QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online March 30, 2006
Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 1376-1384 (2006)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2006
doi: 10.1242/jeb.02150

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JEB Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Warkentin, K. M. Articles by McDaniel, J. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Warkentin, K. M. Articles by McDaniel, J. G.

Temporal pattern cues in vibrational risk assessment by embryos of the red-eyed treefrog, Agalychnis callidryas

Karen M. Warkentin^1,*, Michael S. Caldwell¹ and J. Gregory McDaniel²

¹ Department of Biology, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA
² Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA

View larger version (32K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Examples of stimuli used in vibration playback experiments, constructed from bursts of 0–100 Hz synthetic white noise. Waveforms of 6 s of the pattern of a 0.1 s duration:1 s interval stimulus (top), 1 s duration:1 s interval stimulus (middle), and 1 s duration:0.1 s interval stimulus (bottom).

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Hatching response of Agalychnis callidryas embryos to 32 different temporal patterns of amplitude-matched 0–100 Hz white noise bursts plotted as a function of duty cycle (the ratio of vibration time to total playback time). Stimuli vary in duration of and intervals between periods of vibration. Data are mean proportion hatched ± s.e.m. for each stimulus. For comparison, we have also included the responses to four patterns of 0–11 kHz noise (open squares) (from Warkentin, 1995).

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Hatching response of Agalychnis callidryas embryos to 32 different temporal patterns of amplitude-matched 0–100 Hz white noise bursts plotted as a function of cycle length. Stimuli vary in duration of and intervals between periods of vibration. Data are mean proportion hatched ± s.e.m. for each stimulus. For comparison, we have also included the responses to four patterns of 0–11 kHz noise (open squares) (from Warkentin, 1995).

View larger version (11K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Hatching response of Agalychnis callidryas embryos to vibrational playback stimuli (A) varying in disturbance duration, with a constant interval of 1 s between periods of vibration, and (B) varying in interval, with a constant disturbance duration of 1 s. Data are mean proportion hatched ± s.e.m., from series 1 and 2.

View larger version (34K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Contour plot of hatching response of Agalychnis callidryas embryos to vibrational playback stimuli varying in disturbance duration and interval. Data are mean proportion hatched for 31 different stimuli, indicated as points. See Table 1 for sample sizes and standard errors. The shortest duration stimulus, clicks, is not included on the graph.

View larger version (10K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Hatching response of Agalychnis callidryas embryos over time to the vibrational playback stimulus that elicited the strongest hatching response (0.5 s duration:1.5 s interval). A 5 min playback period was followed by 5 min post-playback observation. Data are mean proportion hatched at each time point, out of total hatched, for N=11 clutches, except for the 30 s data point where N=6 clutches. Error bars are s.e.m.