Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Little effect of natural noise on high-frequency hearing in frogs, Odorrana tormota

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Comparative Physiology A Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ambient noise influences acoustic communication in animals. The concave-eared frogs (Odorrana tormota) produce high-frequency sound signals to avoid potential masking from noise. However, whether environmental noise has effect on the high-frequency hearing of frogs is largely unclear. By measuring the auditory evoked near-field potentials (AENFPs) from the torus semicircularis of the midbrain at frequencies 1–23 kHz in the presence of three noise levels, we found no significant difference in the peak-to-peak amplitude, threshold and latency of AENFP between low-level (35 dB SPL) background noise and mid-level (65 dB SPL) broadcast natural noise. For a natural noise level of 85 dB SPL, AENFP amplitude decreased and threshold and latency increased at frequencies 3–13 kHz. Spike counts evoked by stimuli at the best excitatory frequency under 85 dB SPL natural noise exposure were lower in 7-kHz CF neurons than in exposures to 35 and 65 dB SPL noise. However spike counts were similar for 14- and 20-kHz CF neurons at the three exposure levels. These findings indicate that environmental noise does not mask the responses of high-frequency tuned auditory neurons, and suggest that the acoustic communication system of O. tormota is efficiently adapted to noisy habitats.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AENFP:

Auditory evoked near-field potential

BEF:

Best excitatory frequency

CF:

Characteristic frequency

RMS:

Root mean square

SNR:

Signal-to-noise ratio

SPL:

Sound pressure level

TS:

Torus semicircularis

References

  • Arch VS, Narins PM (2008) “Silent” signals: selective forces acting on ultrasonic communication systems in terrestrial vertebrates. Anim Behav 76:1423–1428

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arch VS, Grafe TU, Narins PM (2008) Ultrasonic signalling by a Bornean frog. Biol Lett 4:19–22

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brumm H (2004) The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird. J Anim Ecol 73:434–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brumm H, Voss K, Kollmer I, Todt D (2004) Acoustic communication in noise: regulation of call characteristics in a new world monkey. J Exp Biol 207:443–448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ehret G, Gerhardt H (1980) Auditory masking and effects of noise on responses of the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea) to synthetic mating calls. J Comp Physiol A 141:13–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng AS, Schul J (2007) Sound processing in real-world environments. In: Narins PM, Feng AS, Fay RR, Popper AN (eds) Hearing and sound communication in amphibians. Springer, New York, pp 323–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Feng AS, Narins PM, Xu CH (2002) Vocal acrobatics in a Chinese frog, Amolops tormotus. Naturwissenschaften 89:352–356

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feng AS, Narins PM, Xu CH, Lin WY, Yu ZL, Qiu Q, Xu ZM, Shen JX (2006) Ultrasonic communication in frogs. Nature 440:333–336

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feng AS, Riede T, Arch VS, Yu ZL, Xu ZM, Yu XJ, Shen JX (2009) Diversity of the vocal signals of concave-eared torrent frogs (Odorrana tormota): evidence for individual signatures. Ethology 115:1015–1028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis CD, Ortega CP, Cruz A (2009) Noise pollution changes avian communities and species interactions. Curr Biol 19:1415–1419

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman EG, Ferragamo M, Simmons AM (1988) Masking patterns in the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). II: physiological effects. J Acoust Soc Am 84:2081–2091

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC, Klump GM (1988) Masking of acoustic signals by the chorus background noise in the green tree frog: a limitation on mate choice. Anim Behav 36:1247–1249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu WR, Shen JX, Zhang YJ, Xu ZM, Qi Z, Xue MQ (2014) Auditory sexual difference in the large odorous frog Odorrana graminea. J Comp Physiol A 200:311–316

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morton ES (1975) Ecological sources of selection on avian sounds. Am Nat 108:17–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy CG, Gerhardt HC (2002) Mate sampling by female barking treefrogs (Hyla gratiosa). Behav Ecol 13:472–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narins PM (1982) Effects of masking noise on evoked calling in the Puerto Rican Coqui (Anura: Leptodactylidae). J Comp Physiol A 147:438–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narins PM, Wagner I (1989) Noise susceptibility and immunity of phase locking in amphibian auditory-nerve fibers. J Acoust Soc Am 85:1255–1265

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Narins PM, Feng AS, Lin WY, Schnitzler HU, Denzinger A, Suthers RA, Xu CH (2004) Old World frog and bird vocalizations contain prominent ultrasonic harmonics. J Acoust Soc Am 115:910–913

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ronacher B, Hoffmann C (2003) Influence of amplitude modulated noise on the recognition of communication signals in the grasshopper Chorthippus biguttulus. J Comp Physiol A 189:419–425

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MJ, Brenowitz EA (1985) The role of body size, phylogeny, and ambient noise in the evolution of bird song. Am Nat 126:87–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen JX, Feng AS, Xu ZM, Yu ZL, Arch VS, Yu XJ, Narins PM (2008) Ultrasonic frogs show hyperacute phonotaxis to female courtship calls. Nature 453:914–916

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shen JX, Xu ZM, Yu ZL, Wang S, Zheng DZ, Fan SC (2011) Ultrasonic frogs show extraordinary sex differences in auditory frequency sensitivity. Nat Commun 2:342. doi:10.1038/ncomms1339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sinnott JM, Stebbins WC, Moody DB (1975) Regulation of voice amplitude by the monkey. J Acoust Soc Am 58:412–414

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slabbekoorn H, Peet M (2003) Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise. Nature 424:267

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slabbekoorn H, Ripmeester EPA (2008) Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: implications and applications for conservation. Mol Ecol 17:72–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waser PM, Brown CH (1986) Habitat acoustics and primate communication. Am J Primatol 10:135–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witte K, Farris HE, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W (2005) How cricket frog females deal with a noisy world: habitat-related differences in auditory tuning. Behav Ecol 10:571–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wollerman L (1999) Acoustic interference limits call detection in a Neotropical frog Hyla ebraccata. Anim Behav 57:529–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yu ZL, Qiu Q, Xu ZM, Shen JX (2006) Auditory response characteristics of the piebald odorous frog and their implications. J Comp Physiol A 192:801–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zelick R, Mann DA, Popper AN (1999) Acoustic communication in fishes and frogs. In: Fay RR, Popper AN (eds) Comparative hearing: fish and amphibians. Springer, New York, pp 363–411

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 30730029 to JXS; No. 31270891 to ZQ) and from the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Y3CQ031001 to JXS). All experiments were conducted following the Animal Care and Use Guidelines approved by the Xiamen University and the Institute of Biophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Medical College of Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361102, China

    Jing Liu, Han Yang, Guang-Lei Hu, Shan Li & Zhi Qi

  2. State Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Science, Institute of Biophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China

    Zhi-Min Xu & Jun-Xian Shen

Authors
  1. Jing Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Han Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guang-Lei Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zhi-Min Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zhi Qi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jun-Xian Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jun-Xian Shen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

The ethical standards of the experiments comply with the current laws of the country in which they were performed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, J., Yang, H., Hu, GL. et al. Little effect of natural noise on high-frequency hearing in frogs, Odorrana tormota . J Comp Physiol A 201, 1029–1034 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-015-1035-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-015-1035-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation