic to each sex. Analogous behavioural differences might confound sex differences in other systems; thus, we suggest consideration of the behavioural plasticity of sex as well as its stereotypy. 
540 |a Copyright 2009 The Royal Society 
650 4 |a mating signals 
650 4 |a Physalaemus pustulosus 
650 4 |a receiver permissiveness 
650 4 |a sexual differences 
650 4 |a sexual selection 
650 4 |a signal selectivity 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Ethology  |x Animal behavior  |x Animal social behavior  |x Mating behavior 
650 4 |a Biological sciences  |x Biology  |x Physiology  |x Physiological responses  |x Phonotaxis 
650 4 |a Biological sciences  |x Biology  |x Zoology  |x Animals  |x Male animals 
650 4 |a Biological sciences  |x Biology  |x Zoology  |x Animals  |x Amphibians  |x Frogs 
650 4 |a Biological sciences  |x Biology  |x Zoology  |x Animals  |x Female animals 
650 4 |a Physical sciences  |x Physics  |x Acoustics  |x Bioacoustics  |x Animal sounds  |x Animal vocalization  |x Bird songs 
650 4 |a Biological sciences  |x Biology  |x Developmental biology  |x Reproduction  |x Sex  |x Sex linked differences 
650 4 |a Philosophy  |x Axiology  |x Ethics  |x Normative ethics  |x Permissiveness 
650 4 |a Social sciences  |x Gender studies  |x Gender bias  |x Gender discrimination 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Psychology  |x Cognitive psychology  |x Mental stimulation 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Ethology  |x Animal behavior  |x Animal social behavior  |x Mating behavior 
650 4 |a Biological sciences  |x Biology  |x Physiology  |x Physiological responses  |x Phonotaxis 
650 4 |a Biological sciences  |x Biology  |x Zoology  |x Animals  |x Male animals 
650 4 |a Biological sciences  |x Biology  |x Zoology  |x Animals  |x Amphibians  |x Frogs 
650 4 |a Biological sciences  |x Biology  |x Zoology  |x Animals  |x Female animals 
650 4 |a Physical sciences  |x Physics  |x Acoustics  |x Bioacoustics  |x Animal sounds  |x Animal vocalization  |x Bird songs 
650 4 |a Biological sciences  |x Biology  |x Developmental biology  |x Reproduction  |x Sex  |x Sex linked differences 
650 4 |a Philosophy  |x Axiology  |x Ethics  |x Normative ethics  |x Permissiveness 
650 4 |a Social sciences  |x Gender studies  |x Gender bias  |x Gender discrimination 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Psychology  |x Cognitive psychology  |x Mental stimulation 
655 4 |a research-article 
700 1 |a Rand, A. Stanley  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Ryan, Michael J.  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Proceedings: Biological Sciences  |d The Royal Society  |g 276(2009), 1660, Seite 1323-1329  |w (DE-627)JST069249288  |x 09628452  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:276  |g year:2009  |g number:1660  |g pages:1323-1329 
856 4 0 |u https://www.jstor.org/stable/30243994  |3 Volltext 
912 |a GBV_USEFLAG_A 
912 |a SYSFLAG_A 
912 |a GBV_JST 
951 |a AR 
952 |d 276  |j 2009  |e 1660  |h 1323-1329