Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Reproductive interference between Rana dalmatina and Rana temporaria affects reproductive success in natural populations

Abstract

Experimental evidence suggests that reproductive interference between heterospecifics can seriously affect individual fitness; support from field studies for such an effect has, however, remained scarce. We studied reproductive interference in 25 natural breeding ponds in an area where two ranid frogs, Rana dalmatina and Rana temporaria, co-occur. The breeding seasons of the two species usually overlap and males of both species are often found in amplexus with heterospecific females, even though matings between heterospecifics produce no viable offspring. We estimated species abundance ratios based on the number of clutches laid and evaluated fertilization success. In ponds with low spatial complexity and a species abundance ratio biased towards R. temporaria, the average fertilization success of R. dalmatina eggs decreased, while this relationship was not detectable in spatially more complex ponds. Fertilization success of R. temporaria did not decrease with increasing relative numbers of heterospecifics. This asymmetry in fitness effects of reproductive interference may be attributed to R. temporaria males being more competitive in scramble competition for females than R. dalmatina males. Our study is among the first to demonstrate that in natural breeding populations of vertebrates interference among heterospecifics has the potential to substantially lower reproductive success at the population level, which may in turn affect population dynamics.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Abt G, Reyer H-U (1993) Mate choice and fitness in a hybrid frog: Rana esculenta females prefer Rana lessonae males over their own. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:221–228

  2. Arak A (1983) Male-male competition and mate choice in anuran amphibians. In: Bateson P (ed) mate choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 181–210

  3. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton

  4. Bezemer TM, Mills NJ (2003) Clutch size decisions of a gregarious parasitoid under laboratory and field conditions. Anim Behav 66:1119–1128

  5. Bruning B, Phillips BL, Shine R (2010) Turgid female toads give males the slip: a new mechanism of female mate choice in the Anura. Biol Lett 6:322–324

  6. Candolin U, Salesto T (2009) Does competition allow male mate choosiness in threespine sticklebacks? Am Nat 173:273–277

  7. Conner JK, Hartl DL (2004) A primer of ecological genetics. Sinauer, Sunderland

  8. Coyne JA, Orr HA (1989) Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution 43:362–381

  9. Coyne JA, Orr HA (2004) Speciation. Sinauer, Sunderland

  10. D’Orgeix CA (1996) Multiple paternity and the breeding biology of the red-eyed treefrog, Agalychnis callidryas. PhD dissertation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg

  11. Elmberg J (1986) Apparent lack of territoriality during the breeding season in a boreal population of common frogs Rana temporaria. Herpetol J 1:81–85

  12. Engeler B, Reyer H-U (2001) Choosy females and indiscriminate males: mate choice in mixed populations of sexual and hybridogenetic waterfrogs (Rana lessonae, Rana esculenta). Behav Ecol 12:600–606

  13. Ficetola GF, De Bernardi F (2005) Interspecific social interactions and breeding success of the frog Rana latastei: a field study. Ethology 111:764–774

  14. Fisher HS, Wong BBM, Rosenthal GG (2006) Alteration of the chemical environment disrupts communication in a freshwater fish. Proc R Soc B 273:1187–1193

  15. Fujimoto H, Hiramatsu T, Takafuji A (1996) Reproductive interference between Panonychus mori Yokoyama and P. citri (McGregor) (Acari: Tetranychidae) in peach orchards. Appl Entomol Zool 31:59–65

  16. Gergus EWA, Malmos KB, Sullivan BK (1999) Natural hybridization among distantly related toads (Bufo alvarius, Bufo cognatus, Bufo woodhousii) in central Arizona. Copeia 1999:281–286

  17. Gibbons MM, McCarthy TK (1986) The reproductive output of frogs Rana temporaria (L.) with particular reference to body size and age. J Zool 209:579–593

  18. Gröning J, Hochkirch A (2008) Reproductive interference between animal species. Q Rev Biol 83:257–282

  19. Gröning J, Lücke N, Finger A, Hochkirch A (2007) Reproductive interference in two ground-hopper species: testing hypotheses of coexistence in the field. Oikos 116:1449–1460

  20. Grosholz ED (1996) Contrasting rates of spread for introduced species in terrestrial and marine systems. Ecology 77:1680–1686

  21. Hellriegel B, Reyer H-U (2000) Factors influencing the composition of mixed populations of a hemiclonal hybrid and its sexual host. J Evol Biol 13:906–918

  22. Hettyey A, Pearman PB (2003) Social environment and reproductive interference affect reproductive success in the frog Rana latastei. Behav Ecol 14:294–300

  23. Hettyey A, Pearman PB (2006) Testing experimental results in the field: comment on Ficetola and De Bernardi (2005). Ethology 112:930–931

  24. Hettyey A, Török J, Kovács T (2003) Breeding biology and habitat use of seven amphibian species in a hilly woodland (Pilis Mountains, Hungary). Áll Közl 88:41–55

  25. Hettyey A, Török J, Hévizi G (2005) Male mate choice lacking in the agile frog, Rana dalmatina. Copeia 2005:403–408

  26. Hettyey A, Baksay S, Vági B, Hoi H (2009a) Counterstrategies by female frogs to sexual coercion by heterospecific. Anim Behav 78:1365–1372

  27. Hettyey A, Vági B, Hévizi G, Török J (2009b) Changes in sperm stores, ejaculate size, fertilization success, and sexual motivation over repeated matings in the common toad, Bufo bufo (Anura: Bufonidae). Biol J Linn Soc 96:361–371

  28. Hettyey A, Zsarnóczai S, Vincze K, Hoi H, Laurila A (2010) Interactions between the information content of different chemical cues affect induced defences in tadpoles. Oikos 119:1814–1822

  29. Hettyey A, Vincze K, Zsarnóczai S, Hoi H, Laurila A (2011) Costs and benefits of defenses induced by predators differing in dangerousness. J Evol Biol 24:1007–1019

  30. Hettyey A, Vági B, Török J, Hoi H (2012) Allocation in reproduction is not tailored to the probable number of matings in common toad (Bufo bufo) males. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:201–208

  31. Hochkirch A, Gröning J, Bücker A (2007) Sympatry with the devil: reproductive interference could hamper species coexistence. J Anim Ecol 76:633–642

  32. Höglund J (1989) Pairing and spawning patterns in the common toad, Bufo bufo: the effects of sex ratios and the time available for male–male competition. Anim Behav 38:423–429

  33. Ives AR (1988) Aggregation and the coexistence of competitors. Ann Zool Fenn 25:75–88

  34. Johnstone RA, Reynolds JD, Deutsch JC (1996) Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 50:1382–1391

  35. Joron M, Brakefield PM (2003) Captivity masks inbreeding effects on male mating success in butterflies. Nature 424:191–194

  36. Kishi S, Nishida T, Tsubaki Y (2009) Reproductive interference determines persistence and exclusion in species interactions. J Anim Ecol 78:1043–1049

  37. Kruuk LEB, Gilchrist JS, Barton NH (1999) Hybrid dysfunction in fire-bellied toads (Bombina). Evolution 53:1611–1616

  38. Kuno E (1988) Aggregation pattern of individuals and the outcomes of competition within and between species: differential equation models. Res Popul Ecol 30:69–82

  39. Kuno E (1992) Competitive exclusion through reproductive interference. Res Popul Ecol 34:275–284

  40. Kvarnemo C, Simmons LW (1998) Male potential reproductive rate influences mate choice in a bushcricket. Anim Behav 55:1499–1506

  41. Lamb T, Avise JC (1986) Directional introgression of mitochondrial DNA in a hybrid population of tree frogs: the influence of mating behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 83:2526–2530

  42. Laurila A, Seppä P (1998) Multiple paternity in the common frog (Rana temporaria): genetic evidence from tadpole kin groups. Biol J Linn Soc 63:221–232

  43. Lengagne T, Arthaud F, Cornier M, Joly P (2007) Cost of sexually embracing a large female offset by the number of eggs fertilized for small male Bufo bufo L. Biol J Linn Soc 92:755–762

  44. Lesbarrères D, Lodé T (2002) Variations in male calls and responses to an unfamiliar advertisement call in a territorial breeding anuran, Rana dalmatina: evidence for a ‘dear enemy’ effect. Ethol Ecol Evol 14:287–295

  45. Liou LW, Price TD (1994) Speciation by reinforcement of premating isolation. Evolution 48:1451–1459

  46. Lodé T, Lesbarrères D (2004) Multiple paternity in Rana dalmatina, a monogamous territorial breeding anuran. Naturwissenschaften 91:44–47

  47. Lodé T, Holveck M-J, Lesbarrères D (2005) Asynchronous arrival pattern, operational sex ratio and occurrence of multiple paternities in a territorial breeding anuran, Rana dalmatina. Biol J Linn Soc 86:191–200

  48. Luddem ST, Collins SA, Brooks MA, Winter M (2004) Some males are choosier than others: species recognition in blue waxbills. Behaviour 14:1021–1039

  49. Marco A, Lizana M (2002) The absence of species and sex recognition during mate search by male common toads, Bufo bufo. Ethol Ecol Evol 14:1–8

  50. Marshall VT, Schwartz JJ, Gerhardt HC (2006) Effects of heterospecific call overlap on the phonotactic behaviour of grey treefrogs. Anim Behav 72:449–459

  51. McLain KD, Shure DJ (1987) Pseudocompetition: interspecific displacement of insect species through misdirected courtship. Oikos 49:291–296

  52. McLister JD (2003) The metabolic cost of amplexus in the grey tree frog (Hyla versicolor): assessing the energetics of male mating success. Can J Zool 81:388–394

  53. Michalak P, Rafinski J (1999) Sexual isolation between two newt species, Triturus vulgaris and T. montandoni (Amphibia, Urodela, Salamandridae). Biol J Linn Soc 67:343–352

  54. Parmesan C, Yohe G (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421:37–42

  55. Pfennig KS, Simovich MA (2002) Differential selection to avoid hybridization in two toad species. Evolution 56:1840–1848

  56. Rahel FJ, Olden JD (2008) Assessing the effects of climate change on aquatic invasive species. Conserv Biol 22:521–533

  57. Reading CJ (1984) Interspecific spawning between common frogs (Rana temporaria) and common toads (Bufo bufo). J Zool 203:95–101

  58. Reyer H-U, Frei G, Som C (1999) Cryptic female choice: frogs reduce clutch size when amplexed by undesired males. Proc R Soc B 266:2101–2107

  59. Rhymer JM, Simberloff DS (1996) Extinction by hybridization and introgression. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:83–109

  60. Ryser J (1989) The breeding migration and mating system of a Swiss population of the common frog Rana temporaria. Amphib-Reptil 10:13–21

  61. Schmeller DS, O’Hara R, Kokko H (2005) Male adaptive stupidity: male mating pattern in hybridogenetic frogs. Evol Ecol Res 7:1039–1050

  62. Servedio MR, Noor MAF (2003) The role of reinforcement in speciation: theory and data. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:339–364

  63. Skelly DK (2002) Experimental venue and estimation of interaction strength. Ecology 83:2097–2101

  64. Som C, Anholt BR, Reyer H-U (2000) The effect of assortative mating on the coexistence of a hybridogenetic water frog and its sexual host. Am Nat 156:34–46

  65. Suzuki S, Nagano M, Trumbo ST (2005) Intrasexual competition and mating behavior in Ptomascopus morio (Coleoptera: Silphidae Nicrophorinae). J Insect Behav 18:233–242

  66. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Heinemann, London, pp 136–179

  67. Vági B, Kovács T, Bancilă R, Hartel T, Anthony BP (2013) A landscape-level study on the breeding site characteristics of ten amphibian species in Central Europe. Amphib-Reptil 34:63–73

  68. Verrel PA (1990) Frequency of interspecific mating in salamanders of the plethodontid genus Desmognathus: different experimental designs may yield different results. J Zool 221:441–451

  69. Vieites DR, Nieto-Román S, Barluenga M, Palanca A, Vences M, Meyer A (2004) Post-mating clutch piracy in an amphibian. Nature 431:305–308

  70. Wells KD (1977) The social behaviour of anuran amphibians. Anim Behav 25:666–693

  71. Westman K, Savolainen R, Julkunen M (2002) Replacement of the native crayfish Astacus astacus by the introduced species Pacifastacus leniusculus in a small, enclosed Finnish lake: a 30-year study. Ecography 25:53–73

  72. Wirtz P (1999) Mother species-father species: unidirectional hybridization in animals with female choice. Anim Behav 58:1–12

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Ákos Csillag, Réka Lakatos and Andrea Szabó for help in gathering data, two anonymous referees for comments on a previous version of the manuscript, Dustin J. Penn for continuing support, and the Pilisi Parkerdő Zrt. for allowing us to use their roads. The Közép-Duna-Völgyi KTVF issued the permission to conduct the study (KTVF:10350-2/2012) and the Ethical Commission of the University of Veterinary Medicine approved the investigation in accordance with Good Scientific Practice guidelines and national legislation. The research was supported by the Lendület Programme of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA, LP2012-24/2012). The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Author information

Correspondence to Attila Hettyey.

Additional information

Communicated by Jean-François Le Galliard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hettyey, A., Vági, B., Kovács, T. et al. Reproductive interference between Rana dalmatina and Rana temporaria affects reproductive success in natural populations. Oecologia 176, 457–464 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-014-3046-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Anura
  • Fertilization success
  • Scramble competition
  • Sexual coercion
  • Population dynamics