Faithful fathers and crooked cannibals: the adaptive significance of parental care in the bush frog Raorchestes chalazodes, Western Ghats, India

  • Kadaba Shamanna SeshadriEmail author
  • David Patrick Bickford
Featured Student Research Paper


Parental care has evolved many times in multiple taxa and, by definition, enhances offspring survivorship. Anurans exhibit a diverse array of parental care behaviors, but studies examining their adaptive significance in an evolutionary context are limited. The critically endangered bush frog, Raorchestes chalazodes (Rhacophoridae), only breeds inside hollow internodes of the endemic bamboo (Ochlandra travancorica) in the southern Western Ghats of India from June through October. From systematic surveys, we established that adult males are sole caregivers exhibiting egg attendance and egg guarding behavior. Predation was the main cause of egg mortality in the absence of an attending male; the majority of predation events were caused by conspecific males. The results highlight the role of regional and microhabitat-specific selection pressures such as strong seasonality, limited resources, and competition for oviposition sites. Oviposition sites are in high demand, but in short supply and by consuming unattended eggs, the conspecific male may benefit from nutritional gains as well as mating opportunities at the oviposition site. Our work lays foundations for further examination of social and reproductive behaviors of anurans not only in the Western Ghats but also in South and Southeast Asia.

Significance statement

The bamboo-breeding frog R. chalazodes is one among 62 arboreal frogs of the genus Raorchestes found in the Western Ghats of India. It was presumed extinct until its rediscovery in 2011 from within bamboo internodes endemic to the region. Adult males of this species care for direct developing eggs, laid exclusively inside of hollow bamboo internodes. Conspecific males cannibalized unattended egg clutches when the caregiving adult male was experimentally removed from the oviposition site. Eggs were also eaten by ants, parasitized by flies, and died from fungal infections or drowned. Male parental care in the form of egg attendance and egg guarding prevents predation of eggs and increases offspring survivorship. Parental care behavior is common among several taxa with external fertilization. Integrating natural history with in situ experiments may reveal novel insights into the adaptive nature of parental care behavior.


Reproductive ecology Parental care Predation Cannibalism Evolution The Western Ghats 



The Tamil Nadu Forest Department provided permits, and their staff provided logistical support. Drs M. D. Soubadra, T. Ganesh, and R. Ganesan permitted the use of facilities of the Agastyamalai Community-based Conservation Centre, and M. Mathivanan, A. Saravanan, and the staff provided logistics. Dr. T. Ganesh, Dr. K.V. Gururaja, S. Johnson, A. Sachin, A. Saravanan, S. Tamizalagan, Vidisha Kulkarni, and Vignesh Kamath assisted KSS in data collection. KSS was supported the Navjot Sodhi Conservation Biology scholarship from the National University of Singapore. Field research was supported by The Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund and Chicago Zoological Society-Endangered Species Fund. Dr. K.V. Gururaja provided critical inputs to KSS during fieldwork and when writing the manuscript. K. Vidisha prepared the illustration. This manuscript is also an outcome of the Science Writing workshop conducted by the Conservation Leadership Program in 2017, Bengaluru, India, and benefitted immensely from the inputs of Dr. Martin Fisher and Ms. Laura Owens. Dr. Frank Rheindt commented on the manuscript. Comments from Catharina Karlsson, Dr. Eva Ringler, and another anonymous reviewer improved the quality of this paper. We thank them all.

Funding information

This research was supported by grants from the Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund (14258557), Chicago Zoological Trust, and a travel award by the Conservation Leadership Program.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national (WL5(a) 19456), and/or institutional guidelines (B136072 and M140424) for the care and use of animals were followed.

Supplementary material

265_2017_2420_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (11 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 11 kb).
265_2017_2420_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (15 kb)
ESM 2 (XLSX 14 kb).

(MP4 5303 kb).

265_2017_2420_MOESM4_ESM.xlsx (12 kb)
ESM 4 (XLSX 11 kb).
265_2017_2420_MOESM5_ESM.xlsx (11 kb)
ESM 5 (XLSX 10 kb).
265_2017_2420_MOESM6_ESM.xlsx (10 kb)
ESM 6 (XLSX 10 kb).


  1. Alonso-Alvarez C, Velando A (2012) Benefits and costs of parental care. In: Smiseth PT, Kölliker M (eds) Royle NJ. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 40–61Google Scholar
  2. Alonzo SH (2012) Sexual selection favours male parental care, when females can choose. Proc R Soc Lond B 279(1734):1784–1790. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson DB (1936) Relative humidity or vapor pressure deficit. Ecology 17(2):277–282. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balshine S (2012) Patterns of parental care in vertebrates. In: Royle NJ, Smiseth PT, Kölliker M (eds) The evolution of parental care. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 62–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bee MA, Schwartz JJ, Summers K (2013) All’s well that begins wells: celebrating 60 years of animal behaviour and 36 years of research on anuran social behaviour. Anim Behav 85(1):5–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bickford D (2004) Differential parental care behaviors of arboreal and terrestrial microhylid frogs from Papua New Guinea. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55(4):402–409. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biju SD, Dutta SK, Vasudevan K, Vijayakumar SP, Srinivasulu C (2004) Raorchestes chalazodes. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T58829A11847257.
  8. Boos S, Meunier J, Pichon S, Kölliker M (2014) Maternal care provides antifungal protection to eggs in the European earwig. Behav Ecol 25(4):754–761. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown JL, Morales V, Summers K (2010) A key ecological trait drove the evolution of biparental care and monogamy in an amphibian. Am Nat 175(4):436–446. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown JL, Twomey E, Summers K, Morales V (2008) Phytotelm size in relation to parental care and mating strategies in two species of Peruvian poison frogs. Behaviour 145(9):1139–1165. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Claessen D, de Roos AM, Persson L (2000) Dwarfs and giants: cannibalism and competition in size-structured populations. Am Nat 155(2):219–237. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clutton-Brock TH (1991) The evolution of parental care. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  13. Consolmagno RC, Requena GS, Machado G, Brasileiro CA (2016) Costs and benefits of temporary egg desertion in a rocky shore frog with male-only care. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70(5):785–795. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crump ML (1995) Parental care. In: Heatwole H, Sullivan BK (eds) Amphibian Biology, Vol. 2. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW, pp 518–567Google Scholar
  15. Crump ML (1996) Parental care among the amphibia. Adv Stud Behav 25:109–144. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crump ML (2015) Anuran reproductive modes: evolving perspectives. J Herpetol 49(1):1–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Delia JRJ, Bravo-Valencia L, Warkentin KM (2017) Patterns of parental care in Neotropical glassfrogs: fieldwork alters hypotheses of sex-role evolution. J Evol Biol 30(5):898–914. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Delia JRJ, Ramírez-Bautista A, Summers K (2013) Parents adjust care in response to weather conditions and egg dehydration in a Neotropical glassfrog. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67(4):557–569. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Denoël M, Demars B (2008) The benefits of heterospecific oophagy in a top predator. Acta Oecol 34(1):74–79. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Devy MS, Davidar P (2003) Pollination systems of trees in Kakachi, a mid-elevation wet evergreen forest in Western Ghats, India. Am J Bot 90(4):650–657. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Duellman WE, Trueb L (1994) Biology of amphibians. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  22. Dugas MB, Wamelink CN, Killius AM, Richards-Zawacki CL (2016) Parental care is beneficial for offspring, costly for mothers, and limited by family size in an egg-feeding frog. Behav Ecol 27(2):476–483. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fox LR (1975) Cannibalism in natural populations. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 6(1):87–106. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ganesh T, Ganesan R, Devy MS, Davidar P, Bawa KS (1996) Assessment of plant biodiversity at a mid-elevation evergreen forest of Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Western Ghats, India. Curr Sci 71:379–391Google Scholar
  25. Gravel M-A, Cooke SJ (2009) Influence of inter-lake variation in natural nest predation pressure on the parental care behaviour of smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu). Ethology 115(6):608–616. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gururaja KV (2012) Pictorial guide to frogs and toads of the Western Ghats. Gubbi Labs LLP, GubbiGoogle Scholar
  27. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron 4:4Google Scholar
  28. Heyer R, Donnelly MA, Foster M, Mcdiarmid R (1994) Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnsingh AJT (2001) The Kalakad–Mundanthurai tiger reserve: a global heritage of biological diversity. Curr Sci 80:378–388Google Scholar
  30. Juncá FA (1996) Parental care and egg mortality in Colostethus stepheni. J Herpetol 30(2):292–294. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kam Y-C, Chuang Z-S, Yen C-F (1996) Reproduction, oviposition-site selection, and tadpole oophagy of an arboreal nester, Chirixalus eiffingeri (Rhacophoridae), from Taiwan. J Herpetol 30(1):52–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kluge AG (1981) The life history, social organization, and parental behavior of Hyla rosenbergi Boulenger, a nest-building gladiator frog. Misc Publ Mus Zool Univ Michigan 160:1–170Google Scholar
  33. Kokko H, Jennions MD (2012) Sex differences in parental care. In: Royle NJ, Smiseth PT, Kölliker M (eds) The evolution of parental care. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 101–116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lehtinen RM, Nussbaum RA (2003) Parental care: a phylogenetic perspective. In: Jamieson BGM (ed) Reproductive biology and phylogeny of Anura. Science Publishers Inc, Enfield, NH, pp 343–386Google Scholar
  35. Marconato A, Bisazza A (1988) Mate choice, egg cannibalism and reproductive success in the river bullhead, Cottus gobio L. J Fish Biol 33(6):905–916. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McDiarmid R (1978) Evolution of parental care in frogs. In: Burghardt GM, Bekoff M (eds) The development of behavior: comparative and evolutionary aspects. Garland STPM Press, New York, pp 127–147Google Scholar
  37. Michaud J, Grant A (2004) Adaptive significance of sibling egg cannibalism in Coccinellidae: comparative evidence from three species. Ann Entomol Soc Am 97(4):710–719.[0710:ASOSEC]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Owens IPF, Bennett PM (1994) Mortality costs of parental care and sexual dimorphism in birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 257(1348):1–8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Parsons W, Zhong W, Rudolf VHW (2013) Mating status and kin recognition influence the strength of cannibalism. Anim Behav 85(2):365–369. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pizzari T, Bonduriansky R (2010) Sexual behaviour: conflict, cooperation and co-evolution. In: Székely T, Moore AJ, Komdeur J (eds) Social behaviour: genes, ecology and evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 230–266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Poo S, Bickford DP (2013) The adaptive significance of egg attendance in a south-east asian tree frog. Ethology 119(8):671–679. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Poo S, Evans TA, Tan MK, Bickford DP (2016) Dynamic switching in predator attack and maternal defence of prey. Biol J Linn Soc 118(4):901–910. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Porter B, Fiumera A, Avise J (2002) Egg mimicry and allopaternal care: two mate-attracting tactics by which nesting striped darter (Etheostoma virgatum) males enhance reproductive success. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51(4):350–359. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reguera P, Gomendio M (1999) Predation costs associated with parental care in the golden egg bug Phyllomorpha laciniata (Heteroptera: Coreidae). Behav Ecol 10(5):541–544. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ridley M (1978) Paternal care. Anim Behav 26:904–932. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ringler E, Barbara Beck K, Weinlein S, Huber L, Ringler M (2017) Adopt, ignore, or kill? Male poison frogs adjust parental decisions according to their territorial status. Sci Rep 7:43544. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Royle NJ, Russell AF, Wilson AJ (2014) The evolution of flexible parenting. Science 345(6198):776–781. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. RStudio Team (2015) RStudio: integrated development for R. RStudio Inc., Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  49. Schradin C, Anzenberger G (2001) Costs of infant carrying in common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus: an experimental analysis. Anim Behav 62(2):289–295. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Seshadri KS (2014) Effects of historical selective logging on anuran communities in a wet evergreen forest, South India. Biotropica 46(5):615–623. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Seshadri KS, Gururaja KV, Bickford DP (2015) Breeding in bamboo: a novel anuran reproductive strategy discovered in Rhacophorid frogs of the Western Ghats, India. Biol J Linn Soc 114(1):1–11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. SijiMol K, Dev SA, Sreekumar VB (2016) A review of the ecological functions of reed bamboo, genus Ochlandra in the Western Ghats of India: implications for sustainable conservation. Trop Conserv Sci 9(1):389–407. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Simon MP (1983) The ecology of parental care in a terrestrial breeding frog from New Guinea. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14(1):61–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smiseth PT, Kölliker M, Royle NJ (2012) What is parental care? In: Royle NJ, Smiseth PT, Kölliker M (eds) The evolution of parental care. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith C, Wootton RJ (1995) The costs of parental care in teleost fishes. Rev Fish Biol Fisher 5(1):7–22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Summers K, McKeon CS, Heying H (2006) The evolution of parental care and egg size: a comparative analysis in frogs. Proc R Soc Lond B 273(1587):687–692. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Summers K, McKeon CS, Heying H, Hall J, Patrick W (2007) Social and environmental influences on egg size evolution in frogs. J Zool 271(2):225–232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Taigen TL, Pough FH, Stewart MM (1984) Water balance of terrestrial anuran (Eleutherodactylus coqui) eggs: importance of parental care. Ecology 65(1):248–255. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Therneau T (2009) Package ‘coxme’. Mixed Effects Cox Models. Available:
  60. Tilley SG (1972) Aspects of parental care and embryonic development in Desmognathus ochrophaeus. Copeia 1972:32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Toledo LF, Sazima I, Haddad CFB (2011) Behavioural defences of anurans: an overview. Ethol Ecol Evol 23(1):1–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Townsend DS (1989) The consequences of microhabitat choice for male reproductive success in a tropical frog (Eleutherodactylus coqui). Herpetologica 45:451–458Google Scholar
  63. Townsend DS, Stewart MM, Pough FH (1984) Male parental care and its adaptive significance in a neotropical frog. Anim Behav 32(2):421–431. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  65. Vijayakumar SP, Dinesh KP, Prabhu MV, Shanker K (2014) Lineage delimitation and description of nine new species of bush frogs (Anura: Raorchestes, Rhacophoridae) from the Western Ghats Escarpment. Zootaxa 3893(4):451–488. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Villa J (1979) Two fungi lethal to frog eggs in Central America. Copeia 1979(4):650–655. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Villa J, Townsend DS (1983) Viable frog eggs eaten by phorid fly larvae. J Herpetol 17(3):278–281. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vockenhuber EA, Hödl W, Amézquita A (2009) Glassy fathers do matter: egg attendance enhances embryonic survivorship in the glass frog Hyalinobatrachium valerioi. J Herpetol 43(2):340–344. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. von May R, Medina-Müller M, Donnelly MA, Summers K (2009) Breeding-site selection by the poison frog Ranitomeya biolat in Amazonian bamboo forests: an experimental approach. Can J Zool 87:453–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wells KD (1977) Territoriality and male mating success in the green frog (Rana clamitans). Ecology 58(4):750–762. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wells KD (1978) Territoriality in the green frog (Rana clamitans): vocalizations and agonistic behaviour. Anim Behav 26:1051–1063. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wells KD (1981) Parental behavior of male and female frogs. In: Alexander RD, Tinkle D (eds) Natural selection and social behavior. Chiron Press, New York, pp 184–197Google Scholar
  73. Wells KD (2007) The ecology and behavior of amphibians. Univ Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Weygoldt P (1980) Complex brood care and reproductive behavior in captive poison-arrow frogs, Dendrobates pumilio O. Schmidt. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 74:329–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Whittingham LA, Robertson RJ (1994) Food availability, parental care and male mating success in red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus). J Anim Ecol 63(1):139–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wilson EO (1975) Sociobiology: the new synthesis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  77. Windsor DM, Choe JC (1994) Origins of parental care in chrysomelid beetles. In: Jolivet PH, Cox ML, Petitpierre E (eds) Novel aspects of the biology of Chrysomelidae. Series Entomologica. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 111–117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wynne-Edwards KE (1998) Evolution of parental care in Phodopus: conflict between adaptations for survival and adaptations for rapid reproduction. Am Zool 38(1):238–250. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed EffectsModels and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Biology DepartmentUniversity of La VerneLa VerneUSA

Personalised recommendations