Cited by 79Animal Vocal Communication and BehaviorAnimal Behavior and ReproductionLanguage and cultural evolution

Factors Influencing the Evolution of Acoustic Communication: Biological Constraints

Ryan, Michael J.·2008·Brain, Behavior and Evolution

Abstract

Numerous studies have investigated selective forces that appear to influence the evolution of acoustic communication systems. I review a number of constraints on evolution in these systems. A species'' history is of undeniable importance in the analysis of any trait. However, studies have given little or no attention to phylogenetic patterns of acoustic signals. This precludes the identification of phylogenetic constraints, and should be viewed as a serious constraint on our ability to understand how communication systems evolve. Morphological constraints influence the energetic efficiency of acoustic communication. To maximize transmission distance of signals used in long-range communication, the animal''s morphology favors signals with high frequencies. Thus morphology acts in opposition to properties of the environment, which favor low frequencies for use in long-range communication. Sensory receptors also play an important role in the evolution of acoustic signals. There is significant variation in the frequency range to which an inner-ear organ of the frog is sensitive. Different lineages of frogs are characterized by ear organs with different ranges of sensitivity. This variation should influence the frequency range over which calls evolved and, as a consequence, might have influenced the rate at which different lineages of anurans speciate.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000118693

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The design of acoustic communication reflects energetic costs, body-size constraints, and sensory limitations, and sexual selection can drive signal divergence and speciation.

    “Its design reflects energetic costs, body-size constraints, and sensory limitations, and sexual selection can even drive signal divergence and speciation”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ryan, M. J.
Affiliations
The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Corresponding author
Ryan, Michael J.
Venue
Brain, Behavior and Evolution
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2008-02-20
Volume
28
Issue
1-3
Pages
70-82
ISSN
  • 0006-8977 (ISSN-L)
  • 1421-9743
OpenAlex
W2078494276
Cited by
79
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 8
FWCI
3.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain Behavior and Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology › Animal Vocal Communication and Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
Keywords
acoustic communication, evolution of communication, phylogenetic constraints, morphological constraints, long-distance communication, signal frequency, sensory receptors
MeSH terms
Acoustics, Animals, Animal Communication, Anura, Biological Evolution, Phylogeny, Sexual Behavior, Animal, Sound, Species Specificity, Vocalization, Animal

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review