Phylogenetic signal in the acoustic parameters of the advertisement calls of four clades of anurans

BMC Evolutionary Biology

W Tecumseh Fitch¹  Drasko Boko¹  Elmira Mohandesan²  Bruno Gingras¹ 

[1] Department of Cognitive Biology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, Vienna A-1090, Austria;Institute of Population Genetics, University of Veterinary Medicine of Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna A-1210, Austria

关键词: Rana;    Leptodactylus;    Hylinae;    Bufo;    Rhodopsin;    12 S;    Mitochondrial DNA;    Advertisement calls;    Acoustics;    Phylogenetic signal;    Molecular phylogeny;    Anurans;   

Others  :  1086981
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2148-13-134

 received in 2012-12-18, accepted in 2013-06-12,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Anuran vocalizations, especially their advertisement calls, are largely species-specific and can be used to identify taxonomic affiliations. Because anurans are not vocal learners, their vocalizations are generally assumed to have a strong genetic component. This suggests that the degree of similarity between advertisement calls may be related to large-scale phylogenetic relationships. To test this hypothesis, advertisement calls from 90 species belonging to four large clades (Bufo, Hylinae, Leptodactylus, and Rana) were analyzed. Phylogenetic distances were estimated based on the DNA sequences of the 12S mitochondrial ribosomal RNA gene, and, for a subset of 49 species, on the rhodopsin gene. Mean values for five acoustic parameters (coefficient of variation of root-mean-square amplitude, dominant frequency, spectral flux, spectral irregularity, and spectral flatness) were computed for each species. We then tested for phylogenetic signal on the body-size-corrected residuals of these five parameters, using three statistical tests (Moran’s I, Mantel, and Blomberg’s K) and three models of genetic distance (pairwise distances, Abouheif’s proximities, and the variance-covariance matrix derived from the phylogenetic tree).

Results

A significant phylogenetic signal was detected for most acoustic parameters on the 12S dataset, across statistical tests and genetic distance models, both for the entire sample of 90 species and within clades in several cases. A further analysis on a subset of 49 species using genetic distances derived from rhodopsin and from 12S broadly confirmed the results obtained on the larger sample, indicating that the phylogenetic signals observed in these acoustic parameters can be detected using a variety of genetic distance models derived either from a variable mitochondrial sequence or from a conserved nuclear gene.

Conclusions

We found a robust relationship, in a large number of species, between anuran phylogenetic relatedness and acoustic similarity in the advertisement calls in a taxon with no evidence for vocal learning, even after correcting for the effect of body size. This finding, covering a broad sample of species whose vocalizations are fairly diverse, indicates that the intense selection on certain call characteristics observed in many anurans does not eliminate all acoustic indicators of relatedness. Our approach could potentially be applied to other vocal taxa.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Gingras et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Duellman W, Trueb L: Biology of amphibians. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1994.
• [2]Gerhardt HC: The evolution of vocalization in frogs and toads. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1994, 25:293-324.
• [3]Dawson B, Ryan MJ: Early experience leads to changes in the advertisement calls of male Physalaemus pustulosus. Copeia 2009, 2009:221-226.
• [4]Littlejohn MJ: Call differentiation in a complex of seven species of Crinia (Anura, Leptodactylidae). Evolution 1959, 13:452-268.
• [5]Ryan MJ: Constraints and patterns in the evolution of anuran acoustic communication. In The evolution of the amphibian auditory system. Edited by Fritzch B, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, Hetherington TE, Walkowiak W. New York: Wiley; 1988:637-677.
• [6]Blair WF: Mating call in the speciation of anuran amphibians. Am Nat 1958, 92:27-51.
• [7]Tobias ML, Evans BJ, Kelley DB: Evolution of advertisement calls in African clawed frogs. Behaviour 2011, 148:519-549.
• [8]Wollenberg KC, Glaw F, Meyer A, Vences M: Molecular phylogeny of Malagasy reed frogs, Heterixalus, and the relative performance of bioacoustics and color-patterns for resolving their systematics. Mol Phylogenet Evol 2007, 45:14-22.
• [9]Lehtinen RM, Wojtowicz EA, Hailey A: Male vocalizations, female discrimination and molecular phylogeny: multiple perspectives on the taxonomic status of a critically endangered Caribbean frog. J Zool 2011, 283:117-125.
• [10]Goicoechea N, De La Riva I, Padial JM: Recovering phylogenetic signal from frog mating calls. Zool Scr 2010, 39:141-154.
• [11]Thinh V, Hallam C, Roos C, Hammerschmidt K: Concordance between vocal and genetic diversity in crested gibbons. BMC Evol Biol 2011, 11:36. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Cap H, Deleporte P, Joachim J, Reby D: Male vocal behavior and phylogeny in deer. Cladistics 2008, 24:917-931.
• [13]Cocroft RB, Ryan MJ: Patterns of advertisement call evolution in toads and chorus frogs. Anim Behav 1995, 49:283-303.
• [14]Ryan MJ: Sexual selection and communication in frogs. Trends Ecol Evol 1991, 6:351-355.
• [15]Darst CR, Cannatella DC: Novel relationships among hyloid frogs inferred from 12S and 16S mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol Phylogenet Evol 2004, 31:462-475.
• [16]Shaw KL: Conflict between nuclear and mitochondrial DNA phylogenies of a recent species radiation: What mtDNA reveals and conceals about modes of speciation in Hawaiian crickets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002, 99:16122-16127.
• [17]Hurst GD, Jiggins FM: Problems with mitochondrial DNA as a marker in population, phylogeographic and phylogenetic studies: the effects of inherited symbionts. Proc Biol Sci 2005, 272:1525-1534.
• [18]Frost DR, Grant T, Faivovich J, Bain RH, Haas A, Haddad CFB, de Sá RO, Channing A, Wilkinson M, Donnellan SC, Raxworthy CJ, Campbell JA, Blotto BL, Moler P, Drewes RC, Nussbaum RA, Lynch JD, Green DM, Wheeler WC: The amphibian tree of life. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 2006, 297:1-370.
• [19]Pyron RA, Wiens JJ: A large-scale phylogeny of Amphibia including over 2800 species, and a revised classification of extant frogs, salamanders, and caecilians. Mol Phylogenet Evol 2011, 61:543-583.
• [20]Hertwig S, De Sá RO, Haas A: Phylogenetic signal and the utility of 12S and 16S mtDNA in frog phylogeny. J Zoolog Syst Evol Res 2008, 42:2-18.
• [21]Springer MS, DeBry RW, Douady C, Amrine HM, Madsen O, de Jong WW, Stanhope MJ: Mitochondrial versus nuclear gene sequences in deep-level mammalian phylogeny reconstruction. Mol Biol Evol 2001, 18:132-143.
• [22]Hoegg S, Vences M, Brinkmann H, Meyer A: Phylogeny and comparative substitution rates of frogs inferred from sequences of three nuclear genes. Mol Biol Evol 2004, 21:1188-1200.
• [23]Gingras B, Fitch WT: A three-parameter model for classifying anurans into four genera based on advertisement calls. J Acoust Soc Am 2013, 133:547-559.
• [24]Jensen K, Andersen TH: Real-time beat estimation using feature extraction. In Computer Music Modeling and Retrieval, Volume 2771. Edited by Wiil UK. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2004:13-22.
• [25]Dubnov S: Generalization of spectral flatness measure for non-Gaussian linear processes. IEEE Signal Process Lett 2004, 11:698-701.
• [26]Amphibian species of the world: an online reference. Version 5.5. http://research.amnh.org/vz/herpetology/amphibia/ webcite
• [27]Fitch WT, Hauser MD: Unpacking “honesty”: vertebrate vocal production and the evolution of acoustic signals. In Acoustic Communication. Edited by Simmons AM, Fay RF, Popper AN. New York: Springer; 2002:65-137.
• [28]Gerhardt HC, Huber F: Acoustic Communication in Insects and Anurans: Common Problems and Diverse Solutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2002.
• [29]Gingras B, Boeckle M, Herbst CT, Fitch WT: Call acoustics reflect body size across four clades of anurans. J Zool 2013, 289:143-150.
• [30]Freckleton RP, Jetz W: Space versus phylogeny: disentangling phylogenetic and spatial signals in comparative data. Proc Biol Sci 2009, 276:21-30.
• [31]Blomberg SP, Garland T Jr, Ives AR: Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 2003, 57:717-745.
• [32]Felsenstein J: Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 1985, 125:1-15.
• [33]Grafen A: The phylogenetic regression. Phil Trans R Soc B 1989, 326:119-157.
• [34]Revell LJ: Size-correction and principal components for interspecific comparative studies. Evolution 2009, 63:3258-3268.
• [35]Rohlf FJ: A comment on phylogenetic correction. Evolution 2006, 60:1509-1515.
• [36]Stone EA: Why the phylogenetic regression appears robust to tree misspecification. Syst Biol 2011, 60:245-260.
• [37]Moran PAP: Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika 1950, 37:17-23.
• [38]Mantel N: The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res 1967, 27:209-220.
• [39]Borcard D, Legendre P: Is the Mantel correlogram powerful enough to be useful in ecological analysis? A simulation study. Ecology 2012, 93:1473-1481.
• [40]Hardy OJ, Pavoine S: Assessing phylogenetic signal with measurement error: A comparison of Mantel tests, Blomberg et al.’s K, and phylogenetic distograms. Evolution 2012, 66:2614-2621.
• [41]Diniz-Filho JAF, Santos T, Rangel TF, Bini LM: A comparison of metrics for estimating phylogenetic signal under alternative evolutionary models. Genet Mol Biol 2012, 35:673-679.
• [42]Pavoine S, Ricotta C: Testing for phylogenetic signal in biological traits: The ubiquity of cross-product statistics. Evolution 2013, 67:828-840.
• [43]Abouheif E: A method for testing the assumption of phylogenetic independence in comparative data. Evol Ecol Res 1999, 1:895-909.
• [44]Pavoine S, Ollier S, Pontier D, Chessel D: Testing for phylogenetic signal in phenotypic traits: new matrices of phylogenetic proximities. Theor Popul Biol 2008, 73:79-91.
• [45]Münkemüller T, Lavergne S, Bzeznik B, Dray S, Jombart T, Schiffers K, Thuiller W: How to measure and test phylogenetic signal. Methods Ecol Evol 2012, 3:743-756.
• [46]Xia X, Xie Z, Salemi M, Chen L, Wang Y: An index of substitution saturation and its application. Mol Phylogenet Evol 2003, 26:1-7.
• [47]Xia X, Lemey P: Assessing substitution saturation with DAMBE. In The Phylogenetic Handbook: A Practical Approach to DNA and Protein Phylogeny. 2nd edition. Edited by Lemey P, Salemi M, Vandamme A-M. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009:615-630.
• [48]Legendre P, Fortin MJ: Spatial pattern and ecological analysis. Plant Ecol 1989, 80:107-138.
• [49]Geary RC: The contiguity ratio and statistical mapping. Inc Stat 1954, 5:115-127.
• [50]Dutilleul P, Stockwell JD, Frigon D, Legendre P: The Mantel test versus Pearson’s correlation analysis: Assessment of the differences for biological and environmental studies. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 2000, 5:131-150.
• [51]Mable BK, Alexandrou MA, Taylor MI: Genome duplication in amphibians and fish: an extended synthesis. J Zool 2011, 284:151-182.
• [52]Martin WF: Evolution of vocalizations in the genus Bufo. In Evolution in the Genus Bufo. Edited by Blair WF. Austin, Texas: University of Texas; 1972:279-309.
• [53]Ryan MJ: Factors influencing the evolution of acoustic communication: biological constraints. Brain Behav Evol 1986, 28:70-82.
• [54]Ryan MJ, Fox JH, Wilczynski W, Rand AS: Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature 1990, 343:66-67.
• [55]Richards CL: Has the evolution of complexity in the amphibian papilla influenced anuran speciation rates? J Evol Biol 2006, 19:1222-1230.
• [56]Zimmerman BL: A comparison of structural features of calls of open and forest habitat frog species in the Central Amazon. Herpetologica 1983, 39:235-246.
• [57]Kime NM, Turner WR, Ryan MJ: The transmission of advertisement calls in Central American frogs. Behav Ecol 2000, 11:71-83.
• [58]Amezquita A, Flechas SV, Lima AP, Gasser H, Hodl W: Acoustic interference and recognition space within a complex assemblage of dendrobatid frogs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011, 108:17058-17063.
• [59]Bee MA, Perrill SA, Owen PC: Male green frogs lower the pitch of acoustic signals in defense of territories: a possible dishonest signal of size? Behav Ecol 2000, 11:169-177.
• [60]Wagner WE: Deceptive or honest signalling of fighting ability? A test of alternative hypotheses for the function of changes in call dominant frequency by male cricket frogs. Anim Behav 1992, 44:449-462.
• [61]Boersma P, Weenink D: Praat. doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.1.44); [Computer program]. [http://www.praat.org/]
• [62]Lartillot O, Toiviainen P, Eerola T: A Matlab toolbox for music information retrieval. In Data Analysis, Machine Learning and Applications. Edited by Preisach C, Burkhardt H, Schmidt-Thieme L, Decker R. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2008:261-268.
• [63]Hoskin CJ, James S, Grigg GC: Ecology and taxonomy-driven deviations in the frog call-body size relationship across the diverse Australian frog fauna. J Zool 2009, 278:36-41.
• [64]Cock PJA, Antao T, Chang JT, Chapman BA, Cox CJ, Dalke A, Friedberg I, Hamelryck T, Kauff F, Wilczynski B, de Hoon MJL: Biopython: freely available Python tools for computational molecular biology and bioinformatics. Bioinformatics 2009, 25:1422-1423.
• [65]Hall TA: BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp Ser 1999, 41:95-98.
• [66]Tamura K, Peterson D, Peterson N, Stecher G, Nei M, Kumar S: MEGA5: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. Mol Biol Evol 2011, 28:2731-2739.
• [67]Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ: CLUSTAL W: Improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res 1994, 22:4673-4680.
• [68]Penn O, Privman E, Ashkenazy H, Landan G, Graur D, Pupko T: GUIDANCE: A web server for assessing alignment confidence scores. Nucleic Acids Res 2010, 38:W23-W28.
• [69]Guindon S, Gascuel O: A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst Biol 2003, 52:696-704.
• [70]Posada D: jModelTest: phylogenetic model averaging. Mol Biol Evol 2008, 25:1253-1256.
• [71]Rodríguez F, Oliver JL, Marín A, Medina JR: The general stochastic model of nucleotide substitution. J Theor Biol 1990, 142:485-501.
• [72]Gu X, Fu YX, Li WH: Maximum likelihood estimation of the heterogeneity of substitution rate among nucleotide sites. Mol Biol Evol 1995, 12:546-557.
• [73]Yang Z: Maximum-likelihood estimation of phylogeny from DNA sequences when substitution rates differ over sites. Mol Biol Evol 1993, 10:1396-1401.
• [74]Yang Z: Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites: approximate methods. J Mol Evol 1994, 39:306-314.
• [75]Hasegawa M, Kishino H, Yano T: Dating of the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. J Mol Evol 1985, 22:160-174.
• [76]Drummond AJ, Rambaut A: BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees. BMC Evol Biol 2007, 7:214. BioMed Central Full Text
• [77]Drummond AJ, Ho SYW, Phillips MJ, Rambaut A: Relaxed phylogenetics and dating with confidence. PLoS Biol 2006, 4:e88.
• [78]Drummond AJ, Ho SYW, Rawlence N, Rambaut A: A rough guide to BEAST 1.4. University of Auckland: Auckland, New Zealand; 2007.
• [79]Jombart T, Balloux F, Dray S: adephylo: new tools for investigating the phylogenetic signal in biological traits. Bioinformatics 2010, 26:1907-1909.
• [80]Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K: APE: Analyses of Phylogenetics and Evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 2004, 20:289-290.
• [81]Bivand R: Implementing spatial data analysis software tools in R. Geogr Anal 2006, 38:23-40.
• [82]Revell LJ: phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol Evol 2012, 3:217-223.
• [83]Goslee SC, Urban DL: The ecodist package for dissimilarity-based analysis of ecological data. J Stat Softw 2007, 22:1-19.