Vocal Behavior of the Explosively Breeding Neotropical Yellow Toad,<i>Incilius luetkenii</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frogs and toads exhibit complex vocal behavior, often in the context of mating and resource defense. Although over 6,500 species of frogs and toads have been described, detailed accounts of vocal behavior exist for very few species. In this study, we provide the first detailed investigation of the vocal behavior of Neotropical Yellow Toads, Incilius luetkenii, based on recordings collected from animals in northwestern Costa Rica. We provide quantitative measurements of two call types, we test the hypothesis that male body size is related to the structure of male calls, we investigate the context in which males produce calls, and we discuss the importance of their vocal behavior in the framework of an aggressive scramble competition mating system. We found that male I. luetkenii produce two vocalizations during their explosive breeding aggregations: advertisement calls and release calls. Advertisement calls are 2.5 sec-long vocalizations consisting of a series of pulses. Release calls are 0.6 sec-long vocalizations consisting of a small number of pulses and produced when other males attempt amplexus on them. As predicted, spectral properties of advertisement calls were inversely related to body size. Video analysis of male calling behavior revealed a call rate of 0.58 calls per minute and revealed that most advertisement calls occur within 2 sec following a contact with another male. Our findings suggest that advertisement calls and, by extension, chorusing behavior are associated with aggression between males during mating aggregations and that males may communicate acoustic information about their body size during male–male encounters.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".