TY - JOUR
T1 - Are frog calls relatively difficult to locate by mammalian predators?
AU - Jones, Douglas L.
AU - Ratnam, Rama
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank Dr. Joseph A. Dellinger for recording and providing to us the chorus data from which the gray tree frog call was extracted, and Margaret L. Jones for her invaluable assistance with the experiments that acquired the cricket frog data at the Cibolo Nature Center in Boerne, Texas. This work was supported by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (DLJ), and by a University Research Board grant (URBSASI20A5) from Ahmedabad University (RR). We thank Professor Peter Narins, our editor, for encouraging the submission of this work, and the extensive yet constructive criticisms from two anonymous reviewers. Both authors gratefully acknowledge the inspiration and guidance we received in our formative and early years in this field from our mentor, colleague, and friend, Professor Albert S. Feng. We deeply mourn his passing and dedicate this work to his memory.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2023/1
Y1 - 2023/1
N2 - Frogs call in acoustically dense choruses to attract conspecific females. Their calls can potentially reveal their location to predators, many of which are mammals. However, frogs and mammals have very different acoustic receivers and mechanisms for determining sound source direction. We argue that frog calls may have been selected so that they are harder to locate with the direction-finding mechanisms of mammals. We focus on interaural time delay (ITD) estimation using delay-line coincidence detection (place code), and a binaural excitatory/inhibitory (E/I) ITD mechanism found in mammals with small heads (population code). We identify four “strategies” which frogs may employ to exploit the weaknesses of either mechanism. The first two strategies used by the frog confound delay estimation to increase direction ambiguity using highly periodic calls or narrowband calls. The third strategy relies on using short pulses. The E/I mechanism is susceptible to noise with sounds being pulled to the medial plane when signal-to-noise ratio is low. Together, these three strategies compromise both ongoing and onset determination of location using either mechanism. Finally, frogs call in dense choruses using various means for controlling synchrony, maintaining chorus tenure, and abruptly switching off calling, all of which serve to confound location finding. Of these strategies, only chorusing adversely impacts the localization performance of frogs’ acoustic receivers. We illustrate these strategies with an analysis of calls from three different frog species.
AB - Frogs call in acoustically dense choruses to attract conspecific females. Their calls can potentially reveal their location to predators, many of which are mammals. However, frogs and mammals have very different acoustic receivers and mechanisms for determining sound source direction. We argue that frog calls may have been selected so that they are harder to locate with the direction-finding mechanisms of mammals. We focus on interaural time delay (ITD) estimation using delay-line coincidence detection (place code), and a binaural excitatory/inhibitory (E/I) ITD mechanism found in mammals with small heads (population code). We identify four “strategies” which frogs may employ to exploit the weaknesses of either mechanism. The first two strategies used by the frog confound delay estimation to increase direction ambiguity using highly periodic calls or narrowband calls. The third strategy relies on using short pulses. The E/I mechanism is susceptible to noise with sounds being pulled to the medial plane when signal-to-noise ratio is low. Together, these three strategies compromise both ongoing and onset determination of location using either mechanism. Finally, frogs call in dense choruses using various means for controlling synchrony, maintaining chorus tenure, and abruptly switching off calling, all of which serve to confound location finding. Of these strategies, only chorusing adversely impacts the localization performance of frogs’ acoustic receivers. We illustrate these strategies with an analysis of calls from three different frog species.
KW - Anuran vocalization
KW - Asymmetric pressure-difference receiver
KW - Interaural time difference
KW - Mammalian hearing
KW - Sound localization
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85143753072&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85143753072&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00359-022-01594-7
DO - 10.1007/s00359-022-01594-7
M3 - Article
C2 - 36508005
AN - SCOPUS:85143753072
SN - 0340-7594
VL - 209
SP - 11
EP - 30
JO - Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology
JF - Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology
IS - 1
ER -