Environmental and morphological constraints interact to drive the evolution of communication signals in frogs
Data files
Oct 13, 2020 version files 42.58 KB
-
Munoz_Goutte_etal_JEB.xlsx
42.58 KB
Abstract
Methods
For each family, we collected data on the snout–vent length, dominant frequency and calling site. Most of the information was obtained from the literature or other digital sources (see below). Personal measurements made by the authors of the present article were also included. If searched in the literature, body size and call dominant frequency were obtained from other comparatives studies and books. We restricted our search to body size of males and the dominant frequency of advertisement vocalizations. Information on calling sites was obtained mainly from verbal descriptions of frog vocal behaviour present in the literature, the specialized website AmphibiaWeb, and from the personal experience of the authors. Multimedia information available from AmphibiaWeb and YouTube, such as pictures and videos of calling males, was used to confirm ambiguous verbal descriptions. For a few species (19 of 175 species), vmultimedia information was used as the sole criterion for calling site assignment. Each species was assigned to one of three possible calling site categories: (1) aquatic, (2) nonaquatic and (3) mixed. Aquatic species included frogs that vocalize either standing in water, or floating on the water surface. The nonaquatic category included species that call from the ground, or from perched positions on trees or rocks without direct contact with water. Species calling from cavities dug in the ground or cavity-like structures on vegetation (e.g. the axils of bromeliads) were also included in the nonaquatic category. The few species for which both aquatic and nonaquatic calling was described were assigned to the mixed category.