Caldart, Vinícius Matheus

Iop, Samanta

Lipinski, Victor Mendes

Phyllomedusa Journal of Herpetology

English

We studied the visual communication in Hypsiboas curupi (Anura: Hylidae) at Parque Estadual do Turvo, southern Brazi

Victor Mendes Lipinski

Vinícius Matheus Caldart

Samanta Iop

Directory of Open Access Journals

71Phyllomedusa - 11(1), June 2012Phyllomedusa 11(1):71–74, 2012© 2012 Departamento de Ciências Biológicas - ESALQ - USP ISSN 1519-1397Received 3 October 2011.Accepted 3 April 2012.Distributed June 2012.Sh o r t  Co m m u n i C a t i o nVisual communication in Hypsiboas curupi (Anura:  Hylidae) at Parque Estadual do Turvo, southern BrazilVictor Mendes Lipinski, Vinícius Matheus Caldart, and Samanta IopCentro de Ciências Naturais e Exatas, Programa de Pós-graduação em Biodiversidade Animal, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, 97105‑900, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil. E‑mail:  lipinskivictor@hotmail.com.Keywords:  communication, visual repertoire, visual signals.Palavras-chave:  comunicação, repertório visual, sinais visuais.Acoustic communication plays a fundamental role  in  anuran  communication  (Wells  1977) because  most  species  are  active  at  night  and vocalizations are not light‑dependent (Duellman and  Trueb  1994).  However,  many  studies   have  demonstrated  that  some  species  display remarkable and stereotyped visual signals used in  different  social  contexts  (Lindquist  and Hetherington 1996, 1998, Haddad and Giaretta 1999,  Preininger  et  al.  2009),  indicating  that visual  signalling  in  anurans  is  diverse,  wide‑spread, and has evolved independently in several families (Hödl and Amézquita 2001). Most  recently,  visual  displays  have  been documented even for nocturnal species (Bertoluci 2002, Hartmann et al. 2005, Giasson and Haddad 2006, Toledo et al. 2007, Barros and Feio 2011), suggesting  that  nocturnal  anurans  have  visual acuity for visual stimulus, possibly dependent on the optimum ambient illumination of the species (Hartmann  et  al.  2005).  Thus,  data  on  the repertoire of visual signals of different species, including information on the behaviors and the social  context  in  which  they  are  performed, constitute    a  primary  source  of  information  to understand the evolution of visual communication in anurans (Amézquita and Hödl 2004).Hypsiboas  curupi  Garcia,  Faivovich,  and Haddad,  2007  is  a  recently  described  species from the Hypsiboas pulchellus Group, previously referred  as  Hypsiboas  semigutattus.  Its  distri‑bution  includes  localities  in  the  province  of Misiones, Argentina (Garcia et al. 2007), in the departments  of  Caazapá  and  Itapúa,  Paraguay (Brusquetti  and  Lavilla  2008),  and  in  the Brazilian  states  of  Santa  Catarina  (Lucas  and Garcia 2011) and Rio Grande do Sul (Iop et al. 2009).  Despite  these  new  population  records, little is known about the ecology and behavior of the  species.  This  study  aimed  to  describe  the visual repertoire used by H. curupi and to identify the  context  in  which  the  visual  signals  were performed.72Phyllomedusa - 11(1), June 2012The  study  was  conducted  with  populations from Parque Estadual do Turvo, located in the municipality of Derrubadas, in the northwestern region of the state of Rio Grande do Sul,  southern Brazil  (27˚14'34.08''  S,  53˚57'13.74''  W).  The park covers an area of 17,491.4 ha, representing the  largest  remnant  of  preserved  Mesophytic Semideciduous  Forest  (sensu  Oliveira‑Filho  et al.  2006)  in  the  state,  and  is  bordered  by  the province of Misiones, Argentina, and the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil (SEMA 2005). The local climate  is  classified  as  subtropical  sub-humid with  dry  summer,  with  an  annual  mean temperature of 18.8˚C (ST SB v type of Maluf 2000) and rainfall evenly distributed throughout the  year,  with  an  annual  mean  of  1.665  mm (SEMA 2005).We  conducted  monthly  observations  from November  2009  to  March  2010  (except  in December 2009) in four streams in the park in which  we  had  confirmed  the  occurrence  of populations  of  Hypsiboas  curupi.  We  divided observations into non‑regular, sporadic visits to the streams in November 2009 and March 2010, and regular visits in January and February 2010, in which we observed individuals in the streams for eight consecutive days each month. Although the reproductive biology of H. curupi has not yet been  studied,  the  period  of  our  observations included months in which males were found in calling  activity  in  localities  from  Misiones, Argentina  (Carrizo  1991,  Garcia  et  al.  2007), and in localities from the west of Santa Catarina, Brazil (Lucas and Garcia 2011).We  made  observations  following  the  ad libitum  method  (Lehner  1996),  always  by  the same  observer,  starting  at  dusk  and  extending between  00:00  and  04:00  h,  depending  on  the presence and activity of individuals. We only used flashlights  to  locate  individuals,  and  once observations started, we used the night‑shot device of  a  video  camera  (Handycam  SONY  MiniDV DCR-HC52)  to  avoid  influencing  an  individual frog’s behavior with artificial light; many of the observed  behaviors  were  videotaped  for  further analysis.  Background  noise  at  the  observation sites was not measured. Considering non‑regular and  regular  visits,  the  total  time  employed  in observations was 2.620 min. With respect to the social  context  in  which  visual  signals  were performed, we considered signal use in short‑or long-distance  interactions  between  conspecific males to be agonistic, and signaling by males or females  toward  one  another  as  courtship.  All visual  signals  were  assigned  according  to  the descriptions  provided  by  Hödl  and  Amézquita (2001) and Hartmann et al. (2005).Six  visual  displays  were  performed  by Hypsiboas curupi (Table 1). Males performed all six  visual  signals,  whereas  females  performed two types of display. Four signals were performed exclusively  by  males,  while  females  did  not perform none visual signal exclusively. The four visual signals performed by males were used in agonistic  contexts  toward  other  males,  which could  explain  the  differences  in  the  visual repertoire  between  the  sexes.  Although  the literature lacks information about visual signals performed  by  frogs  relative  to  their  sex,  it  is probable that males have a more diverse visual repertoire than females, especially in species in which  males  defend  territories  and  compete  to attract females. Moreover, vocal sac display is a signal  performed  specifically  by  males,  as reported  for  the  hylid  Aplastodiscus  eugenioi (Hartmann et al. 2004, Hartmann et al. 2005), for the ranid Staurois latopalmatus (Preininger 2009), and the phrynobatrachid Phrynobatrachus krefftii (Hirschmann and Hödl 2006).Visual  signals  such  as  upright  posture  and mouth  opening  were  performed  by  males  of Hypsiboas curupi exclusively toward other males in  agonistic  contexts.  Many  hylid  species  use visual  signals  when  engaging  in  agonistic behaviors. Giasson and Haddad (2006) observed males of Hypsiboas albomarginatus performing five  visual  signals,  and  Amézquita  and  Hödl (2004) observed two visual signals displayed in agonistic  contexts  by  the  Amazonian  hylid Dendropsophus parviceps.  Toledo et al. (2007) presented information on visual signals performed by males of Aplastodiscus perviridis, Hypsiboas Lipinski et al.73Phyllomedusa - 11(1), June 2012Table 1.  Visual signals performed in courtship or agonistic contexts by male and female Hypsiboas curupi at Parque Estadual do Turvo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Descriptions of the visual signals follow those of Hartmann et al. (2005).Visual signals Description Agonistic CourtshipVocal sac display Vocal sac inflates without vocalization % %Throat display Pulsation of the throat without vocalization % %Face wiping Lifting an arm and touching the head with the hands, passing the hands on the eyes and snout, returning to the normal position— % &Leg stretching Stretching a single leg rapidly at the substrate level; leg may or not remain extended for some time— % &Upright posture Extending the angled arms and raising the anterior part of the body % —Mouth opening Opening and closing the mouth slowly or rapidly, or individual remaining with mouth opened for some time% —albopunctatus,  and  H.  bischoffi,  also  during agonistic behaviors or after playback of conspecific advertisement calls. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that none of the signals reported for these species was performed by H. curupi.In  relation  to  the  visual  signals  performed exclusively  in  a  courtship  context,  Hypsiboas curupi performed face wiping and leg stretching, both of which were performed by both sexes. In contrast to other species, Hartmann et al. (2004) reported  males  of  Aplastodiscus  eugenioi employing visual signals only during courtship, including face wiping. Males of Hylodes asper (Haddad and Giareta 1999) and males of Hylodes phyllodes (Hartmann et al. 2005) are known to perform  leg  stretching  during  courtship.  Our results with H. curupi provide new information on  females  performing  face  wiping  and  leg stretching  in  a  courtship  context.  Considering that  most  studies  on  visual  signals  focus  on males  and  on  the  interactions  between  them, further  studies  including  information  on  visual signals employed by females are necessary.Hypsiboas curupi seems to have a repertoire of visual signals composed of signals performed by other species that also inhabit streams, such as Hylodes phyllodes (Hartmann et al. 2005) and Hylodes nasus (Wogel et al. 2004), rather than of visual signals reported for species in the genus Hypsiboas. In fact, H. curupi does not share any visual  signal  in  common  with  Hypsiboas albomarginatus (Giasson and Haddad 2006), H. albopunctatus,  and  H.  bischoffi  (Toledo  et  al. 2007), although there are some similarities with the  visual  signals  of  Aplastodiscus  eugenioi (Hartmann  et  al.  2005).  Because  H.  curupi inhabits streams (syntopically with Crossodactylus schmidti  at  Parque  Estadual  do  Turvo  and  in localities  from  Misiones),  it  is  plausible  to hypothesize  that  the  communication  system  of this species may be constrained by the selective pressures  of  lotic  habitats.  Species  of  Crosso-dactylus and Hylodes are subject to these same pressures, in contrast to those associated with the lentic  habitats  inhabited  by  many  species  of Hypsiboas. Although our results with H. curupi are insufficient to support this hypothesis, future studies  on  the  visual  communication  of  other species from the Hypsiboas pulchellus Group that inhabit forested streams may clarify this.AcknowledgmentsWe  are  grateful  to  SEMA–RS  for  granting access to the Parque Estadual do Turvo (license no. 302). We also thank Tiago Gomes dos Santos, Rafael Márquez and an anonymous reviewer for their critical suggestions on the manuscript, and Tiago R. N. Bertaso and Marcelo Carvalho da Rocha for their help in fieldwork.Visual communication in the treefrog Hypsiboas curupi74Phyllomedusa - 11(1), June 2012ReferencesAmézquita, A. and W. Hödl. 2004. How, when and where to perform visual displays: the case of the Amazonian frog Hyla parviceps. Herpetologica 60: 420–429.Barros, A. B. and R. N. Feio. 2011. Visual communication in Scinax  maracaya  (Cardoso  &  Sazima,  1980)  (Anura: Hylidae)  at  the  Serra  da  Canastra  National  Park, southeastern Brazil. Herpetology Notes 4: 103–104.Bertoluci, J. 2002. Pedal luring in the leaf‑frog Phyllomedusa burmeisteri (Anura, Hylidae, Phyllomedusinae). Phyllo-me  dusa 1: 93–95.Brusquetti,  F.  and  E.  O.  Lavilla.  2008.  Amphibia,  Anura, Hylidae,  Hypsiboas  curupi:  first  record  for  Paraguay. Check List 4: 145.Carrizo, G. R. 1991. Sobre los hílidos de Misiones, Argentina, con la descripción de una nueva especie, Hyla caingua n. sp. (Anura, Hylidae). Cuadernos de Herpetología 5: 32–39.Duellman,  W.  E.  and  L.  Trueb  (eds.).  1994.  Biology  of Amphibians. Baltimore and London. McGraw‑Hill. 670 pp.Garcia, P. C. A., J. Faivovich, and C. F. B. Haddad. 2007. Redescription  of  Hypsiboas    semiguttatus,  with  the description of a new species of the Hypsiboas pulchellus group. Copeia 4: 933–951. Giasson,  L.  O.  M.  and  C.  F.  B.  Haddad.  2006.  Social interactions  in  Hypsiboas  albomarginatus  (Anura: Hylidae)  and  the  significance  of  acoustic  and  visual signals. Journal of Herpetology 40: 171–180.Haddad,  C.  F.  B.  and  A.  A.  Giaretta.  1999.  Visual  and acoustic  communication  in  the  Brazilian  torrent  frog, Hylodes asper (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Herpetologica 55: 324–333.Hartmann,  M.  T.,  P.  A.  Hartmann,  and  C.  F.  B.  Haddad. 2004.  Visual  signaling  and  reproductive  biology  in  a nocturnal  treefrog,  genus  Hyla  (Anura:  Hylidae). Amphibia‑Reptilia 25: 395–406.Hartmann, M. T., L. O. M. Giasson., P. A. Hartmann, and C. F. B. Haddad. 2005. Visual communication in Brazilian species of anurans from the Atlantic forest. Journal of Natural History 39: 1675–1685.Hirschmann,  W.  and  W.  Hödl.  2006.  Visual  signaling  in Phrynobatrachus  krefftii  Boulenger,  1909  (Anura: Ranidae). Herpetologica 62: 18–27.Hödl, W. and A. Amézquita. 2001. Visual signaling in anuran amphibians. Pp. 121–141 in M. J. Ryan (ed.), Anuran communication. Washington. Smithsonian Institution Press.Iop, S., V. M. Caldart, M. C. Rocha, P. M. Paim, and S. Z. Cechin.  2009.  Amphibia,  Anura,  Hylidae,  Hypsiboas curupi Garcia, Faivovich and Haddad, 2007: first record for the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Check List  5: 860–862.Lehner, P. N. (ed.). 1996. Handbook of ethological methods. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 694 pp.Lindquist, E. D. and T. E. Hetherington. 1996. Field studies on  visual  and  acoustic  signaling  in  the  “earless” Panamanian  golden  frog,  Atelopus  zeteki.  Journal  of Herpetology 30: 347–354. Lindquist, E. D. and T. E. Hetherington. 1998. Semaphoring in an earless frog: the origin of a novel visual signal. Animal Cognition 1: 83–87. Lucas, E. M. and P. C. A. Garcia. 2011. Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae Rafinesque, 1815 and Hylodidae Günther, 1858: distribution  extension  and  new  records  for  Santa Catarina, southern Brazil. Check List 7: 13–16.Maluf, J. R. T. 2000. Nova classificação climática do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. Revista Brasileira de Agrome-teorologia 8: 141–150.Oliveira‑Filho, A. T., J. A. Jarenkow, and M. J. N. Rodal. 2006. Floristic relationships of seasonally dry forests of eastern South America based on tree species distribution patterns. Pp. 151–184 in Pennington, R. T., G. P. Lewis and J. A. Ratter (eds.), Neotropical savannas and dry forests: plant diversity, biogeography and conservation. Boca Raton. CRC Press.Preininger,  D.,  M.  Boeckle,  and  W.  Hödl.  2009.  Commu‑nication  in  noisy  environments  II:  visual  signaling behavior  of  male  foot-flagging  frogs  Staurois  latopal-matus. Herpetologica 65: 166–173.SEMA – Secretaria Estadual do Meio Ambiente. 2005. Plano de Manejo do Parque Estadual do Turvo. Estado do Rio Grande do Sul: [s.n.], 348 pp.Toledo, L. F., O. J. S. Araújo, L. D. Guimarães, R. Lingnau, and C. F. B. Haddad. 2007. Visual and acoustic signaling in three species of Brazilian nocturnal tree frogs (Anura, Hylidae). Phyllomedusa 6: 61–68.Wells,  K.  D.  1977.  The  social  behaviour  of  anuran amphibians. Animal Behaviour 25: 666–693.Wogel, H., P. A. Abrunhosa, and L. N. Weber. 2004. The tadpole,  vocalizations  and  visual  displays  of  Hylodes nasus (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Amphibia‑Reptilia 25: 219–227.Lipinski et al.

Visual communication in Hypsiboas curupi (Anura: Hylidae) at Parque Estadual do Turvo, southern Brazil

Cadernos Espinosanos (E-Journal)

71Phyllomedusa - 11(1), June 2012Phyllomedusa 11(1):71–74, 2012© 2012 Departamento de Ciências Biológicas - ESALQ - USP ISSN 1519-1397Received 3 October 2011.Accepted 3 April 2012.Distributed June 2012.Short CommuniCationVisual communication in Hypsiboas curupi (Anura: Hylidae) at Parque Estadual do Turvo, southern BrazilVictor Mendes Lipinski, Vinícius Matheus Caldart, and Samanta IopCentro de Ciências Naturais e Exatas, Programa de Pós-graduação em Biodiversidade Animal, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, 97105‑900, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil. E‑mail: lipinskivictor@hotmail.com.Keywords: communication, visual repertoire, visual signals.Palavras-chave: comunicação, repertório visual, sinais visuais.Acoustic communication plays a fundamental role in anuran communication (Wells 1977) because most species are active at night and vocalizations are not light‑dependent (Duellman and Trueb 1994). However, many studies have demonstrated that some species display remarkable and stereotyped visual signals used in different social contexts (Lindquist and Hetherington 1996, 1998, Haddad and Giaretta 1999, Preininger et al. 2009), indicating that visual signalling in anurans is diverse, wide‑spread, and has evolved independently in several families (Hödl and Amézquita 2001). Most recently, visual displays have been documented even for nocturnal species (Bertoluci 2002, Hartmann et al. 2005, Giasson and Haddad 2006, Toledo et al. 2007, Barros and Feio 2011), suggesting that nocturnal anurans have visual acuity for visual stimulus, possibly dependent on the optimum ambient illumination of the species (Hartmann et al. 2005). Thus, data on the repertoire of visual signals of different species, including information on the behaviors and the social context in which they are performed, constitute  a primary source of information to understand the evolution of visual communication in anurans (Amézquita and Hödl 2004).Hypsiboas curupi Garcia, Faivovich, and Haddad, 2007 is a recently described species from the Hypsiboas pulchellus Group, previously referred as Hypsiboas semigutattus. Its distri‑bution includes localities in the province of Misiones, Argentina (Garcia et al. 2007), in the departments of Caazapá and Itapúa, Paraguay (Brusquetti and Lavilla 2008), and in the Brazilian states of Santa Catarina (Lucas and Garcia 2011) and Rio Grande do Sul (Iop et al. 2009). Despite these new population records, little is known about the ecology and behavior of the species. This study aimed to describe the visual repertoire used by H. curupi and to identify the context in which the visual signals were performed.72Phyllomedusa - 11(1), June 2012The study was conducted with populations from Parque Estadual do Turvo, located in the municipality of Derrubadas, in the northwestern region of the state of Rio Grande do Sul,  southern Brazil (27˚14'34.08'' S, 53˚57'13.74'' W). The park covers an area of 17,491.4 ha, representing the largest remnant of preserved Mesophytic Semideciduous Forest (sensu Oliveira‑Filho et al. 2006) in the state, and is bordered by the province of Misiones, Argentina, and the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil (SEMA 2005). The local climate is classified as subtropical sub-humid with dry summer, with an annual mean temperature of 18.8˚C (ST SB v type of Maluf 2000) and rainfall evenly distributed throughout the year, with an annual mean of 1.665 mm (SEMA 2005).We conducted monthly observations from November 2009 to March 2010 (except in December 2009) in four streams in the park in which we had confirmed the occurrence of populations of Hypsiboas curupi. We divided observations into non‑regular, sporadic visits to the streams in November 2009 and March 2010, and regular visits in January and February 2010, in which we observed individuals in the streams for eight consecutive days each month. Although the reproductive biology of H. curupi has not yet been studied, the period of our observations included months in which males were found in calling activity in localities from Misiones, Argentina (Carrizo 1991, Garcia et al. 2007), and in localities from the west of Santa Catarina, Brazil (Lucas and Garcia 2011).We made observations following the ad libitum method (Lehner 1996), always by the same observer, starting at dusk and extending between 00:00 and 04:00 h, depending on the presence and activity of individuals. We only used flashlights to locate individuals, and once observations started, we used the night‑shot device of a video camera (Handycam SONY MiniDV DCR-HC52) to avoid influencing an individual frog’s behavior with artificial light; many of the observed behaviors were videotaped for further analysis. Background noise at the observation sites was not measured. Considering non‑regular and regular visits, the total time employed in observations was 2.620 min. With respect to the social context in which visual signals were performed, we considered signal use in short‑or long-distance interactions between conspecific males to be agonistic, and signaling by males or females toward one another as courtship. All visual signals were assigned according to the descriptions provided by Hödl and Amézquita (2001) and Hartmann et al. (2005).Six visual displays were performed by Hypsiboas curupi (Table 1). Males performed all six visual signals, whereas females performed two types of display. Four signals were performed exclusively by males, while females did not perform none visual signal exclusively. The four visual signals performed by males were used in agonistic contexts toward other males, which could explain the differences in the visual repertoire between the sexes. Although the literature lacks information about visual signals performed by frogs relative to their sex, it is probable that males have a more diverse visual repertoire than females, especially in species in which males defend territories and compete to attract females. Moreover, vocal sac display is a signal performed specifically by males, as reported for the hylid Aplastodiscus eugenioi (Hartmann et al. 2004, Hartmann et al. 2005), for the ranid Staurois latopalmatus (Preininger 2009), and the phrynobatrachid Phrynobatrachus krefftii (Hirschmann and Hödl 2006).Visual signals such as upright posture and mouth opening were performed by males of Hypsiboas curupi exclusively toward other males in agonistic contexts. Many hylid species use visual signals when engaging in agonistic behaviors. Giasson and Haddad (2006) observed males of Hypsiboas albomarginatus performing five visual signals, and Amézquita and Hödl (2004) observed two visual signals displayed in agonistic contexts by the Amazonian hylid Dendropsophus parviceps.  Toledo et al. (2007) presented information on visual signals performed by males of Aplastodiscus perviridis, Hypsiboas Lipinski et al.73Phyllomedusa - 11(1), June 2012Table 1. Visual signals performed in courtship or agonistic contexts by male and female Hypsiboas curupi at Parque Estadual do Turvo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Descriptions of the visual signals follow those of Hartmann et al. (2005).Visual signals Description Agonistic CourtshipVocal sac display Vocal sac inflates without vocalization % %Throat display Pulsation of the throat without vocalization % %Face wiping Lifting an arm and touching the head with the hands, passing the hands on the eyes and snout, returning to the normal position— % &Leg stretching Stretching a single leg rapidly at the substrate level; leg may or not remain extended for some time— % &Upright posture Extending the angled arms and raising the anterior part of the body % —Mouth opening Opening and closing the mouth slowly or rapidly, or individual remaining with mouth opened for some time% —albopunctatus, and H. bischoffi, also during agonistic behaviors or after playback of conspecific advertisement calls. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that none of the signals reported for these species was performed by H. curupi.In relation to the visual signals performed exclusively in a courtship context, Hypsiboas curupi performed face wiping and leg stretching, both of which were performed by both sexes. In contrast to other species, Hartmann et al. (2004) reported males of Aplastodiscus eugenioi employing visual signals only during courtship, including face wiping. Males of Hylodes asper (Haddad and Giareta 1999) and males of Hylodes phyllodes (Hartmann et al. 2005) are known to perform leg stretching during courtship. Our results with H. curupi provide new information on females performing face wiping and leg stretching in a courtship context. Considering that most studies on visual signals focus on males and on the interactions between them, further studies including information on visual signals employed by females are necessary.Hypsiboas curupi seems to have a repertoire of visual signals composed of signals performed by other species that also inhabit streams, such as Hylodes phyllodes (Hartmann et al. 2005) and Hylodes nasus (Wogel et al. 2004), rather than of visual signals reported for species in the genus Hypsiboas. In fact, H. curupi does not share any visual signal in common with Hypsiboas albomarginatus (Giasson and Haddad 2006), H. albopunctatus, and H. bischoffi (Toledo et al. 2007), although there are some similarities with the visual signals of Aplastodiscus eugenioi (Hartmann et al. 2005). Because H. curupi inhabits streams (syntopically with Crossodactylus schmidti at Parque Estadual do Turvo and in localities from Misiones), it is plausible to hypothesize that the communication system of this species may be constrained by the selective pressures of lotic habitats. Species of Crosso-dactylus and Hylodes are subject to these same pressures, in contrast to those associated with the lentic habitats inhabited by many species of Hypsiboas. Although our results with H. curupi are insufficient to support this hypothesis, future studies on the visual communication of other species from the Hypsiboas pulchellus Group that inhabit forested streams may clarify this.AcknowledgmentsWe are grateful to SEMA–RS for granting access to the Parque Estadual do Turvo (license no. 302). We also thank Tiago Gomes dos Santos, Rafael Márquez and an anonymous reviewer for their critical suggestions on the manuscript, and Tiago R. N. Bertaso and Marcelo Carvalho da Rocha for their help in fieldwork.Visual communication in the treefrog Hypsiboas curupi74Phyllomedusa - 11(1), June 2012ReferencesAmézquita, A. and W. Hödl. 2004. How, when and where to perform visual displays: the case of the Amazonian frog Hyla parviceps. Herpetologica 60: 420–429.Barros, A. B. and R. N. Feio. 2011. Visual communication in Scinax maracaya (Cardoso & Sazima, 1980) (Anura: Hylidae) at the Serra da Canastra National Park, southeastern Brazil. Herpetology Notes 4: 103–104.Bertoluci, J. 2002. Pedal luring in the leaf‑frog Phyllomedusa burmeisteri (Anura, Hylidae, Phyllomedusinae). Phyllo-me dusa 1: 93–95.Brusquetti, F. and E. O. Lavilla. 2008. Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae, Hypsiboas curupi: first record for Paraguay. Check List 4: 145.Carrizo, G. R. 1991. Sobre los hílidos de Misiones, Argentina, con la descripción de una nueva especie, Hyla caingua n. sp. (Anura, Hylidae). Cuadernos de Herpetología 5: 32–39.Duellman, W. E. and L. Trueb (eds.). 1994. Biology of Amphibians. Baltimore and London. McGraw‑Hill. 670 pp.Garcia, P. C. A., J. Faivovich, and C. F. B. Haddad. 2007. Redescription of Hypsiboas  semiguttatus, with the description of a new species of the Hypsiboas pulchellus group. Copeia 4: 933–951. Giasson, L. O. M. and C. F. B. Haddad. 2006. Social interactions in Hypsiboas albomarginatus (Anura: Hylidae) and the significance of acoustic and visual signals. Journal of Herpetology 40: 171–180.Haddad, C. F. B. and A. A. Giaretta. 1999. Visual and acoustic communication in the Brazilian torrent frog, Hylodes asper (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Herpetologica 55: 324–333.Hartmann, M. T., P. A. Hartmann, and C. F. B. Haddad. 2004. Visual signaling and reproductive biology in a nocturnal treefrog, genus Hyla (Anura: Hylidae). Amphibia‑Reptilia 25: 395–406.Hartmann, M. T., L. O. M. Giasson., P. A. Hartmann, and C. F. B. Haddad. 2005. Visual communication in Brazilian species of anurans from the Atlantic forest. Journal of Natural History 39: 1675–1685.Hirschmann, W. and W. Hödl. 2006. Visual signaling in Phrynobatrachus krefftii Boulenger, 1909 (Anura: Ranidae). Herpetologica 62: 18–27.Hödl, W. and A. Amézquita. 2001. Visual signaling in anuran amphibians. Pp. 121–141 in M. J. Ryan (ed.), Anuran communication. Washington. Smithsonian Institution Press.Iop, S., V. M. Caldart, M. C. Rocha, P. M. Paim, and S. Z. Cechin. 2009. Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae, Hypsiboas curupi Garcia, Faivovich and Haddad, 2007: first record for the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Check List  5: 860–862.Lehner, P. N. (ed.). 1996. Handbook of ethological methods. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 694 pp.Lindquist, E. D. and T. E. Hetherington. 1996. Field studies on visual and acoustic signaling in the “earless” Panamanian golden frog, Atelopus zeteki. Journal of Herpetology 30: 347–354. Lindquist, E. D. and T. E. Hetherington. 1998. Semaphoring in an earless frog: the origin of a novel visual signal. Animal Cognition 1: 83–87. Lucas, E. M. and P. C. A. Garcia. 2011. Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae Rafinesque, 1815 and Hylodidae Günther, 1858: distribution extension and new records for Santa Catarina, southern Brazil. Check List 7: 13–16.Maluf, J. R. T. 2000. Nova classificação climática do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. Revista Brasileira de Agrome-teorologia 8: 141–150.Oliveira‑Filho, A. T., J. A. Jarenkow, and M. J. N. Rodal. 2006. Floristic relationships of seasonally dry forests of eastern South America based on tree species distribution patterns. Pp. 151–184 in Pennington, R. T., G. P. Lewis and J. A. Ratter (eds.), Neotropical savannas and dry forests: plant diversity, biogeography and conservation. Boca Raton. CRC Press.Preininger, D., M. Boeckle, and W. Hödl. 2009. Commu‑nication in noisy environments II: visual signaling behavior of male foot-flagging frogs Staurois latopal-matus. Herpetologica 65: 166–173.SEMA – Secretaria Estadual do Meio Ambiente. 2005. Plano de Manejo do Parque Estadual do Turvo. Estado do Rio Grande do Sul: [s.n.], 348 pp.Toledo, L. F., O. J. S. Araújo, L. D. Guimarães, R. Lingnau, and C. F. B. Haddad. 2007. Visual and acoustic signaling in three species of Brazilian nocturnal tree frogs (Anura, Hylidae). Phyllomedusa 6: 61–68.Wells, K. D. 1977. The social behaviour of anuran amphibians. Animal Behaviour 25: 666–693.Wogel, H., P. A. Abrunhosa, and L. N. Weber. 2004. The tadpole, vocalizations and visual displays of Hylodes nasus (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Amphibia‑Reptilia 25: 219–227.Lipinski et al.

Visual communication in Hypsiboas curupi (Anura: Hylidae) at Parque Estadual do Turvo, southern Brazil

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Directory of Open Access Journals

Cadernos Espinosanos (E-Journal)