Translator Disclaimer
15 July 2020 Developments in Amphibian Parental Care Research: History, Present Advances, and Future Perspectives
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Despite rising interest among scientists for over two centuries, parental care behavior has not been as thoroughly studied in amphibians as it has in other taxa. The first reports of amphibian parental care date from the early 18th century, when Maria Sibylla Merian went on a field expedition in Suriname and reported frog metamorphs emerging from their mother's dorsal skin. Reports of this and other parental behaviors in amphibians remained descriptive for decades, often as side notes during expeditions with another purpose. However, since the 1980s, experimental approaches have proliferated, providing detailed knowledge about the adaptive value of observed behaviors. Today, we recognize more than 30 types of parental care in amphibians, but most studies focus on just a few families and have favored anurans over urodeles and caecilians. Here, we provide a synthesis of the last three centuries of parental care research in the three orders comprising the amphibians. We draw attention to the progress from the very first descriptions to the most recent experimental studies, and highlight the importance of natural history observations as a source of new hypotheses and necessary context to interpret experimental findings. We encourage amphibian parental care researchers to diversify their study systems to allow for a more comprehensive perspective of the behaviors that amphibians exhibit. Finally, we uncover knowledge gaps and suggest new avenues of research using a variety of disciplines and approaches that will allow us to better understand the function and evolution of parental care behaviors in this diverse group of animals.

The development of a scientific field (or subfield) is an intricate process involving detours, failures, and unexpected flukes. It usually starts with random observations noted in the margins during an unrelated study. Something peculiar catches the eye, awakens interest, and opens doors to a whole new field of research. This process is often sluggish and punctuated; for example, the outstanding importance of DNA was not realized until 75 yr after Miescher first discovered it (Dahm 2008).

In the biological sciences, new subfields generally start with purely descriptive work, which builds an essential foundation of knowledge: new species, morphological structures, histological features, or unique behaviors. These descriptions start to draw pictures of potential function and significance, forming hypotheses to be tested, which thereupon lead to new questions, hypotheses, and discoveries that ultimately create new scientific subfields. For example, the field contemporarily known as “evo-devo” was catalyzed in the 1980s when parallel observations in fields such as evolutionary genetics, molecular biology, and embryology were first transformed into “how” questions about the integrative mechanisms underlying the significance and function of evolutionary development (Love 2015).

Within the field of animal behavior, numerous subfields have emerged in the last few decades. Many started because a particular organism exhibited extraordinary characteristics. Over time, similar behaviors were found in other species, and the classification of the behavior shifted from a unique anomaly to a widespread pattern. For example, initial observations of recently hatched chicks following a hen (Spalding 1873) propagated subfields focused on imprinting and animal learning (e.g., Moore 2004; Dukas 2013; Martinho and Kacelnik 2016). Anecdotal observations are also the origin of the study of parental care behavior (e.g., Lottinger 1776; Jiménez de la Espada 1872; Lydekker 1895), which has since been broadly investigated with diverse approaches including genetic, neurological, ecological, and hormonal studies.

Despite their widespread occurrence across the animal kingdom, parental behaviors have been investigated in detail mostly in mammals (e.g., Gubernick and Klopfer 1981; Rilling and Young 2014; Wu et al. 2014) and birds (see Stahlschmidt 2011). Many other vertebrate and invertebrate groups demonstrate unique and incredibly diverse parental care behaviors (e.g., insects, Fetherston et al. 1990; Gilbert and Manica 2010; crustaceans, Dick et al. 1998; Thiel 2007; arachnids, Simpson 1995; Yip and Rayor 2014; fish, Goodwin et al. 1998; Steinhart et al. 2008; Buckley et al. 2010; amphibians, Crump 1996, 2015; Gomes et al. 2012; Kupfer et al. 2016; reptiles, O'Connor and Shine 2004; Vergne et al. 2009), but these groups have received much less attention in the animal behavior literature. However, many recent advances in parental care have emerged from research in these lesser studied groups. For example, a deeper understanding of the roles of hormones, neurobiology, experience, and social impact in parental care mechanisms and strategies has emerged from work with insects and fish (O'Connell et al. 2012; Wong et al. 2013; Samuk et al. 2014; Santangelo 2015; Schrader et al. 2015).

As part of the reproductive cycle, parental care is often an essential component of an individual's fitness (Gross 2005), and parents need to balance their investments between current offspring, further mating opportunities (Székely and Cuthill 2000), future offspring (e.g., parent–offspring conflict; Trivers 1974), and predation risk. For this reason, the strategies utilized among—and sometimes within—different species vary substantially, and selective pressures for alternative parental care strategies among taxa can shape other traits, such as habitat choice, morphological structures, or cognitive abilities.

In this review, we chronicle the development of parental care research in a group that has been identified as one of the most neglected (see Stahlschmidt 2011 for comparison among different animal groups): the amphibians. This group—comprised of gymnophionans (caecilians), urodeles (newts and salamanders), and anurans (frogs and toads)—in fact exhibits one of the most diverse assemblages of parental-care behaviors known to date (Crump 1996). As explained by Crump (1996), parental care is sometimes defined as a behavior that increases survivorship of young (Clutton-Brock and Vincent 1991), but more generally refers to nongametic investments in offspring that incur a cost to the parent. Here, we consider presumably costly behaviors that parents perform for the benefit of offspring both prior to hatching, oviposition, or birth (e.g., nest construction, intrauterine feeding) and after (e.g., egg attendance or brooding, tadpole transport) as parental care, but we do not include reproductive modes (e.g., viviparous, oviparous). Although in many taxa the true nature of parental costs remains to be defined or quantified, we have included cases for which future research seems likely to reveal that parents incur costs.

A series of review papers have strived to classify parental behaviors into types, expanding the list when new forms of care have been discovered and merging similar forms when obvious coincidences are identified (e.g., Wunder 1932; McDiarmid 1978; Wells 1981; Crump 1996; Lehtinen and Nussbaum 2003; Haddad and Prado 2005). Because of new discoveries, the percentage of species recognized as providing parental care steadily rises; up to 10% of anuran and 20% of urodelian species care for their offspring after fertilization (Balshine 2012; Crump 2015). It is assumed that most caecilians provide some form of parental care, but information about the reproductive behavior of this group is relatively scarce. Among the review papers, some offer generalized overviews (e.g., Crump 1996, 2015), whereas others pursue specific research questions, such as relationships between parental care and egg size (Nussbaum and Schultz 1989; Summers and McKeon 2006), phylogenetics (Lehtinen and Nussbaum 2003), and fetal or larval morphology (Altig and Johnston 1989; Wake 2015). Although some reviews list parental-care modes of all amphibians (Salthe and Mecham 1974; Crump 1996), several focus purely on anurans (Lamotte and Lescure 1977; Duellman 1992; Beck 1998; Crump 2015). Only a few works review urodelian parental care (Ryan 1977; Nussbaum 1985, 1987; Kupfer et al. 2016), and—to the best of our knowledge—only one review touches on parental care in caecilians (Gomes et al. 2012).

Here, we try to draw a comprehensive picture of parental care in amphibians, including all three orders across centuries of research. Our review not only summarizes the known parental-care modes, but also recounts the progress of amphibian parental care research since it was first reported in the late 17th century. We recap the full ontogeny, from early natural history descriptions, to the hypothesis-based knowledge that budded out from those descriptions, and finally to modern synthetic approaches that are bound to trigger a metamorphosis in our understanding of the function and evolution of amphibian parental care.

Materials and Methods

This review aims to provide a comprehensive resource and synthesize research papers and books describing or studying parental-care behaviors in amphibians. We conducted a thorough literature search on Web of Science in 2017, using the search terms “anura*, frog*, toad*, tadpole*, froglet*, salamander*, newt*, urodela*, caudata*, caecilia*, gymnophiona*, or amphibia*” in combination with “parental care, guard*, attend*, paternal*, maternal*, egg-feed*, oophagous, begg* or provision.” We also combined the first five search terms with “transportation.” We carefully checked all search results, and cross-referenced them with previous reviews (see introduction). To search for very old records (given that this review covers over 300 yr of research), we examined old reports and searched the Biodiversity Heritage Library as well as archive.org.

Results and Discussion

Our search revealed a total of 685 studies. All references were used for data analyses, but only a subset could be cited in the text of this review. We identified over 30 parental care modes, some of which overlap between the three orders. We defined a total of four caecilian, eight urodelian, and 28 anuran parental care modes, and for each of those we tried to seek the first description, which ranged from 1705 to 2017 (see Table 1 and corresponding examples in the text). To allow for comparisons among groups, we further condensed these behaviors into the following nine parental care modes: (1) foam/bubble nest construction, (2) nest construction (digging, wrapping, or covering eggs), (3) egg attendance (defending, cleaning, hydrating), (4) larvae/tadpole/froglet guarding, (5) egg transport/brooding on body or in skin, (6) offspring transport/brooding in vocal sac/stomach, (7) tadpole/froglet transportation on body, (8) feeding of free-living larvae/tadpoles, and (9) feeding of larvae/tadpoles inside the parent (in uterus or skin pouches). By mapping these modes onto a modified cladogram of currently accepted amphibian families, we found that parental-care behavior is known in 56 of 76 families (see Fig. 1). Of those, 44 families show some form of egg attendance, making it the most phylogenetically widespread parental care mode in amphibians. Twenty-nine families show one or more other parental care mode(s) besides egg attendance. One parental-care mode, feeding of free-living larvae/tadpoles, is known from 10 families, 9 of which also display egg attendance.

Table 1.

Parental care modes in Amphibians and (one of) their first mention(s) in the literature. The different modes are numbered by amphibian order (Caecilia = C1–4, Urodela = U1–8, Amphibia = A1–28).

img-z3-2_71.gif

Fig. 1.

Cladogram of amphibian families (modified after Pyron and Wiens 2011, with data from Frost 2019) with a simplified list of known parental care behaviors. (A) Chiromantis xerampelina (Rhacophoridae) building foam nests (photo: P. Byrne); (B) female Cynops pyrrhogaster (Salamandridae) wrapping eggs in leaves (photo: M. Sparreboom); (C) Eurycea cirrigera (Plethodontidae) during egg attendance (photo: B.D. Todd); (D) Leptodactylus insularum (Leptodactylidae) female guarding tadpoles (photo: K. Hurme); (E) Cryptobatrachus boulengeri (Hemiphractidae) female brooding directly developing eggs on her back (photo: L.A. Rueda); (F) Rhinoderma darwinii (Rhinodermatidae), a species with tadpole development inside the male's vocal sac (photo: H. Werning); (G) Ameerega bassleri (Dendrobatidae) transporting tadpoles (Photo: E. Twomey); (H) Boulengerula taitanus (Herpelidae) feeding larvae with skin (photo: A. Kupfer); (I) Typhlonectes natans (Typhlonectidae) female with offspring, dissected during intrauterine feeding (photo: A. Kupfer). A color version of this figure is available online.

img-Agvd_71.jpg

Most of the parental care modes defined in Table 1 are only found in one of the three amphibian orders. For example, offspring transportation is only known in anurans, and some forms of transport are only found in single families or genera within a family. The same is true for foam- or bubble-nest building (only in anurans) or aquatic egg-rolling (only in urodelians), as well as egg-feeding (only in anurans) or dermatotrophic feeding (only in caecilians; Table 1). On the other hand, some parental-care modes are found across several families within all three amphibian orders. It has been suggested that the most common behavior, female terrestrial egg guarding (Table 1), has evolved convergently across different families and orders (Crump 1996). Intrauterine feeding also appears to have evolved multiple times in unrelated species (Wake 1993). Ideally, patterns that emerge in the cladogram (Fig. 1) will stimulate future research on the evolution of parental care modes across amphibians.

This literature review aims to go beyond depicting the currently described forms of parental care (Table 1; Fig. 1), and also focuses on the discovery and approaches to understanding these behaviors over the history of research. Therefore, it is structured chronologically: starting with observations from the early past (1705–1950), followed by hypothesis- and experiment-based approaches of the recent past and present (since 1951), and finishing with future perspectives that emphasize multidisciplinary approaches and applications of parental care studies in times of habitat destruction and climate change.

The Early Past: (1705–1950): First Observations and Anecdotal Reports

The first descriptions of parental care in amphibians appeared in the 18th century, with a subsequent exponential increase in publication rate over the last 275 yr (Fig. 2). Prior to 1950, most of the amphibian literature consisted of either descriptive natural history notes—oftentimes as anecdotal side notes within travel reports—or studies focused on taxonomy, morphology, or anatomy. Some of these observations about parental care became important later, sparking more profound studies, and others still represent the only information available about the parental behavior of a given species. Such limited knowledge is concerning, given recent worldwide declines of amphibian populations, including the presumed extinction of species with very special parental behaviors such as Rheobatrachus silus, Rhinoderma rufum, Gastrotheca coeruleomaculatus, and Nectophrynoides poyntoni (see below).

Fig. 2.

Number of studies about parental care behaviors in caecilians, urodeles, and anurans after 1900 that were identified in our literature review. A color version of this figure is available online.

img-z5-1_71.jpg

Caecilians

Because of their hidden and often subterranean lifestyle, caecilians are the least understood of the three amphibian orders, which is reflected in the relatively low amount of parental care research in this group (Fig. 2). However, caecilian parental behavior was first mentioned as far back as the late 19th century, when Sarasin and Sarasin (1887) described female Ichthyophis glutinosus coiling around eggs. The authors were already proposing hypotheses about adaptive benefits of this behavior via protection from desiccation and predation. They observed that females lost and embryos gained weight, and speculated that females may give nutrients in form of skin secretions to their young.

Brauer (1897) disagreed with the idea that females could provision nutrients to offspring while describing the maternal behavior of oviparous Hypogeophis rostratus and Grandisonia alternans. An anecdotal description of maternal care in the direct developing Siphonops annulatus was given by Göldi (1899), reporting a female coiled around her eggs. More than 30 yr later, Parker (1936) and Sanderson (1937) described female Idiocranium russeli coiling around direct developing eggs. Sanderson (1937) furthermore observed that females spit at intruders (although this could not be confirmed in later studies; Gower et al. 2015). He also gave the first report of parental care by a viviparous caecilian, Geotrypetes seraphini, describing a female “wrapped around a bundle of smaller replicates of herself” (Sanderson 1937:222).

Only one of four caecilian parental care modes was reported in these early observations: female guarding of terrestrial eggs (caecilian parental care mode C1; Table 1). Another mode—maternal dermatotrophic offspring feeding (mode C3; see below)—was foreshadowed in I. glutinosus (Sarasin and Sarasin 1887), although this species does not exhibit this behavior. Dermatotrophic feeding is exhibited by Geotrypetes seraphini, but was described as guarding behavior in early studies of this species (Sanderson 1937), and was not officially reported until much later (O'Reilly et al. 1998).

Urodeles

Even though urodeles are much easier to find than caecilians, parental care in this group was barely mentioned before the 20th century. Hay (1888:315), for example, described a female “congo snake” (Amphiuma tridactylum) coiled around her eggs. He wondered how hatchlings reach the water from a terrestrial nest, proposing female transport “as a dog carries a bone”—a speculative and unconfirmed theory. Following this report, parental behavior in the family Amphiumidae went unexplored for half a century (Parker 1937; Weber 1944; Baker 1945).

In the early 20th century, egg guarding was reported in both aquatically and terrestrially breeding urodele families. In the Cryptobranchidae, male Cryptobranchus alleganiensis and Andrias japonicus were observed defending eggs against potential predators and even against mothers (Kerbert 1904; Smith 1907; Stejneger 1907). In the Plethodontidae, female (or biparental) terrestrial egg guarding was reported in several species (Ritter 1903; Strecker 1908; Piersol 1910; Wilder 1913, 1917; Bishop 1919).

A few studies in plethodontids went further than just describing behavioral observations. For example, Piersol (1910) noticed that fewer eggs became moldy when attended by female Plethodon cinereus, and suggested that parental skin has antifungal or antibacterial properties. Wilder (1913) noted that female Desmognathus fuscus found their way back to their eggs, even if their surroundings were changed. She proposed testing for offspring recognition by switching clutches between females, possibly being the first scientist to suggest hypothesis-based experiments in amphibian parental care behavior. Two years later, she conducted similar experiments, demonstrating that female D. fuscus will care for a foster clutch after exchange (Wilder 1917). With the exception of one other study in this same species (Noble and Evans 1932), an experimental approach like that of Wilder (1917) was (to the best of our knowledge) not further developed in the following decades.

In 1920–1950, additional descriptions (and sometimes speculations) dominated the literature, mainly regarding terrestrial egg guarding and moistening by females (e.g., Storer 1925; Bishop 1926; Blanchard 1934; Henry and Twitty 1940; Kessel and Kessel 1942; Miller 1944; Baker 1945; Storm 1947), and some males (Tago 1929; Bishop 1941). The first observations of alloparental egg guarding (attendance by a nonparental adult; Blanchard 1934) and terrestrial guarding of aquatic eggs (Noble 1931) were published. But experimental work with urodeles was lacking.

In sum, six of eight urodelian parental care modes were described before 1950: four variations on egg guarding (U2–U5 in Table 1), egg-wrapping behavior in aquatic newts (Gage 1891; U1, see below), and intrauterine feeding (U8). Czermak (1843) was the first to suggest that Salamandra atra offspring receive nutrition from thickened uterine walls (via the gills rather than the teeth). Several other authors supported this possibility (Schwalbe 1896; Hirzel 1909; Wunderer 1910), but the nutritive mechanism and maternal tissue was identified only recently (Guex and Chen 1986; Guex and Greven 1994; see below).

Anurans

Among the amphibian orders, parental behavior has always been best documented in anurans. To our knowledge, the first report of parental behavior in any amphibian was of a frog in the early 18th century. After a journey to Suriname in 1699, German naturalist and artist Maria Sibylla Merian (1705) published her famous book Metamorphosis insectorum Surinamensium. Although primarily filled with outstanding drawings of insects, this book also offered the first illustration and description of metamorphic Pipa pipa crawling out of a female's dorsal skin (Merian 1705; Fig. 3). Given both the remoteness of Suriname at the time and the elusive aquatic habits of P. pipa, it is surprising that this was the first-ever description of amphibian parental care. Aside from depicting ovaries along the female's back, Merian's description and drawing are accurate, and were confirmed more than 50 yr later by the Swedish and Dutch naturalists von Linné (1758) and Fermin (1765), who noted that female P. pipa hatches its young by laying them on its back. Thirty years after Merian's observations, the egg-carrying behavior of the European Midwife Toad, Alytes obstetricans, was described by Demours (1741, 1778). But his reports were met with disbelief, and he did not receive credit until a century later when de l'Isle du Dréneuf (1876) described the same behavior in these frogs.

Fig. 3.

(A) Maria Sibylla Merian (1647–1717), first scientist to describe parental behavior in an amphibian, Pipa pipa. It is noteworthy that the discovery was made by a woman, especially at that time. (B) Illustration from Merian's book, Metamorphosis insectorum Surinamensium, showing adult female P. pipa with metamorphic offspring on its back and young juvenile behind her in the water. A color version of this figure is available online.

img-z7-1_71.jpg

In the 19th century, Boulenger (1886) gave the first review of parental behavior in anurans, listing seven species that transport their offspring. The list included the mouth-brooding frog, Rhinoderma darwinii, which was thought to be viviparous until Jiménez de la Espada (1872) recognized that males actually incubate offspring in the vocal sac (Howes 1888; Weltner 1896; Wiedersheim 1900; Janvier 1935). The list also included Gastrotheca ovifera, first reported to carry eggs in dorsal pouches by Weinland (1854). Although not yet included in Boulenger's list, other species had been seen carrying eggs on their backs without pouches, such as an unknown bromeliad-dwelling species discovered by Müller (Darwin 1879) and Fritziana goeldi, described in the same year by Göldi (1895) and Boulenger (1895).

Boulenger (1895) also noted tadpole transport in dendrobatid poison frogs. This behavior was first described by Wyman (Wyman 1857, 1859; Boulenger 1888a), who had heard about this unusual parental care mode from a colleague (Mr. G. O. Wacker) before observing it in Suriname. Early observations of tadpole carrying in poison frogs were also made by Kappler (also in Suriname; Kappler 1885; Boulenger 1888b) and Smith (1887), who was informed about this behavior by native hunters in western Brazil. In an early review, Sampson (1900) summarized tadpole transport behavior of several dendrobatid species. Deposition of poison frog tadpoles into tree holes was first described by Eaton (1941). Brauer (1899) also reported tadpole transport behavior in male Seychellen frogs, Sooglossus sechellensis. He further observed these frogs guarding their eggs before transportation.

Early on, some authors hypothesized that frogs staying close to their eggs might be protecting them (Peters 1876). Von Ihering (1886) observed Phyllomedusa iheringii building nests by gluing leaves together, which was supported by similar observations in other species of the same genus (Mole and Urich 1894; Budgett 1899; Bles 1905; Agar 1909). Hensel (1867) observed leptodactylids digging nest sites outside of large water bodies and constructing foam nests, suggesting they might protect larvae from fish predators—a theory that reappears much later in the anuran parental care literature (see below). Some reports unintentionally describe egg guarding, such as when von Ihering (1886:462) stated, “The adult animal is a stupid creature, and will let itself be taken without attempting to escape.” Most early descriptions of egg guarding assumed that care-giving parents were female (e.g., Bello 1871), but true female egg guarding was not described until the early 20th century in Leptodactylus sp. (Fernández and Fernández 1921).

In the first half of the 20th century, descriptions of parental care in anurans became more abundant (e.g., Bürger 1905; Krefft 1911; Noble 1926; Dunn 1941), and in some cases became the main focus of publications (e.g., Andrews 1901; Brandes and Schoebnichen 1901; Deixner 1924). For example, Boulenger (1903, 1904) described egg brooding on or in depressions of the female dorsum. However, some reports remain unconfirmed. For example, ventral egg transport in Pseudophilautus reticulatus (Andrews 1901), female mouth-breeding in Leptopelis brevirostris (Boulenger 1906), and nest building with aromatic resins in Trachycephalus resinifictrix (Göldi 1907) are three parental-care modes that are not known today (Schiesari et al. 2003).

Prior to 1950, 14 of 28 anuran parental care modes were described (Table 1). Wunder (1932) offered a solid review of the known parental-care modes at the time, separating offspring guarding and offspring transport, and further dividing transport into seven brood-care categories (long- and short-term tadpole transport, egg development in body cavities, etc.). These categories have been reorganized several times up to the present day (Table 1; Crump 2015). Wunder (1932) was also the first to link intensive parental care with fewer and larger eggs (see Summers and McKeon 2006) and to note that most parental-care modes are found in the tropics. Lutz (1947) also discussed the tropical biogeography of parental-care modes, and, together with her father, described several new species that conduct parental care (reviewed in Schulte and Rödder 2016). Lutz (1947) posed a key hypothesis about the evolution of brood care in anurans that is still supported today (Brown et al. 2010): that aquatic predator pressure and larval competition promoted the evolution of new breeding modes in smaller water bodies, on land, or directly on parents' bodies, and thus stimulated the evolution of complex parental behavior in anurans.

The Recent Past and Present (Since 1951): Hypothesis-and Experiment-Based Approaches

After 1950, remarkable amphibian parental behaviors migrated from the margin into the spotlight of scientific reports. As in many budding fields, anecdotal descriptions were replaced by hypothesis-testing experiments. Accordingly, the number of publications about parental care in amphibians has increased dramatically over the last seven decades (Fig. 2).

Caecilians

During the second half of the 20th century, accumulating observations of caecilian reproductive behavior led to the hypothesis that most caecilians exhibit some form of parental care (Wake 1992; Gower et al. 2008). Oviparous species with aquatic larvae generally exhibit clutch guarding (Nishikawa et al. 2008; Bei et al. 2012), which is considered the ancestral form of parental care in caecilians (Wilkinson and Nussbaum 1998; C1, Table 1). Some direct-developing species provide postpartitive maternal care, and some viviparous species—those that retain young in the maternal reproductive tract and give birth after metamorphosis—provide intraoviductal (also referred to as “intrauterine”; see Wake 1993) or epithelial nutrition (Wake 1992; Gower et al. 2008; Lodé 2012). In fact, all viviparous and some oviparous caecilian young have specialized, deciduous fetal dentition (e.g., Parker 1936, 1956; Parker and Dunn 1964) used for scraping the thickened oviduct lining and/or skin of the mother (e.g., Wake 1992; Kupfer et al. 2006; C2 and C3). Intrauterine feeding facilitates offspring growth in the oviduct (Parker and Dunn 1964; Wake 1977a, 1980; Welsch et al. 1977) and teeth scraping may stimulate the secretion of nutritive epithelia (Wake 1977b; Gomes et al. 2012). However, young may also be nourished in the oviduct via highly vascularized gill structures functioning as a pseudo-placenta (e.g., Typhlonectes, Delsol et al. 1981). In contrast, offspring that use their teeth to scrape off maternal skin or skin secretions after birth are born much smaller than species with intrauterine feeding (O'Reilly et al. 1998). Maternal dermatotrophy has been demonstrated in several distantly related direct-developing oviparous species via ex situ behavioral experiments and histological examinations (Kupfer et al. 2006; Wilkinson et al. 2008, 2013; Kouete et al. 2012). Genetic parenthood analysis further revealed that even though this parental-care strategy is very cost intensive, parents do not discriminate care to their own offspring (i.e., alloparenting; Kupfer et al. 2008; C4).

Reproductive and parental care modes are known for about 25% of the approximately 200 described caecilian species. Recently, San Mauro et al. (2014) integrated life-history traits with modern phylogenetic tools to reconstruct caecilian life-history evolution. Also, Kupfer et al. (2016) conducted a character-state reconstruction to investigate the evolutionary relationships between reproductive modes, parental investment, and offspring size and quality. Together, these studies suggest that the concurrent evolution of direct development and juvenile teeth gave rise to skin-feeding—likely a precursor of oviduct feeding—and thus enabled the independent evolution of viviparity at least four times within Gymnophiona (Lodé 2012). Although caecilians are the least-investigated amphibians, contemporary studies combining natural history and genomics are broadening our understanding of parental-care evolution.

Urodeles

Parental care in urodeles has been described as simple and limited to egg attendance (Salthe and Mecham 1974; Nussbaum 1985; Crump 1996; U2–5 in Table 1). However, egg attendance is difficult to demonstrate, because spatial proximity alone does not ensure either a benefit to offspring or a cost to parents (Crump 1996). The terms “brooding,” “attendance,” and “guarding” have been used inconsistently across the literature (Crump 1996), further confusing the adaptive significance of the spatial association between adults and their clutches.

Despite its relative simplicity, parental care is abundant in urodeles, appearing in up to 20% of species (Balshine 2012) from eight of nine families (all except Rhyacotritonidae), including in about 80% of plethodontid salamanders. Surprisingly, recent reviews about parental care in vertebrates barely touch on urodeles (cf. Balshine 2012). Information about urodele parental care was reviewed extensively in the 1980s and 1990s (Salthe 1969; Nussbaum 1985; Verrell 1989; Crump 1996).

Salamanders are an ideal group for studying the evolution of parental strategies because of their diverse fertilization mechanisms, lifestyles, mating systems, and habitats, and also because parental care has probably evolved independently many times in this group (Salthe and Mecham 1974; Nussbaum 1985, 2003). Maternal care is generally found in species with internal fertilization whereas paternal care is mainly associated with external fertilization and male territoriality (Gross and Shine 1981; Verrell 1989). Furthermore, both brooding and nonrandom selection of oviposition sites are strongly associated with breeding habitat (Salthe 1969); pond breeders typically deposit many small, exposed eggs in standing water and provide no postoviposition parental care, whereas stream breeders usually deposit few eggs at hidden, protected locations and one or both parents attend the clutch. Terrestrial breeders (e.g., plethodontid salamanders, some newts) generally lay clutches of eggs in hidden locations, have prolonged brooding periods, produce direct developing larvae, and aggressively defend their eggs against predators (Salthe 1969; Crump 1996). Nussbaum (1985, 1987) hypothesized that parental care evolved in stream- rather than pond-breeding species because foraging in stream currents requires larger and stronger larvae, in turn allowing consumption of the larger prey found in lotic ecosystems. For stream-dwelling larvae to grow larger, they must spend more time in the egg (Salthe and Duellman 1973; Salthe and Mecham 1974), and parental egg guarding could have evolved in response to predation risk during the extended egg phase.

Viviparity in urodeles is considered an adaptation to protect vulnerable offspring from water shortages, caused by either harsh high-altitude climates or droughts (Vilter and Vilter 1964; Joly et al. 1994; Lodé 2012; but see Dopazo and Korenblum 2000). Although in general the Fire Salamander (Salamandra salamandra) is ovoviviparous (mothers retain eggs in the oviduct until hatching without nutritional exchange, and several weeks of aquatic development are required after birth; Buckley et al. 2007), some subspecies (Salamandra salamandra fastuos, Salamandra salamandra bernadezi) are decidedly viviparous and give birth to fully metamorphosed offspring (Dopazo and Alberch 1994; Joly et al. 1994; García-París et al. 2003). The same is the case for the Black Salamander (Salamandra atra; Vilter and Vilter 1960). The suggestion that alpine salamanders exhibit intrauterine feeding was made centuries ago (U8). More recently, integrative approaches have identified specialized maternal tissues known as “oviductal epithelium” or “zona trophica,” which provides embryos nutrition after yolk depletion (epitheliophagy; Guex and Chen 1986; Guex and Greven 1994).

Newts (salamanders from the subfamily Pleurodelinae) were long considered to lack parental behavior (cf. Crump 1996). However, some terrestrial breeding newts exhibit parental behavior, such as the Himalayan newt (Tylototriton verrucosus) in which females coil around their eggs (Kuzmin et al. 1994). Furthermore, numerous aquatic breeding newts such as those in the genera Triturus and Lissotriton exhibit parental behavior, although it is limited to egg rolling (or also “egg wrapping”; Bell and Lawton 1975; Bell 1977; Díaz-Paniagua 1989; Miaud 1994; U1). This behavior was either not considered true parental behavior or was seen as a primitive form of parental care (Miaud 1993), in part because there is no parental care after eggs have been wrapped in a leaf (Bell 1977; Beebee and Griffiths 2000), and was originally described only as a reproductive mode (Mode I: many eggs are laid singly on supports such as aquatic plants; Salthe 1969). However, lab and field experiments tested the protective function of egg wrapping and confirmed its adaptive significance (Ward and Sexton 1981; Miaud 1993, 1994; Orizaola and Brana 2003), as well as time and energy costs to the parent (Díaz-Paniagua 1989; Miaud 1994). In fact, wrapped eggs have a much higher survival rate because they are less visible and accessible to predators (Miaud 1993, 1994; Orizaola and Brana 2003), and suffer from less mechanical destruction (Ward and Sexton 1981), fungal infection, and damaging UV-B radiation (Kiesecker and Blaustein 1995; Green 1999; Marco et al. 2001). Thus, there is considerable support that egg wrapping in newts is in fact a real parental behavior.

Egg-wrapping strategies vary among (and within; Tóth et al. 2011) Lissotriton species (Miaud 1995; Orizaola and Brana 2003; Norris and Hosie 2005; Dvořák and Gvoždík 2009; 2010; Kurdíková et al. 2011) such that larger females are more skilled in egg-laying and wrapping than smaller females, and individual female behavior influences offspring survival (Díaz-Paniagua 1989; Tóth et al. 2011). However, a comparative understanding of the behavioral repertoires of individuals and species is lacking. Use of standardized ethograms—such as that created by Norris and Hosie (2005) to compare oviposition behavior in Lissotriton helveticus and Lissotriton vulgaris—would improve our ability to compare behaviors across taxa.

Oviposition behavior in aquatic breeding newts has received increasing attention in recent decades because of the decline of newt populations globally (Waldmann and Tocher 1998; Marco et al. 2001). Apart from broad stressors such as habitat fragmentation and loss, acidification of water by pollutants such as the fertilizer ammonium nitrate are detrimental to egg development and alter female wrapping behavior (Ortiz-Santaliestra et al. 2007). Changes in water temperature, such as those associated with a shifting climate regime, also negatively affect oviposition performance (Dvořák and Gvoždík 2009, 2010; Kurdíková et al. 2011).

Relative to the newts, only limited and anecdotal reports exist about another aquatic breeding urodele family, Sirenidae. Based on observations of two breeding pairs in captivity, Siren intermedia territorial males guard, move, and oxygenate (via fanning) their clutches, and aggressively defend developing and recently hatched larvae against intruders (Reinhard et al. 2013, 2015)—a parental care mode first described by Hubbs (1962; U7). In contrast, parental behavior was not observed in Pseudobranchus striatus (Kowalski 2004). Because parental care is otherwise rare in male and aquatic breeding urodeles, Sirenidae represents an important taxon for studying the evolutionary drivers of maternal and paternal care, but more information about the behavior and natural history of this group is needed before selective pressures can be evaluated.

Even though most species in the family Ambystomatidae (represented by a single genus Ambystoma) lack parental care, this family is a valuable target for comparative approaches given its diverse range of life-history patterns, ecology, and reproductive modes (Petranka 1990). Brooding has not been documented in most Ambystoma species, in contrast to many plethodontids, even though both groups breed terrestrially next to streams (Anderson and Williamson 1976; Petranka and Petranka 1981; Nussbaum 1985). However, adult Marbled Salamanders (Ambystoma opacum) migrate to breeding sites and females actively select oviposition sites inside dry pond beds, coiling around their clutches until the ponds fill with rainwater (Noble 1931; Figiel and Semlitsch 1995). Both brooding and active nest site selection improve offspring survival in A. opacum (Petranka and Petranka 1981; Jackson et al. 1989; Petranka 1990; Croshaw and Scott 2005). Interestingly, the costs of brooding appear to be low or even absent, as females did not appear to lose weight during the brooding period (Kaplan and Crump 1978). That costs are low is particularly surprising because female marbled salamanders frequently abandon nest sites before pools fill up with rainwater (Kaplan and Crump 1978); the underlying causes of this behavior remain unclear.

Even less is known about parental behavior in Cryptobranchidae, one of the oldest salamander lineages (Pyron and Wiens 2011). Species in this group are fully aquatic, secretive, and have well-hidden nest sites. They are also rapidly declining worldwide. Although historical anecdotes described egg fanning and defense, recent field observations and video monitoring have revealed an extended period of pre- and posthatching parental care in the Japanese giant salamander, Andrias japonicus (Okada et al. 2015; Takahashi et al. 2017). Large males (“den-masters”) occupy nesting burrows along stream banks, performing tail fanning, agitation, filial hygienic cannibalism, and active predator defense (Okada et al. 2015), both before hatching (1–2 mo) and with juveniles (up to 5 mo; Takahashi et al. 2017). Unfortunately, small sample sizes (n = 2) impede inferences about the causes, correlates, and function(s) of these behaviors.

Parental care is particularly widespread in the family Plethodontidae, which includes over 70% of extant urodele species. Life in stressful environments has likely been a major factor in the development of parental strategies in this group (Wilson 1975). Nonetheless, the distribution and diversity of plethodontid parental behaviors is probably underestimated, as the reproductive biology of many species is unknown, and most research is limited to 7 of 476 species in this family (Plethodon cinereus; Desmognathus ochrophaeus; Hemidactylium scutatum; Speleomantes strinatii; Bolitoglossa mexicana; Plethodon albagula; D. fuscus; Frost 2019). Egg attendance (or the secondary loss thereof), however, has also been reported in many other species in the group (e.g., Ensatina eschscholtzi, Stebbins 1954; Batrachoseps nigriventis, Jochusch and Mahoney 1997; Bolitoglossa rostrata, Houck 1977; Aquiloeurycea cafetalera, Aguilar-López et al. 2017). Plethodontid salamanders have internal fertilization (via retrieval of male spermatophores with female cloacal muscles), terrestrial clutches, and predominantly female parental care (Verrell 1989). Because mothers do not leave the nest to eat and they face higher predation risk, egg brooding and guarding are considered quite costly (Forester 1981; Bachmann 1984; Hom 1988; Harris et al. 1995; Ng and Wilbur 1995; Yurewicz and Wilbur 2004). Egg production and brooding may consume almost half of a female's annual energy budget (Fitzpatrick 1973).

The adaptive benefits of plethodontid maternal behaviors are diverse (Forester 1979). Brooding females provide active and passive defense against conspecific and heterospecific predators (Highton and Savage 1961; Bachmann 1964; but see Carreño and Harris 1998), move and turn their eggs to increase oxygenation and prevent adhesive malformations (Stebbins 1954; Vandel and Bouillon 1959; Durand and Vandel 1968; Salthe and Mecham 1974), and moisten eggs during periods of drought (Forester 1984). Furthermore, mothers ingest infected eggs to prevent the spread of fungal infection (Snyder 1971; Tilley 1972; Salthe and Mecham 1974). Although most fungi develop on nonviable eggs (Villa 1979), some pathogenic fungi infect healthy eggs (Villa 1979; Warkentin et al. 2001). An antimicrobial function of salamander skin was hypothesized long ago (Piersol 1910), but the mechanisms were not experimentally verified until 100 yr later (Lauer et al. 2007; Banning et al. 2008; Brucker et al. 2008). Chemical and molecular analyses have shown that peptides and alkaloids produced in skin glands inhibit fungal growth (Simmaco et al. 1998; Rollins-Smith et al. 2002). In addition, amphibian skin harbors bacteria that produce antibiotic compounds, which could be transferred from mothers to clutches to enhance embryo survival (Lauer et al. 2007, 2008).

Although microbe transmission is generally considered to be a cost of group living in mammals and birds, transmission of antifungal skin bacteria may have favored the evolution of communal nesting in several plethodontids (Banning et al. 2008). For example, in Hemidactylium scutatum, a few females deposit clutches in the same nest and one of them remains for nest brooding (Harris and Gill 1980; Harris et al. 1995). Brooding may facilitate the transmission of antifungal bacteria to embryos (Banning et al. 2008), and although joint brooding females exhibit preferential care for their own clutch, their energy expenditure is not considerably higher than females with solitary nests (Carreño and Harris 1998). The adaptive significance and function of communal nesting in plethodontids is barely understood, but it has not been found to be a behavioral response to habitat limitation or high population density (Emlen 1982; Hatchwell and Komdeur 2000), conspecific brood parasitism, or high predation threat requiring group nest defense (cf. Harris et al. 1995).

Cross-fostering experiments in solitary nesting plethodontids have elucidated some adaptive benefits of parental care. Infrared cameras and manipulations of parents and clutches in the Northwest Italian Cave Salamander, Speleomantes strinatii revealed that postoviposition care influences offspring size more than preoviposition care, and that mothers attend and guard young for weeks after hatching (Oneto et al. 2010; U6). Although a substantial body of literature has illustrated many aspects of parental care in urodeles and particularly in plethodontids (Forester 1979, 1983; Nussbaum 1987; Verrell 1989; Jaeger and Forester 1993; Crespi and Lessing 2004; Trauth et al. 2006; Banning et al. 2008), we still have minimal knowledge about the diversity and abundance of parental behaviors in many families (Fig. 1). Integrative work that combines observational, experimental, genetic, and modeling approaches is needed to identify the mechanisms underlying the diversity of urodele parental strategies.

Anurans

The study of parental care in anurans has recently come of age, with the number of descriptive natural history and hypothesis-testing reports in our literature search rising since the 1980s (Fig. 2). The number of parental-care modes doubled from 14 to 28 in the last few decades (Table 1). In fact, more than two-thirds (456 of 685) of the papers that we found about parental care in amphibians were published since 1950 and focus on anurans. However, recent experimental work in anuran parental care is heavily biased toward Neotropical taxa, and in particular toward Dendrobatidae (Fig. 4). This family exhibits particularly complex forms of parental care, and significant research effort has strived to cultivate a deep understanding of their functions and origins, in contrast to other anuran families where, in most cases, parental care research is merely scratching the surface. Few other taxa have played a substantial role in anuran parental-care research, including Allobates femoralis (Aromobatidae, from the same superfamily as Dendrobatidae), Kurixalus eiffingeri, Alytes obstetricans (Alytidae), Eleutherodactylus coqui (Eleutherodactylidae), Leptodactylus bolivianus (Leptodactylidae), and Kurixalus eiffingeri and Feihyla hansenae (both Rhacophoridae). Additionally, studies using comparative methods among various centrolenid species have revealed new perspectives on the adaptive significance of anuran parental care (Delia et al. 2017). Given the extreme diversity of parental-care modes in anurans (Table 1; Fig. 1), a wider comparative scope in other families would strengthen our understanding of adaptive and mechanistic functions, especially outside of the most commonly studied behaviors: tadpole transport, egg attendance, site choice, and nutritive provisioning.

Fig. 4.

Number of hypothesis-testing parental care studies in anurans (that were identified in our literature review) published in the last five decades, colored by family. Note how some families such as Dendrobatidae have received more attention than others. A color version of this figure is available online.

img-z11-1_71.jpg

Research on parental care in anurans after 1950 can be categorized as either “descriptive,” revealing fascinating aspects of natural history, or “hypothesis-testing,” probing deeper into established natural history. Generally, descriptive studies rely on observational field or lab work, whereas hypothesis-testing studies integrate methods from behavior, phylogenetics, genetics, morphology, neuroendocrinology, and chemistry to assess ultimate and proximate hypotheses.

Observations of diverse parental behaviors.—Recent descriptive studies have revealed new modes of parental care, better knowledge of poorly understood species, and new details about well-studied species. Several types of parental care have been discovered in distinct geographical regions, hinting at striking, yet underexplored, examples of evolutionary convergence. For example, guarding of eggs—that will either develop directly into froglets or hatch into aquatic tadpoles—has been reported in taxa as diverse as the South African Bullfrog (Cook et al. 2001), African hyperolids (Stevens 1971), New Zealand leiopelmids (Bell 1978), Papuan and Australian microhylids and myobatrachids (Pengilley 1971; Roberts 1984; Bickford 2004; Hoskin 2004; Günther 2006), Bornean dicroglossids (Inger and Voris 1988), and many South American species in the families Craugastoridae, Eleutherodactylidae, Centrolenidae, and Dendrobatidae. In some cases, egg guarding is further derived: (1) building of mud, foam, bubble, or leaf-pouch nests (A1–4, Table 1; Gladiator Frog, Kluge 1981; Túngara Frog, Ryan 1985; Gray Foam-Nest Tree Frog, Coe 1974; Santa Catarina Humming Frog, Haddad and Hödl 1997; Reticulate Leaf Frog, de Oliveira 2017); (2) use of heterospecific nests (A5; Allobates sumtuosus, Kok and Ernst 2007); (3) camouflaging eggs with dirt (A6; Spix's Saddleback Toad, Pombal et al. 1994); (4) carrying eggs wound around the legs until hatching (A15; Midwife Toad, Márquez 1992); (5) carrying eggs in a dorsal pouch-like structure (A16–18; e.g., marsupial frogs like Gastrotheca, del Pino 1989); or (6) carrying eggs on the back with no protective structure (A19–20; e.g., backpack frogs like Cryptobatrachus, del Pino 1989).

Species with external fertilization, like most anurans, typically use organs other than the oviduct to carry embryos, because zygotes are ingested or deposited only after fertilization. Very few anuran species exhibit internal fertilization, and thus oviductal retention is rare in frogs (but see Sever et al. 2001, Iskandar et al. 2014, Wake 2015; A26). It has been hypothesized that nonoviductal retention was derived from parental care of juveniles, and that oviductal retention is ancestral to viviparity (Lodé 2012). The protection of embryos in maternal organs other than the oviduct (e.g., skin, mouth, stomach) resembles ovoviviparity or viviparity in various ways (see sections on viviparity in caecilians and salamanders above). For instance, male Rhinoderma darwinii ingest their embryos and keep them in their vocal sac, where the tadpoles feed on their yolk and secretions from the male's sac until metamorphosis (A22; Goicoechea et al. 1986). Likewise, female Rheobatrachus silus give birth to metamorphic young via propulsive vomiting (A21; Corben et al. 1974; Tyler and Carter 1981). Such gastric brooding is possible because developing young secrete a chemical substance that prevents stomach acid production by the mother (Fanning et al. 1982). Unfortunately, further exploration of this fascinating mode of parental care is not possible, as this frog is reportedly extinct, last seen in 1981 (IUCN 2018).

Although egg-brooding anurans often continue parental-care behaviors during tadpole or froglet stages, most egg-attending species do not provide posthatching care, because their eggs are deposited near water and then hatchlings swim away (e.g., Hyalinobatrachium fleischmanni: Jacobson 1985). However, a few species do protect their tadpoles or froglets after hatching (Leptodactylus insularum, Hurme 2011; Cophixalus parkeri, Simon 1983). Other species of parental anurans carry recently hatched tadpoles to bodies of water (A11–12), or hold them on their dorsum or in inguinal pouches, where they are protected until metamorphosis (A23–25; Cycloramphus stejnegeri, Heyer and Crombie 1979; Assa arlingtoni, Straughan and Main 1966). In some directly developing species that lack a free-living tadpole stage, mothers or fathers transport newly hatched froglets to appropriate habitats (A13–14; Eleutherodactylus cundalli, Diesel et al. 1995; Sphenophryne schlaginhaufeni, Bickford 2002).

In the Neotropical poison frogs (families Dendrobatidae and Aromobatidae), male tadpole transport was known from natural history observations for over a century (A11; reviewed in Weygoldt 1987), when back-to-back discoveries revealed female offspring transportation (A12) followed by provisioning with unfertilized nutritive eggs in Oophaga pumilio (A27; Graeff and Schulte 1980; Weygoldt 1980) and biparental tadpole feeding in Ranitomeya imitator (A28; Kneller 1982, as Dendrobates reticulatus). These and many other parental behaviors in this group were first described by private breeders (e.g., Polder 1974; Lescure and Bechter 1982; Zimmermann and Zimmermann 1984), who made priceless contributions to the study of amphibian parental care. Observations in situ soon confirmed these data, expanding the knowledge of egg-guarding, tadpole-transportation, and egg-feeding behaviors in many species (e.g., Aichinger 1991; van Wijngaarden and Bolaños 1992; Brust 1993; Juncá et al. 1994; Caldwell 1997; Fandiño et al. 1997). The accessibility of brightly colored and diurnal poison frogs in captivity and in the wild, in combination with their wide array of behaviors, makes them ideal model species for parental-care studies (Weygoldt 1987; Summers and Tumulty 2014; Stynoski et al. 2015). As such, numerous studies have been conducted in this family (Fig. 4), on a diversity of questions, both ultimate (e.g., correlations between the evolution of parental care and egg size or ecological factors; Summers and McKeon 2006; Brown et al. 2010) and proximate (e.g., neural basis of parental decisions; Roland and O'Connell 2015).

Hundreds of important observational studies have added to our knowledge of the natural history and diversity of parental care in anurans in recent decades, and we strongly encourage researchers to continue reporting such crucial observations. On the other hand, since 1950, the study of anuran parental care has truly blossomed in the use of experimental data to test hypotheses directly.

Ultimate questions about adaptive significance.—Rigorous laboratory and field studies have begun to unravel the relative costs and benefits of anuran parental care from the perspectives of both the parent and the offspring. Such research has identified many of the ecological factors and interactions that impact the form, intensity, and diversity of parental care among anuran lineages. It has also illustrated the adaptive significance and selective pressures that have led to the evolution of behaviors and morphologies that facilitate care of offspring.

A fundamental question about the adaptive significance of parental care is whether behavior that appears to play a role in offspring success truly provides measurable benefits. Numerous classic studies have used parent removal experiments to tease apart the adaptive benefits of egg attendance by mothers or fathers and the sources of mortality when a parent experimentally abandons its eggs. Prior to these experiments, many speculated whether egg attendance reduces dehydration, predation, pathogenic infection, or other sources of offspring mortality (e.g., Salthe and Duellman 1973; Vaz-Ferreira and Gehrau 1974; Woodruff 1977; McDiarmid 1978; Jacobson 1985).

The first experimental evidence for benefits of parental egg attendance was found in Cophixalus parkeri (Simon 1983) and E. coqui (Townsend et al. 1984), in which removal of males from clutches led to high egg mortality via cannibalism, desiccation, fungal infection, and arthropod predation. Similar adaptive benefits have been demonstrated experimentally in many glass frogs (Hyalinobatrachium fleischmanni, Hayes 1991; Delia et al. 2013, 2014; Hyalinobatrachium valerioi, Vockenhuber et al. 2009; Hyalinobatrachium orientale, Lehtinen et al. 2014; Ikakogi tayrona, Bravo-Valencia and Delia 2016; Cochranella granulosa and Teratohyla pulverata, Delia et al. 2017) and other anuran families (Hylophorbus rufescens and Oreophryne sp., Bickford 2004; K. eiffingeri, Chen et al. 2007, 2011; Cheng and Kam 2010; F. hansenae, Poo and Bickford 2013; R. imitator, Tumulty et al. 2014; O. pumilio, Dugas et al. 2016a; Thoropa taophora, Consolmagno et al. 2016). These experiments have shown that the source of mortality depends on the selection pressures acting on parents and offspring in a given habitat (Bickford 2004; Bravo-Valencia and Delia 2016), with weather variation (Delia et al. 2013; Lehtinen et al. 2014) and offspring development (Vockenhuber et al. 2009; Bravo-Valencia and Delia 2016; Dugas et al. 2016a) playing important roles in the relative value of parental care. Although the majority of parent removal experiments have been based on studies in which the male adult performs most or all of the egg attendance, some studies have also demonstrated clear adaptive benefits when the female (Poo and Bickford 2013; Bravo-Valencia and Delia 2016; Delia et al. 2017) or both parents (Tumulty et al. 2014) attend offspring.

Other studies have demonstrated other complex ways that parental care can benefit offspring: larger size of brooding males in A. obstetricans and Alytes cisternasii (Raxworthy 1990; Márquez 1993), sequential vs. nonsequential clutch attendance in K. eiffingeri (Cheng et al. 2012), and differences expressed among allopatric color morphs in O. pumilio (Dugas and Richards-Zawacki 2015). Such findings suggest that we are only beginning to understand the complex interactions between parental care and offspring fitness in anurans.

The evolution of parental behaviors depends not only on the benefits to offspring, but also the relative costs of that care to parents, who must balance investment in current offspring with investment in future offspring and their own survival (Trivers 1974). For example, Townsend (1986) demonstrated that male E. coqui attending eggs lost significant mass and missed numerous mating opportunities, although those costs were compensated by a net fitness gain because of dramatic improvements in offspring survival. Field studies with O. pumilio showed that females invest more time in parental care and have a lower potential reproductive rate than males (Pröhl and Hödl 1999). Also, a series of studies based on captive O. pumilio demonstrated that the provisioning of nutritive eggs by female frogs is costly and limiting: tadpoles in larger broods received fewer eggs, and females produced fewer clutches when already caring for tadpoles (Dugas et al. 2015a). Furthermore, reproductive rate was negatively correlated with the duration of adult survival (Dugas et al. 2015b), and reproductive success did not improve with parent age or experience (Dugas et al. 2015c). Similarly, K. eiffingeri tadpoles in larger clutches grew less, suggesting that nutritive egg production is a limiting factor in maternal care (Kam et al. 1998).

The degree of parental investment in a given species is intricately related to its mating system, and therefore also to the degree of territoriality, resource defense, and mating competition displayed by either of the sexes. In the 1990s and 2000s, a number of reports aimed to quantify and elucidate the relative roles of male and female anurans in light of the impact that investment in parental care could have on the evolution of mating systems. For example, studies have measured territory and home range sizes, reproductive success or skew, choosiness of mates, features of quality such as body size or call traits, and defensive behavior to evaluate whether these factors can be predicted by the intensity of parental care displayed by either males or females. Such hypotheses have generally been tested in dendrobatid and aromobatid species (A. femoralis, Roithmair 1992; Ursprung et al. 2011; Ringler et al. 2012; Dendrobates leucomelas, Dendrobates auratus, Summers 1989, 1990; Oophaga histrionica, Summers 1992; Ranitomeya ventrimaculata, Summers and Amos 1997; O. pumilio, Haase and Pröhl 2002; Pröhl 2002, 2005; Meuche et al. 2011, 2013), and occasionally in other anuran families as well (A. obstetricans, Verrell and Brown 1993; R. darwinii, Valenzuela-Sánchez et al. 2014; H. valerioi, Mangold et al. 2015). Research with R. imitator, Ranitomeya variabilis, and Ranitomeya vanzolinii has also explored the relationship between biparental care and a monogamous or pair-bonded mating system (Caldwell 1997; Caldwell and de Oliveira 1999; Brown et al. 2008a,b, 2009). This work, along with comparative analyses across anurans, suggest that selection to rear offspring in particularly small phytotelmata is associated with biparental care and, accordingly, pair-bonded mating systems (Caldwell and de Oliveira 1999; Brown et al. 2010).

Male tadpole transport without provisioning is thought to be the ancestral form of parental care in dendrobatid frogs (Weygoldt 1987; Summers and Tumulty 2014). Exclusively female or biparental care are thought to be derived (Tumulty et al. 2014). However, parental roles can be flexible. Other anurans, such as Eleutherodactylus johnstonei, display dynamic rather than fixed parental roles (amphisexual care; Bourne 1998; Lehtinen 2003), and when male A. femoralis were experimentally removed, females stepped in to initiate tadpole transport (Ringler et al. 2015a). Compensatory flexibility may be widespread, considering frequent anecdotal observations of biparental care with high sex bias (see Killius and Dugas 2014; Tumulty et al. 2014). Behavioral flexibility could be a crucial step in the evolutionary transition from uniparental to biparental care in poison frogs (Brown et al. 2010; Ringler et al. 2015a).

Proximate questions about mechanisms.—Proximate studies that clarify the mechanisms and ontogeny underlying anuran parental care have become popular in recent decades. Such work can be categorized into three general themes: (1) histological, physiological, and endocrinological studies to understand the biological tissues and substances associated with parental care; (2) spatial, genetic, and behavioral studies to understand how parent frogs choose where to deposit their eggs or tadpoles; and (3) behavioral, ecological, and chemical studies to understand the provisioning of food, water, and other resources.

Many anurans brood offspring using specialized pouches or organs with modified tissues. For example, in R. darwinii, the male swallows egg clutches and rears the young in a pouch in his vocal sac (see above), which becomes extremely distended when brooding young (Garrido et al. 1975). Histological studies examining the ultrastructure of the epithelium and vascularization of the father's pouch as well as the delayed development of the tadpole digestive tract suggest that tadpoles respire and acquire nutrients from fathers while in the pouch (Garrido et al. 1975; Jorquera et al. 1982). Also, Goicoechea et al. (1986) injected fathers with tracers and found those tracers in skin and digestive tract tissues of tadpoles, further supporting transfer of nutrients from fathers to offspring via the brood pouch. Similarly, R. silus mothers swallow and hold young in their stomach, where embryos secrete prostaglandin E2, which inhibits gastric secretions and, along with egg jelly, prevents digestion (Tyler et al. 1983).

Frogs in the family Hemiphractidae have brood pouches in the skin where offspring undergo differing degrees of development (Table 1). These pouches have been classified into six types (del Pino 1980), and produce mucosal secretions in specialized glands to aid the development and attachment of embryos and tadpoles (del Pino 1980; De Pérez and Ruiz 1985). A recent study in Gastrotheca excubitor used labeled isotopes to show that both gases and liquids containing nutrients are transferred from highly vascularized maternal pouch tissues to embryos (Warne and Catenazzi 2016).

Anurans in the families Leptodactylidae and Rhacophoridae produce foam nests during oviposition. These nests provide an extra layer of protection for embryos and early-stage tadpoles by providing insulation from desiccation and temperature fluctuations (Engystomops pustulosus, Dobkin and Gettinger 1985; Dalgetty and Kennedy 2010; Rhacophorus viridis, Tanaka and Nishihira 1987; Rhacophorus arboreus Kusano et al. 2006; Physalaemus fischeri, Leptodactylus fuscus, and Leptodactylus knudseni, Méndez-Narváez et al. 2015,). Moreover, by eating the material that forms the foam nest, tadpoles gain nutritional benefits and grow more than when reared outside of the foam nest (Tanaka and Nishihira 1987; Kusano et al. 2006). In E. pustulosus, the foam nest is derived from six key proteins that are secreted by oviduct cells into a foam precursor fluid that is beaten during oviposition; some of these foam proteins have antibacterial and antipredator functions (Fleming et al. 2009; Dalgetty and Kennedy 2010).

Anurans are a model system for hormonal control of mating and communication (reviewed in Arch and Narins 2009), so it is surprising that relatively few studies have explored the endocrinology of parental care. Moore et al. (2005) extensively reviewed the literature on the hormonal regulation of behavior in amphibians and did not once mention the words “parent” or “care.” A few classic studies offer some clues about the roles that hormones play in the modulation of parental care. For example, estradiol causes the formation of the brood pouch in female Gastrotheca riobambae (Jones et al. 1973). Also, brooding male E. coqui show lower circulating androgen levels than nonbrooding and calling males (Townsend and Moger 1987). However, implanting males with testosterone pellets did not alter brooding behavior, suggesting that the drop in androgen levels is a consequence rather than a cause of parental care (Townsend et al. 1991). Similarly, male Limnonectes blythi, which have lost secondary sex characteristics and transport tadpoles dorsally, exhibit considerably lower levels of androgens than related species that do not exhibit such parental care (Emerson et al. 1993; Emerson 1996).

More recently, Ten Eyck and Haq (2012) demonstrated that arginine vasotocin (AVT, the amphibian homolog of mammalian vasopressin), which generally promotes calling behaviors in anurans, stimulated brooding males to call but not to abandon their egg clutches. Additionally, Schulte and Summers (2017) found that in R. imitator, exogenous AVT actually reduced intense egg-care behaviors (but did elevate the expression of some general care behaviors), and that exogenous mesotocin (the amphibian homolog of mammalian oxytocin) reduced the likelihood that males transported tadpoles. They suggest that other hormones such as steroids or prolactin are likely important for the stimulation of early parental behaviors in dendrobatids (Schulte and Summers 2017). However, the hormonal mechanisms that trigger tadpole transport, egg swallowing, and nonparental, mating, and egg-provisioning phases in different taxa remain unexplored. Additionally, it is not known why in some anuran groups the hormonal and morphological prerequisites for parental care appear only in males (e.g., R. darwinii, Anomaloglossus degranvillei, Assa darlingoni, and D. auratus), only in females (e.g., Gastrotheca, Flectonotus, and Pipa), or in both sexes (e.g., R. imitator, and Osteocephalus oophagus).

Many studies have investigated the biotic and abiotic factors that determine where parent frogs choose to deposit eggs or tadpoles. For example, various studies have used experimental pools to show that mother frogs avoid depositing eggs in sites with potential predators (Dryophytes chrysoscelis, Resetarits and Wilbur 1989; Lithobates sylvaticus, Hopey and Petranka 1994; Anaxyrus americanus, Petranka et al. 1994; R. sirensis, von May et al. 2009; Dendropsophus ebraccatus, Touchon and Worley 2015), infectious pathogens (Dryophytes versicolor, Kiesecker and Skelly 2000), or pesticides (D. versicolor complex, Takahashi 2007).

Parent frogs also seek out oviposition sites that are less likely to experience desiccation. For example, in Crinia nimbus, an Australian direct developer that deposits eggs in sphagnum moss, sites with dense and moist nest material are essential for embryo survival (Mitchell 2002). Phytotelm breeders O. pumilio, Ranitomeya amazonica, and K. eiffingeri are more likely to reproduce in months of the year when desiccation risk is reduced (Donnelly 1989a; Poelman and Dicke 2007; Lin et al. 2008). Also, R. amazonica is more likely to deposit eggs and tadpoles in sites with larger water volumes, as well as those that contain detritus, presumably as a food source for offspring (Poelman et al. 2013). Mother frogs are more likely to oviposit in experimental pools with deep water than with shallow water (Isthmohyla pseudopuma, Crump 1991; Hoplobatrachus occipitalis, Spieler and Linsenmair 1997; Phrynobatrachus guineensis, Rudolf and Rödel 2005; D. ebraccatus, Touchon and Worley 2015; R. sirensis, von May et al. 2009).

Mother frogs also avoid ovipositing in sites that contain potential conspecific competitors or cannibals. For example, mothers were more likely to deposit egg clutches in control pools than in experimental pools with older conspecifics in the water (D. chrysoscelis, Resetarits and Wilbur 1989; I. pseudopuma, Crump 1991; H. occipitalis, Spieler and Linsenmair 1997; Phrynobatrachus guineensis, Rudolf and Rödel 2005; Pleurodema borellii, Halloy 2006; Rana japonica, Iwai et al. 2007; K. eiffingeri, Lin et al. 2008; R. ventrimaculata, Summers 1999), but not in all cases (R. variabilis, Schulte 2014).

In addition to egg deposition, some frogs (e.g., dendrobatids and aromobatids) must also decide which tadpoles to transport (i.e., their own offspring) and where to deposit them. Ranitomeya variabilis use chemical cues to distinguish between conspecific and heterospecific tadpoles and to avoid placing tadpoles in dangerous sites with conspecifics (Schulte et al. 2011, 2013, 2015; Schulte and Lötters 2013, 2014; Schulte 2016). Other experimental studies have shown that R. amazonica males do not differentiate between their own and foreign clutches (Poelman and Dicke, 2007), whereas O. pumilio females (Stynoski 2009) and A. femoralis females (Ringler et al. 2016) use indirect recognition via spatial location of clutches and tadpoles to discriminate between their own and unrelated progeny. Research in a few species has shown puzzling evidence of parents preferring to deposit tadpoles along with older tadpoles that are likely to kill and consume their offspring (D. auratus, Ryan and Barry 2011; Dendrobates tinctorius, Rojas 2014, 2015; Adelphobates castaneoticus, Caldwell and Myers 1990; Caldwell and Araujo 1998; R. ventrimaculata, Poelman and Dicke 2007). Such a strategy could be intended as food supplementation for older tadpoles, especially when there is more pressure to metamorphose as the wet season ends (R. amazonica, Poelman and Dicke 2007; R. variabilis, Schulte and Lötters 2013), but not in all cases (D. tinctorius, Rojas 2014, 2015). Species differences may exist, however; the larvae of some species eat conspecific eggs and tadpoles (D. auratus, Summers 1990; R. variabilis, Schulte 2014; D. tinctorius, Rojas 2014; Dendrobates truncatus, BR, personal observation) and benefit nutritionally (R. ventrimaculata, Summers and Amos 1997), whereas other species kill younger intruder tadpoles but do not eat them and larval aggression is unaffected by tadpole hunger level (O. pumilio, Dugas et al. 2016b). In some cases, parents avoid depositing tadpoles with conspecifics when given a choice of pools (R. ventrimaculata, Summers 1999; R. sirensis, Von May et al. 2009; R. variabilis, Schulte et al. 2011, 2013; Schulte and Lötters 2014), regardless of relatedness (R. variabilis, Schulte and Veith 2014). However, in other cases, cannibalistic tadpoles are deposited irrespective of or even preferring the presence of conspecifics (Mannophryne trinitatis, Downie et al. 2001; D. tinctorius, Rojas 2014), perhaps because the presence of older tadpoles indicates safety at that site from predators or desiccation (but see K. eiffingeri, Chen et al. 2001).

Some species of phytotelm-breeding frogs avoid placing tadpoles in sites with predators (M. trinitatis, Downie et al. 2001; R. variabilis, Brown et al. 2008b; A. femoralis, McKeon and Summers 2013) or low (or too high) volumes of water (R. sirensis, Von May et al. 2009; A. femoralis, McKeon and Summers 2013; R. variabilis, R. imitator, Brown et al. 2008b), whereas phytotelm position seems less crucial (Von May et al. 2009; Schulte et al. 2010). The number of sites available for rearing tadpoles generally limits population density, and adding tadpole rearing sites increases local adult density and reproductive activity, whereas adding leaf litter does not (O. pumilio, Donnelly 1989b; D. tinctorius, Rojas 2015; A. femoralis, Ringler et al. 2015b). The distribution of appropriate tadpole rearing sites strongly impacts the distribution of adults in Dendrobatidae (O. pumilio, Pröhl and Berke 2001; R. amazonica, Poelman and Dicke 2008) and Mantellidae (Heying 2004).

Phytotelm-breeding aromobatids have excellent spatial memory, and use it to return to sites where they deposited egg clutches and tadpoles (A. femoralis, Pašukonis et al. 2016, 2017; Ringler et al. 2016). Telemetry has shown that A. femoralis follows direct memorized paths to known deposition sites (Beck et al. 2017; Pašukonis et al. 2017). This non-egg-feeding species may use a mental map of tadpole-rearing sites to execute a bet-hedging strategy, distributing the tadpoles from a given clutch among a number of pools to reduce the risk at any one site (Ringler et al. 2013; Erich et al. 2015). Egg-feeding species also use spatial location to identify their tadpoles for intermittent provisioning of nutritive eggs, as opposed to relying on direct offspring recognition (K. eiffingeri, Chiu and Kam 2006; O. pumilio, Stynoski 2009). It is poorly understood whether spatial memory differs among the sexes, although given evidence of plasticity among the sexes in tadpole transport behavior, spatial abilities may be similar (A. femoralis, Ringler et al. 2013, 2015a; Pašukonis et al. 2017). In a visual discrimination task in a laboratory maze, D. auratus used a win–stay/lose–shift strategy, demonstrating serial reversal learning and lending further support that dendrobatid frogs have advanced spatial memory (Liu et al. 2016). It remains unclear how flexible anuran spatial abilities are, and whether frogs are capable of planning ahead to optimize risks and costs.

In some species, anuran parental care goes beyond deposition of eggs or tadpoles, to provisioning of eggs. For example, direct developing E. coqui fathers provide moisture to eggs, which take up a significant amount of liquid from the father's body (Taigen et al. 1984). Also, Cycloramphus fuliginosus males have an iliac gland in the inguinal region that may provision antimicrobial mucus and protein secretions to offspring during egg attendance (Gonçalves and de Brito-Gitirana 2008). In Xenopus laevis, antibodies produced in response to an antigen-specific immune challenge in mother frogs were later detected in the eggs (Poorten and Kuhn 2009). In contrast, even though the bacterial assemblages of father Hyalinobatrachium colymbiphyllum and their eggs were very similar, removal of fathers did not influence egg bacterial assemblages, suggesting that extended parental care does not influence offspring microbiomes (Hughey et al. 2017). Provisioning can also take the form of active defense against predators, such as with mother F. hansenae, which physically interrupt feeding attempts by large arthropods to protect eggs (Poo et al. 2016).

Provisioning can also occur after tadpoles hatch. For example, some species intermittently visit tadpoles to feed them unfertilized nutritive or trophic eggs (reviewed in Weygoldt 1987). In some cases, tadpoles are obligatorily oophagous; they do not readily eat other food items, and stop growing and die before metamorphosis if abandoned by mothers (O. pumilio, Brust 1993; Pramuk and Hiler 1999; K. eiffingeri, Kam et al. 1997; Liang et al. 2002). In some non-egg-feeding dendrobatids and aromobatids, tadpoles retain yolk that allows them to grow during parental transport for up to a week (Colostethus inguinalis, Wells 1980; M. trinitatis, Downie et al. 2005).

Many species of anurans provision their eggs with chemical defenses (reviewed in Gunzburger and Travis 2005), but generally such predator defenses diminish as offspring develop. In contrast, nutritive eggs provided by mother O. pumilio contain alkaloid chemical defenses that mothers acquire from their own diet of leaf-litter arthropods (Stynoski et al. 2014a). The alkaloids transferred to tadpoles accumulate in poison glands as soon as glands begin to mature around Gosner stage 40 (Stynoski and O'Connell 2017). The chemical defenses are effective in defending tadpoles against spider and ant predators (Stynoski et al. 2014a,b), but not against snake predators (Stynoski et al. 2014b).

Many egg-feeding anurans display complex parent–offspring communication: when the parent frog arrives at the phytotelm, the tadpole exhibits vigorous vibration behavior. In K. eiffingeri, tadpoles determine the presence of the adult frog using chemical and tactile—but not visual—cues (Kam and Yang 2002), whereas in O. pumilio, tadpoles recognize adults based on visual and tactile—but not chemical—cues (Stynoski and Noble 2012). In both species, multimodal cues that confirm parental presence are needed to stimulate a full begging response, which likely serves to prevent the expression of conspicuous vibration behavior in the presence of a predator (Kam and Yang 2002; Stynoski and Noble 2012). Begging behavior is a reliable indicator of tadpole hunger (R. imitator, Yoshioka et al. 2016) and/or quality (O. pumilio, Dugas et al. 2017). Mother frogs use tadpole begging signals to make decisions about the allocation of eggs to tadpoles, giving more food to tadpoles that beg more intensely (Yoshioka et al. 2016; Dugas et al. 2017). The fact that tadpole begging is costly, in terms of growth and development (Yoshioka et al. 2016), may have played a role in the maintenance of signal honesty during the evolution of mother–offspring communication in these frogs.

Future Perspectives

It is increasingly evident that amphibians are an excellent system to address timely and relevant questions about the evolution of reproductive strategies, including parental care (i.e., Kupfer et al. 2006; Brown et al. 2010; Poo and Bickford 2013; Reinhard et al. 2013; Stynoski et al. 2014b; Tumulty et al. 2014; Vargas-Salinas et al. 2014; Lehtinen et al. 2014; Rojas 2014; Bravo-Valencia and Delia 2016; Yoshioka et al. 2016; Delia et al. 2017; Ringler et al. 2017; Schulte and Mayer 2017; Stynoski et al. 2018). The advent of new technologies has broadened the range of questions that can be addressed concerning the molecular and physiological underpinnings of parental behaviors (Roland and O'Connell 2015; Fischer et al. 2019). These advances, together with natural history observations, open promising avenues for future research on amphibian parental care. Even more broadly, this research could expand to questions regarding the evolutionary consequences of ancestral parental care for derived taxa, how the evolution of novel parental behaviors influences interspecific relationships (e.g., predator–prey relationships or microbial skin symbionts), and ecological niche use across biological kingdoms (e.g., within ecosystems like phytotelmata). We identify four areas of research that we believe will see rapid progress in the near future.

Multidisciplinary Approaches

Recent work has pushed the envelope on research directions in amphibians given the great variety of reproductive modes, macro- and microhabitats, and life histories that they encompass. Studies on parental care are evolving into multidisciplinary projects that draw a more complete picture by integrating perspectives such as behavioral (what the animals are doing), physiological (how they do it), ecological (in which environments they do it), and evolutionary (how or why did these behaviors evolve and what are the benefits). Such multifaceted issues are best addressed by researchers from many fields working together. We foresee great advances with regards to both the proximate factors influencing parental behaviors and the context in which they evolved. For example, attaching tracking devices to poison frogs has elucidated the movement of individuals around the complex environment of the forest, allowing us to establish where fathers deposit their tadpoles and how far deposition sites are from core areas (Beck et al. 2017; Pašukonis et al. 2019). Tracking methods could also be used to quantify the physiological costs of tadpole transport, and to compare parental investment among species that differ in transport distances. Physiological assays will shed light on the mechanisms underlying hatching plasticity, a behavioral flexibility which is vital for the survival of some glass and hylid frogs (Warkentin 1995, 2011). Likewise, through physiological techniques, we could get a better grasp of the hormonal triggers underlying parental-care behaviors, as well as the parental-care adaptations that have emerged in some amphibian groups in spite of the constraints imposed by ectothermy (Beekman et al. 2019).

Molecular approaches are a powerful way to tackle longstanding questions about animal behavior (Boake et al. 2002). Genotyping adults and young can illuminate parental decisions about offspring distribution across the habitat (Ringler et al. 2018), as well as the genetic relatedness of individuals in the same water body; kinship between offspring and care provider is often assumed but seldom confirmed. Also, parentage analyses will clarify the role of genetic relatedness in the evolution of communal nesting and whether perceived paternity impacts parental-care expression (cf. Neff and Gross 2001; Neff 2003 for similar findings in fish). Going a step further, molecular tools allow us to follow individual young through metamorphosis and dispersal; by sampling individual larvae or tadpoles, any free-living individuals can be subsequently identified genetically at different ontogenetic stages, eliminating the extremely challenging task of tracking each individual in the forest over time (Ringler et al. 2015c). This approach could enable us to measure carry-over effects from the larval to the adult stage, and to link phenotypic shifts across development or among populations or species with genotypic differences.

With an updated amphibian phylogeny (e.g., Jetz and Pyron 2018), it is now possible to delineate evolutionary homologies or analogies among parental care behaviors. Likewise, transcriptomics now allows for the quantification of gene expression (Todd et al. 2016), which is a powerful tool in evolutionary ecology for linking cellular processes with phenotypic traits, behavior, and selection pressures (Sneddon et al. 2005; Wollenberg et al. 2007). The combination of field and lab experiments with molecular techniques will provide answers to questions that are unreachable by either approach on its own, as seen in other taxa such as insects (Benowitz et al. 2017). Therefore, we hope to see the incorporation of transcriptomics in the study of parental care behavior and modes within and across amphibian taxa (Young et al. 2019).

Integrative Experimental Work

Much of the work on amphibian parental care has focused on ultimate questions about its adaptive value and how it has evolved. However, research on the proximate mechanisms underlying how these behaviors function and develop over ontogeny is more limited (Roland and O'Connell 2015; Fischer et al. 2019), partly because they can rarely be answered through observation alone. New technologies and methodological approaches from fields like genomics, endocrinology, and developmental biology hold promise for shedding light on the ways that tissues, hormones, genes, neurons, and regulation mechanisms allow amphibians to perform and moderate the diverse array of parental behaviors known today. Therefore, we emphasize the need for more experimental studies on diverse parental behaviors in amphibians. For example, experiments where begging offspring are reared independently along with electrophysiology or gene expression studies can shed light on individual variation in begging occurrence or intensity. Also, field manipulations can be combined with systems biology perspectives to understand decision making by parents that deposit eggs or tadpoles in diverse microhabitats and how they assess the mid-to-long-term stability of those sites. Furthermore, by combining field manipulations with chemical analysis (see Schulte et al. 2015) and controlled experiments (Saporito et al. 2019), we can uncover the use and significance of specific chemicals in parent–offspring and tadpole–tadpole communication, including in the context of paradoxical behaviors like larval cannibalism. Questions about the direct or indirect benefits of the vertical transfer of antipredator defenses (in O. pumilio, Stynoski et al. 2014a,b; Saporito et al. 2019) or skin microbiomes (in H. colymbiphyllum, Hughey et al. 2017) are ripe for study. And, controlled manipulations such as translocation or cross-fostering are needed to identify adaptive benefits of communal nesting to parents and offspring.

Parental Care in Times of Population Declines

The world is experiencing an alarming wave of biodiversity loss (Ceballos et al. 2015). In particular, amphibians have declined dramatically in the last four to five decades (Stuart et al. 2004). Approximately 43% of amphibian species worldwide are experiencing population declines (Stuart et al. 2004), due in great part to the spread of chytridiomycosis, a deadly fungal disease (Lips et al. 2006; Lips 2016; Bower et al. 2017; Scheele et al. 2019) and human-mediated habitat loss (Cushman 2006; Becker et al. 2007). Deforestation, for example, directly threatens species that use tree leaves (e.g., glassfrogs, hylids), epiphytes (e.g., some dendrobatids), or tree-holes (e.g., some dendrobatids, hylids, bufonids, hyperoliids, mantellids, microhylids, etc.) to lay or rear offspring. Furthermore, logging alters soils in ways that likely affect terrestrial or burrowing amphibians (e.g., some salamanders and caecilians) and their terrestrial egg nests (Nussbaum 1985; Kupfer et al. 2016). Climate change further destabilizes crucial microhabitats, making treeholes, phytotelmata, and small ponds more prone to desiccation, and limiting the time available for eggs and tadpoles to reach metamorphosis.

Likewise, we urge scientists to investigate the direct and indirect effects of habitat loss and climate change on species that perform parental care experimentally. Do parents alter care behaviors to adapt to higher risk of desiccation? Can parents assess this increasing risk? Do they shift the timing of reproductive cycles to reduce risks? Do they switch to a bet-hedging strategy? What costs do parents incur due to extended searches for suitable offspring deposition sites? Can parental decisions modulate the transmission of infectious diseases among their offspring?

Get Back to Basics: It is Time to Revive Our Interest in Natural History

Indisputably, the basis of everything we know about amphibian parental care is natural history (Fig. 2). However, unsettling formal and informal accounts have noted that natural history is “falling out of vogue” (Anderson 2017:290), and the number of organism-based courses at universities has dropped (Tewksbury et al. 2014). This is troublesome, because natural history is the foundation for new hypotheses in ecology and evolution (Endler 2015). Discoveries of new parental-care behaviors or new taxa exhibiting known parental-care behaviors can lead to novel experimental approaches, which advance our understanding about the adaptive benefits of parental care. Furthermore, cumulative effort in natural history studies permit comparisons across taxa, and thus a more robust understanding of how and why parental care evolved in diverse animal groups. For example, rigorous natural history observations of 40 species along with historical and functional analyses of clutch attendance recently debunked existing beliefs that parental care is rare among glass frogs (Centrolenidae) and is performed exclusively by males (Delia et al. 2017). Likewise, although A. femoralis exhibits predominantly male parental care, field observations revealed that females carry out tadpole transport in the male's absence (Ringler et al. 2013, 2015b), and males cannibalize clutches of former territory holders when taking over their territory (Ringler et al. 2017). Whereas poison frog fathers call to attract additional mates while concurrently caring for offspring, hours of thorough field observations revealed that male Bornean smooth guardian frogs (Limnonectes palavanensis) practically do not move or eat for days while caring for clutches (Goyes Vallejos et al. 2018). Considering that these dedicated fathers forego future mating opportunities, it has been suggested that this species is exhibiting sex role reversal (Goyes Vallejos et al. 2018). Surely other instances of unexpected behavioral patterns will be unveiled by thorough observations of focal species in the wild.

Our plea to reinforce natural history observations also applies to over 200 species of caecilians and 700 species of salamanders (AmphibiaWeb 2017), many of which we do not know much about. According to the IUCN (2018), 37% of amphibian species are threatened and over 22% are so poorly documented that we cannot assess their threat status. So-called “basic” descriptive work is valuable and irreplaceable, providing foundational information needed to refine hypotheses about the function and evolution of behaviors and ecology, and thus must continue (e.g., Ferreira et al. 2019; Rojas and Pašukonis 2019; Ospina-L et al. 2019). For example, natural history observations were essential for a recent character state reconstruction illustrating the evolution of parental investment in caecilians (Kupfer et al. 2016), and similar observations are needed to approach such questions in frog and salamander groups.

The historical view of amphibians as simple animals that drop eggs in a pond and hop away has shifted to a more nuanced view of an animal group of over 7000 species (AmphibiaWeb 2017) with incredibly diverse reproductive modes. Most likely, additional novel forms of parental care will be unveiled in the coming years. Clearly, amphibians offer a precious opportunity to test long-standing as well as newly arising hypotheses on evolution and behavior involving an array of parental care modes, especially as amphibian taxonomy is refined and the natural history literature grows.

No less important, amphibians and their fascinating parental behaviors can bring science to a lay audience. Stories about how frogs care for their babies are endearing, and make for elegant outreach opportunities. By sharing those stories through videos, museum exhibits, websites, and colorful magazine and newspaper articles, we can inspire the general public to care, and to take steps in the conservation of threatened species. We encourage researchers in this area to use amphibian parental care in science communication and to have broader impacts outside of the community of academic biologists. Collaborative (rather than competitive) work across research groups, as well as integrative approaches, will further nourish the growth of understanding about the behaviors of these fascinating animals.

Conclusions

Parental care has been studied broadly by many researchers that employ multidisciplinary approaches across many animal taxa. However, certain groups are underrepresented in the literature; one such group is the amphibians. There have been attempts to classify amphibian parental-care behaviors, but because of a steady influx of descriptions of novel behaviors, classifications change frequently. The percentage of species recognized as providing parental care also rises consistently because of new observations and taxonomic discoveries. Currently, approximately 10% of anuran and 20% of urodelian species are believed to provide some type of parental care; there are no estimates for caecilians yet.

In this review, we recognize 28 types of parental care behaviors in frogs, 8 in salamanders, and 4 in caecilians. Parental behaviors have evolved independently several times within the amphibian clade. The focus of studies of amphibian parental care has shifted over time. The first descriptions of parental behavior in anurans, caecilians, and urodeles appeared in the 18th century, followed by decades of natural history notes and taxonomic descriptions. More recently, varied experimental approaches and modern tools have enriched our understanding of the adaptive function of and proximate mechanisms underlying parental care.

It has been challenging to study parental care in caecilians because they are fossorial, but natural history studies and character state reconstruction have provided some insights. The most ancestral form of care in this clade is egg attendance, which provides protection against desiccation and predation, and other caecilian species feed their offspring with intrauterine fluids or maternal skin. Urodeles are an excellent target for studies on the evolution of parental care because of their diverse fertilization mechanisms, mating systems, and associated ecological traits. Parental care has likely evolved independently many times in this clade, with maternal care evolving in species with internal fertilization and paternal care in those with external fertilization. Widespread parental behaviors include egg wrapping, different forms of egg attendance such as egg fanning and coiling around clutches, and ingestion of infected eggs to prevent fungal spread. The transmission of antifungal bacteria to embryos may have favored the evolution of communal nesting in some plethodontids, but more research is needed to clarify those mechanisms. The first description of parental care in anurans was written by a woman, Maria Sibylla Merian, in 1705. Anuran parental care is the most diverse and best studied among the amphibians, consisting of 28 distinct parental modes. Among those modes, egg attendance is the most widespread taxonomically and geographically, both among direct developing species and among species with tadpoles. Other modes include egg transport, either in specialized sacs or attached to the parent's body, and construction of mud and foam nests to protect embryos from predation and desiccation. Some species perform tadpole transport and feeding. Depending on the species, care providers can be female or male, and in a few cases, biparental care has led to the evolution of monogamy.

Anurans have stimulated more hypothesis-driven research than urodeles or gymnophionans. Experimental approaches, molecular tools, and refined phylogenetic relationships have prompted great advances in our understanding of the adaptive value of anuran parental care. In contrast, the study of physiological and morphological correlates of these behaviors has lagged behind. Some anuran clades have received more attention than others, particularly in the Neotropics. Looking to the future, we encourage multidisciplinary experimental studies that explore the role of parental care in adaptation to environmental change. We also call for a revival in the importance of natural history observations. We predict that these research directions will lead to significant advances in the study of amphibian parental care.

Acknowledgments.

We would like to thank the participants (L. Bravo, J. Delia, P. Gutiérrez, K. Hurme, R. Lehtinen, J. Tumulty, K. Warkentin, and M. Yoshioka) of the Parental Care Symposium at the X Latin American Congress of Herpetology in Cartagena, Colombia, for their inspirational work in the field. We are most grateful to P. Byrne, K. Hurme, A. Kupfer, T. Pierson, L.A. Rueda, M. Sparreboom, E. Twomey and H. Werning for kindly allowing us to use their photographs; to S. Matthijs for help with translations of the Dutch text of Maria Sibylla Merian; and to W. Hödl, K. Summers, R. Lehtinen, and an anonymous reviewer for thoughtful comments that improved an earlier version of the manuscript. BR is funded by the Academy of Finland (Academy Research Fellowship, Project 21000042021). JLS is funded by an American Association of University Women postdoctoral fellowship and the University of Costa Rica. ER is funded by the Austrian Science Fund via a Hertha-Firnberg Fellowship (T 699-B22) and a standalone project (P 31518-B24).

Literature Cited

1.

Agar, W.E. 1909. The nesting habits of the tree-frog Phyllomedusa sauragii. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 79:893–897. Google Scholar

2.

Aguilar-Lopez, J.L., A. Sandoval-Comte, and E. Pineda. 2017. Distribution, encounter rate and conservation status of Aquiloeurycea cafetalera (Caudata: Plethodontidae), a recently described Mexican salamander. Phyllomedusa 16:211–224. Google Scholar

3.

Aichinger, M. 1991. Tadpole transport in relation to rainfall, fecundity and body size in five species of poison-dart frogs from Amazonian Peru. Amphibia-Reptilia 12:49–55. Google Scholar

4.

Altig, R., and G.F. Johnston. 1989. Guilds of anuran larvae: Relationships among developmental modes, morphologies, and habitats. Herpetological Monographs 3:81–109. Google Scholar

5.

AmphibiaWeb. 2017. AmphibiaWeb: An Online Resource. Available at https://amphibiaweb.org . University of California, Berkeley, USA. Accessed on 14 December 2017. Google Scholar

6.

Anderson, J. 2017. Why ecology needs natural history. American Scientist 105:290–297. Google Scholar

7.

Anderson, J.D., and G.K. Williamson. 1976. Terrestrial mode of reproduction in Ambystoma cingulatum. Herpetologica 32:214–221. Google Scholar

8.

Andrews, E.A. 1901. The frog as parent. The Popular Science Monthly 59:68–80. Google Scholar

9.

Arch, V.S., and P.M. Narins. 2009. Sexual hearing: The influence of sex hormones on acoustic communication in frogs. Hearing Research 252:15–20. Google Scholar

10.

Bachmann, M.D. 1984. Defensive behavior of brooding female red-backed salamanders (Plethodon cinereus). Herpetologica 40:436–443. Google Scholar

11.

Bachmann, M.D.D. 1964. Maternal Behavior of the Red-backed Salamander, Plethodon cinereus. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, USA. Google Scholar

12.

Baker, C.L. 1945. The natural history and morphology of Amphiumae. Reelfoot Lake Biological Station, Report 9:55–91. Google Scholar

13.

Balshine, S. 2012. Patterns of parental care in vertebrates. Pp. 62–80 inThe Evolution of Parental Care ( N.J. Royle, P.T. Smiseth, and M. Kolliker, eds.). Oxford University Press, UK. Google Scholar

14.

Banning, J.L., A.L. Weddle, G.W. Wahl III , M.A. Simon, A. Lauer, R.L. Walters, and R.N. Harris. 2008. Antifungal skin bacteria, embryonic survival, and communal nesting in four-toed salamanders, Hemidactylium scutatum. Oecologia 156:423–429. Google Scholar

15.

Beck, C.W. 1998. Mode of fertilization and parental care in anurans. Animal Behaviour 55:439–449. Google Scholar

16.

Beck, K.B., M.-C. Loretto, M. Ringler, W. Hödl, and A. Pašukonis. 2017. Relying on known or exploring for new? Movement patterns and reproductive resource use in a tadpole-transporting frog. PeerJ 5:e3745. Google Scholar

17.

Becker, C.G., C.R. Fonseca, C.F.B. Haddad, R.F. Batista, and P.I. Prado. 2007. Habitat split and the global decline of amphibians. Science 318:1775–1777. Google Scholar

18.

Beebee, T., and R. Griffiths. 2000. Amphibians and Reptiles: A Natural History of the British Herpetofauna. HarperCollins, UK. Google Scholar

19.

Beekman, M., M. Thompson, and M. Jusup. 2019. Thermodynamic constraints and the evolution of parental provisioning in vertebrates. Behavioral Ecology 30:583–591. Google Scholar

20.

Bei, Y., S. Meng, G. Li, W. Xie, J. Li, and L. Zhang. 2012. First record of nest site and egg guarding in the caecilian Ichthyophis bannanicus (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Ichthyophiidae). Journal of Natural History 46:859–865. Google Scholar

21.

Bell, B.D. 1978. Observations on the ecology and reproduction of the New Zealand Leiopelmid frogs. Herpetologica 34:340–354. Google Scholar

22.

Bell, G. 1977. The life of the smooth newt (Triturus vulgaris) after metamorphosis. Ecological Monographs 47:279–299. Google Scholar

23.

Bell, G., and J.H. Lawton. 1975. The ecology of the eggs and larvae of the smooth newt (Triturus vulgaris (Linn.)). The Journal of Animal Ecology 44:393–423. Google Scholar

24.

Bello, D. 1871. Zoologische Notizen aus Puerto Rico. Nach dem Spanischen von E. von Martens. Der Zoologische Garten 12:348–351. Google Scholar

25.

Benowitz, K.M., E.C. McKinney, C.B. Cunningham, and A.J. Moore. 2017. Relating quantitative variation within a behavior to variation in transcription. Evolution 71:1999–2009. Google Scholar

26.

Bickford, D. 2002. Animal behaviour: Male parenting of New Guinea froglets. Nature 418:601–602. Google Scholar

27.

Bickford, D.P. 2004. Differential parental care behaviors of arboreal and terrestrial microhylid frogs from Papua New Guinea. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 55:402–409. Google Scholar

28.

Bishop, S.C. 1919. Notes on the habits and development of the four-toed salamander Hemidactylium scutatum (Schlegel). New York State Museum Bulletin 219:251–282. Google Scholar

29.

Bishop, S.C. 1926. Notes on the habits and development of the mud-puppy Necturus maculosus (Rafinesque). New York State Museum Bulletin 268:5–60. Google Scholar

30.

Bishop, S.C. 1941. The salamanders of New York. New York State Museum Bulletin 324:1–365. Google Scholar

31.

Blanchard, F.N. 1934. The relation of the female four-toed salamander to her nest. Copeia 1934:137–138. Google Scholar

32.

Bles, E.J. 1905. Notes on the development of Phyllomedusa hypochondrialis. Pp. 605–606 inReport of the 74th Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Google Scholar

33.

Boake, C.R.B., S.J. Arnold, F. Breden, L.M. Meffert, M.G. Ritchie, B.J. Taylor, J.B. Wolf, and A.J. Moore. 2002. Genetic tools for studying adaptation and the evolution of behavior. The American Naturalist 160:S143–S159. Google Scholar

34.

Boulenger, G.A. 1886. Remarks in the connection with the preceding note. Journal of Natural History 17:463–464. Google Scholar

35.

Boulenger, G.A. 1888a. On the “Nursing”-habits of Dendrobates. Journal of Natural History 2:122–123. Google Scholar

36.

Boulenger, G.A. 1888b. On the “nursing”-habits of Dendrobates, as observed by A. Kappler. Journal of Natural History 1:454–455. Google Scholar

37.

Boulenger, G.A. 1895. On the nursing-habits of two South-American frogs. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 63:209–210. Google Scholar

38.

Boulenger, G.A. 1903. On the nursing habits of a South-American frog. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 2:115–116. Google Scholar

39.

Boulenger, G.A. 1904. 2. Description of a new tree-frog of the genus Hyla, from British Guiana, carrying eggs on the back. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 74:106. Google Scholar

40.

Boulenger, G.A. 1906. Untitled. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 13:179. Google Scholar

41.

Bourne, G.R. 1998. Amphisexual parental behavior of a terrestrial breeding frog Eleutherodactylus johnstonei in Guyana. Behavioral Ecology 9:1–7. Google Scholar

42.

Bower, D.S., K.R. Lips, L. Schwarzkopf, A. Georges, and S. Clulow. 2017. Amphibians on the brink. Science 357:454–455. Google Scholar

43.

Brandes, G., and W. Schoebnichen. 1901. Die Brutpflege der schwanzlosen Batrachier. Abhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu Halle 22:394–461. Google Scholar

44.

Brauer, A. 1897. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Entwicklungsgeschichte und der Anatomie der Gymnophionen. Zoologische Jahrbücher (Abteilung für Abteilung für Anatomie und Ontogenie der Tiere) 10:389–472. Google Scholar

45.

Brauer, A. 1899. Ein neuer Fall von Brutpflege bei Fröschen. Zoologische Jahrbuch Abtheilung Systematik 12:89–94. Google Scholar

46.

Bravo-Valencia, L.B., and J. Delia. 2016. Maternal care in a glassfrog: Care function and commitment to offspring in Ikakogi tayrona. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 70:41–48. Google Scholar

47.

Brown, J., V. Morales, E. Twomey, and K. Summers. 2008a. Phytotelm size in relation to parental care and mating strategies in two species of Peruvian poison frogs. Behaviour 145:1139–1165. Google Scholar

48.

Brown, J.L., V. Morales, and K. Summers. 2008b. Divergence in parental care, habitat selection and larval life history between two species of Peruvian poison frogs: An experimental analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 21:1534–1543. Google Scholar

49.

Brown, J.L., V. Morales, and K. Summers. 2009. Home range size and location in relation to reproductive resources in poison frogs (Dendrobatidae): A Monte Carlo approach using GIS data. Animal Behaviour 77:547–554. Google Scholar

50.

Brown, J.L., V. Morales, and K. Summers. 2010. A key ecological trait drove the evolution of biparental care and monogamy in an amphibian. American Naturalist 175:436–446. Google Scholar

51.

Brucker, R.M., C.M. Baylor, R.L. Walters, A. Lauer, R.N. Harris, and K.P.C. Minbiole. 2008. The identification of 2, 4-diacetylphloroglucinol as an antifungal metabolite produced by cutaneous bacteria of the salamander Plethodon cinereus. Journal of Chemical Ecology 34:39–43. Google Scholar

52.

Brust, D.G. 1993. Maternal brood care by Dendrobates pumilio: A frog that feeds its young. Journal of Herpetology 27:96–98. Google Scholar

53.

Buckley, D., M. Alcobendas, M. García-París, and M.H. Wake. 2007. Heterochrony, cannibalism, and the evolution of viviparity in Salamandra salamandra. Evolution & Development 9:105–115. Google Scholar

54.

Buckley, J., R.J. Maunder, A. Foey, J. Pearce, A.L. Val, and K.A. Sloman. 2010. Biparental mucus feeding: A unique example of parental care in an Amazonian cichlid. The Journal of Experimental Biology 213:3787–3795. Google Scholar

55.

Budgett, J.S. 1899. Notes on the batrachians of the Paraguayan Chaco, with observations upon their breeding habits and development, especially with regard to Phyllomedusa hypochondrialis, Cope. Also a description of a new genus. The Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science 42:305–333. Google Scholar

56.

Bürger, O. 1905. Die Brutpflege von Rhinoderma darwinii D. & B. Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Zoologie 82:230–251. Google Scholar

57.

Caldwell, J.P. 1997. Pair bonding in spotted poison frogs. Nature 385:211. Google Scholar

58.

Caldwell, J.P., and M.C. Araujo. 1998. Cannibalistic interactions resulting from indiscriminate predatory behavior in tadpoles of poison frogs (Anura: Dendrobatidae). Biotropica 30:92–103. Google Scholar

59.

Caldwell, J.P., and C.W. Myers. 1990. A new poison frog from Amazonian Brazil, with further revision of the quinquevittatus group of Dendrobates. American Museum Novitates 2988:1–21. Google Scholar

60.

Caldwell, J.P., and V.R.L. de Oliveira. 1999. Determinants of biparental care in the spotted poison frog, Dendrobates vanzolinii (Anura: Dendrobatidae). Copeia 565–575. Google Scholar

61.

Carreño, C.A., and R.N. Harris. 1998. Lack of nest defense behavior and attendance patterns in a joint nesting salamander, Hemidactylium scutatum (Caudata: Plethodontidae). Copeia 1998:183–189. Google Scholar

62.

Ceballos, G., P.R. Ehrlich, A.D. Barnosky, A. García, R.M. Pringle, and T.M. Palmer. 2015. Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances 1:e1400253. Google Scholar

63.

Chen, Y.H., Y.J. Su, Y.S. Lin, and Y.C. Kam. 2001. Inter-and intraclutch competition among oophagous tadpoles of the Taiwanese tree frog, Chirixalus eiffingeri (Anura: Rhacophoridae). Herpetologica 57:438–448. Google Scholar

64.

Chen, Y.-H., H.-T. Yu, and Y.-C. Kam. 2007. The ecology of male egg attendance in an arboreal breeding frog, Chirixalus eiffingeri (Anura: Rhacophoridae), from Taiwan. Zoological Science 24:434–440. Google Scholar

65.

Chen, Y.-H., W.-C. Cheng, H.-T. Yu, and Y.-C. Kam. 2011. Genetic relationship between offspring and guardian adults of a rhacophorid frog and its care effort in response to paternal share. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 65:2329–2339. Google Scholar

66.

Cheng, W.-C., and Y.-C. Kam. 2010. Paternal care and egg survivorship in a low nest-attendance rhacophorid frog. Zoological Studies 49:304–310. Google Scholar

67.

Cheng, W.-C., Y.-H. Chen, H.-T. Yu, J.D. Roberts, and Y.-C. Kam. 2012. Sequential polygyny during egg attendance is rare in a tree frog and does not increase male fitness. Ethology 119:286–295. Google Scholar

68.

Chiu, C.-T., and Y.-C. Kam. 2006. Growth of oophagous tadpoles (Chirixalus eiffingeri: Rhacophoridae) after nest displacement: Implications for maternal care and nest homing. Behaviour 143:123–139. Google Scholar

69.

Clutton-Brock, T.H., and A.C.J. Vincent. 1991. Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females. Nature 351:58–60. Google Scholar

70.

Coe, M. 1974. Observations on the ecology and breeding biology of the genus Chiromantis (Amphibia: Rhacophoridae). Journal of Zoology 172:13–34. Google Scholar

71.

Consolmagno, R.C., G.S. Requena, G. Machado, and C.A. Brasileiro. 2016. Costs and benefits of temporary egg desertion in a rocky shore frog with male-only care. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 70:785–795. Google Scholar

72.

Cook, C.L., J.W.H. Ferguson, and S.R. Telford. 2001. Adaptive male parental care in the giant bullfrog, Pyxicephalus adspersus. Journal of Herpetology 35:310–315. Google Scholar

73.

Corben, C.J., G.J. Ingram, and M.J. Tyler. 1974. Gastric brooding: Unique form of parental care in an Australian frog. Science 186:946–947. Google Scholar

74.

Crespi, E.J., and H. Lessig. 2004. Mothers influence offspring body size through post-oviposition maternal effects in the redbacked salamander, Plethodon cinereus. Oecologia 138:306–311. Google Scholar

75.

Croshaw, D.A., and D.E. Scott. 2005. Experimental evidence that nest attendance benefits female marbled salamanders (Ambystoma opacum) by reducing egg mortality. The American Midland Naturalist 154:398–411. Google Scholar

76.

Crump, M.L. 1991. Choice of oviposition site and egg load assessment by a treefrog. Herpetologica 47:308–315. Google Scholar

77.

Crump, M.L. 1996. Parental care among the amphibia. Advances in the Study of Behaviour 25:109–144. Google Scholar

78.

Crump, M.L. 2015. Anuran reproductive modes: Evolving perspectives. Journal of Herpetology 49:1–16. Google Scholar

79.

Cushman, S.A. 2006. Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: A review and prospectus. Biological Conservation 128:231–240. Google Scholar

80.

Czermak, J.J. 1843. Beiträge zur Anatomie und Physiologie des schwarzen Salamanders. Medicinische Jahrbücher des kaiserl.-königl. österreichischen Staates 45:1–13. Google Scholar

81.

Dahm, R. 2008. Discovering DNA: Friedrich Miescher and the early years of nucleic acid research. Human genetics 122:565–581. Google Scholar

82.

Dalgetty, L., and M.W. Kennedy. 2010. Building a home from foam—túngara frog foam nest architecture and three-phase construction process. Biology Letters 6:293–296. Google Scholar

83.

Darwin, C. 1879. Fritz Müller on a frog having eggs on its back—on the abortion of the hairs on the legs of certain caddis-flies. Nature 19:462–463. Google Scholar

84.

de l'Isle du Dréneuf, A. 1876. Sur l'art de accouchemens. InEssai d'une Faune Herpétologique de la Gironde. Avec une Note Inédite de A. de l'Isle du Dréneuf sur l'Accouplement de l'Alyte Accoucheur ( F. Lataste, ed.). Imprimerie V. Cadoret, France. Google Scholar

85.

de Oliveira, F.F.R. 2017. Mating behaviour, territoriality and natural history notes of Phyllomedusa ayeaye Lutz, 1966 (Hylidae: Phyllomedusinae) in south-eastern Brazil. Journal of Natural History 51:657–675. Google Scholar

86.

De Pérez, G.R., and P.M. Ruiz G. 1985. Ultraestructura e histoquímica de dos tipos de glándulas mucosas de la piel de Cryptobatrachus (Amphibia, Anura). Caldasia 14:251–264. Google Scholar

87.

Deixner, O. 1924. Einiges über Brutpflege bei Amphibien. Wochenschrift für Aquarienkunde 21. Google Scholar

88.

del Pino, E.M. 1980. Morphology of the pouch and incubatory integument in marsupial frogs (Hylidae). Copeia 1980:10–17. Google Scholar

89.

del Pino, E.M. 1989. Marsupial frogs. Scientific American 260:110–118. Google Scholar

90.

Delia, J., L. Bravo-Valencia, and K.M. Warkentin. 2017. Patterns of parental care in Neotropical glassfrogs: Fieldwork alters hypotheses of sex-role evolution. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 30:898–914. Google Scholar

91.

Delia, J.R.J., A. Ramírez-Bautista, and K. Summers. 2013. Parents adjust care in response to weather conditions and egg dehydration in a Neotropical glassfrog. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 67:557–569. Google Scholar

92.

Delia, J.R.J., A. Ramírez-Bautista, and K. Summers. 2014. Glassfrog embryos hatch early after parental desertion. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281:20133237. Google Scholar

93.

Delsol, M., J. Flatin, J.M. Exbrayat, and J. Bons. 1981. Développement de Typhlonectes compressicaudus, Amphibien apode vivipare. Hypothèses sur sa nutrition embryonnaire et larvaire par un ectotrophoblaste. Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences Paris 293:281–285. Google Scholar

94.

Demours, P. 1741. Crapaud mâle accoucheur de la femelle. Histoire de l'Académie Royale des Sciences 28–32. Google Scholar

95.

Demours, P. 1778. Observation au sujet de deux animaux dont le mâle accouche de la femelle. Histoire de l'Académie Royale des Sciences 13–19. Google Scholar

96.

Díaz-Paniagua, C. 1989. Oviposition behavior of Triturus marmoratus pygmaeus. Journal of Herpetology 23:159–163. Google Scholar

97.

Dick, J.T.A., S.E. Faloon, and R.W. Elwood. 1998. Active brood care in an amphipod: Influences of embryonic development, temperature and oxygen. Animal Behaviour 56:663–672. Google Scholar

98.

Diesel, R., G. Bäurle, and P. Vogel. 1995. Cave breeding and froglet transport: A novel pattern of anuran brood care in the Jamaican frog, Eleutherodactylus cundalli. Copeia 1995:354–360. Google Scholar

99.

Dobkin, D.S., and R.D. Gettinger. 1985. Thermal aspects of anuran foam nests. Journal of Herpetology 19:271–275. Google Scholar

100.

Donnelly, M.A. 1989a. Reproductive phenology and age structure of Dendrobates pumilio in northeastern Costa Rica. Journal of Herpetology 23:362–367. Google Scholar

101.

Donnelly, M.A. 1989b. Demographic effects of reproductive resource supplementation in a territorial frog, Dendrobates pumilio. Ecological Monographs 59:207–221. Google Scholar

102.

Dopazo, H., and P. Alberch. 1994. Preliminary results on optional viviparity and intrauterine siblicide in Salamandra salamandra populations from Northern Spain. Mertensiella 4:125–137. Google Scholar

103.

Dopazo, H.J., and M. Korenblum. 2000. Viviparity in Salamandra salamandra (Amphibia: Salamandridae): Adaptation or exaptation? Herpetologica 56:144–152. Google Scholar

104.

Downie, J.R., S.R. Livingstone, and J.R. Cormack. 2001. Selection of tadpole deposition sites by male Trinidadian stream frogs, Mannophryne trinitatis (Dendrobatidae): An example of anti-predator behaviour. Herpetological Journal 11:91–100. Google Scholar

105.

Downie, J.R., E. Robinson, R.J. Linklater-McLennan, E. Somerville, and N. Kamenos. 2005. Are there costs to extended larval transport in the Trinidadian stream frog, Mannophryne trinitatis (Dendrobatidae)? Journal of Natural History 39:2023–2034. Google Scholar

106.

Duellman, W.E. 1992. Reproductive strategies of frogs. Scientific American 267:80–87. Google Scholar

107.

Dugas, M.B., and C.L. Richards-Zawacki. 2015. Conspicuous and cryptic morphs of a polytypic poison frog differ in reproductive output because of differences in tadpole performance, not parental effort. Ethology Ecology & Evolution 28:441–451. Google Scholar

108.

Dugas, M.B., C.N. Wamelink, A.M. Killius, and C.L. Richards-Zawacki. 2015a. Parental care is beneficial for offspring, costly for mothers, and limited by family size in an egg-feeding frog. Behavioral Ecology 27:476–483. Google Scholar

109.

Dugas, M.B., C.N. Wamelink, and C.L. Richards-Zawacki. 2015b. Both sexes pay a cost of reproduction in a frog with biparental care. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 115:211–218. Google Scholar

110.

Dugas, M.B., M.P. Moore, C.N. Wamelink, C.L. Richards-Zawacki, and R.A. Martin. 2015c. An experimental test for age-related improvements in reproductive performance in a frog that cares for its young. The Science of Nature 102:48. Google Scholar

111.

Dugas, M.B., M.P. Moore, R.A. Martin, C.L. Richards-Zawacki, and C.G. Sprehn. 2016a. The pay-offs of maternal care increase as offspring develop, favoring extended provisioning in an egg-feeding frog. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 29:1977–1985. Google Scholar

112.

Dugas, M.B., J. Stynoski, and S.A. Strickler. 2016b. Larval aggression is independent of food limitation in nurseries of a poison frog. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 70:1389–1395. Google Scholar

113.

Dugas, M.B., S.A. Strickler, and J.L. Stynoski. 2017. Tadpole begging reveals high quality. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 30:1024–1033. Google Scholar

114.

Dukas, R. 2013. Effects of learning on evolution: Robustness, innovation and speciation. Animal Behaviour 85:1023–1030. Google Scholar

115.

Dunn, E.R. 1941. Notes on Dendrobates auratus. Copeia 1941:88–93. Google Scholar

116.

Durand, J.P., and A. Vandel. 1968. Proteus: An evolutionary relic. Science Journal 4:44. Google Scholar

117.

Dvořák, J., and L. Gvoždík. 2009. Oviposition preferences in newts: Does temperature matter? Ethology 115:533–539. Google Scholar

118.

Dvořák, J., and L. Gvoždík. 2010. Adaptive accuracy of temperature oviposition preferences in newts. Evolutionary Ecology 24:1115–1127. Google Scholar

119.

Eaton, T.H. 1941. Notes on the life history of Dendrobates auratus. Copeia 1941:93–95. Google Scholar

120.

Emerson, S.B. 1996. Phylogenies and physiological processes—the evolution of sexual dimorphism in Southeast Asian frogs. Systematic Biology 45:278. Google Scholar

121.

Emerson, S.B., C.N. Rowsemitt, and D.L. Hess. 1993. Androgen levels in a Bornean voiceless frog, Rana blythi. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71:196–203. Google Scholar

122.

Emlen, S.T. 1982. The evolution of helping. I. An ecological constraints model. The American Naturalist 119:29–39. Google Scholar

123.

Endler, J.A. 2015. Writing scientific papers, with special reference to Evolutionary Ecology. Evolutionary Ecology 29:465–478. Google Scholar

124.

Erich, M., M. Ringler, W. Hödl, and E. Ringler. 2015. Brood-partitioning behaviour in unpredictable environments: Hedging the bets? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 69:1–7. Google Scholar

125.

Fandiño, M.C., H. Lüddecke, and A. Amézquita. 1997. Vocalisation and larval transportation of male Colostethus subpunctatus (Anura: Dendrobatidae). Amphibia-Reptilia 18:39–48. Google Scholar

126.

Fanning, J.C., M.J. Tyler, and D.J.C. Shearman. 1982. Converting a stomach to a uterus: The microscopic structure of the stomach of the gastric brooding frog Rheobatrachus silus. Gastroenterology 82:62–70. Google Scholar

127.

Fermin, P. 1765. Développement Parfait du Mystère de la Génération du Fameux Crapaud de Surinam, Nommé Pipa. Jacques Lekens, Netherlands. Google Scholar

128.

Fernández, K., and M. Fernández. 1921. Sobre la biología y reproducción de algunos batracios argentinos I. Cystignathidae. Anales de la Sociedad Científica Argentina 91:97–140. Google Scholar

129.

Ferreira, R.B., A.T. Mônico, C.Z. Zocca, M.T.T. Santos, F.C.F. Lírio, J.F.R. Tonini, L.T. Sabagh, R.S. Cipriano, C. Waichert, and M.L. Crump. 2019. Uncovering the natural history of the bromeligenous frog Crossodactylodes izecksohni (Leptodactylidae, Paratelmatobiinae). South American Journal of Herpetology 14:136–145. Google Scholar

130.

Fetherston, I.A., M.P. Scott, and J.F.A. Traniello. 1990. Parental care in burying beetles: The organization of male and female brood-care behavior. Ethology 85:177–190. Google Scholar

131.

Figiel, C.R., and R.D. Semlitsch. 1995. Experimental determination of oviposition site selection in the marbled salamander, Ambystoma opacum. Journal of Herpetology 29:452–454. Google Scholar

132.

Fischer, E.K., A.B. Roland, N.A. Moskowitz, E.E. Tapia, K. Summers, L.A. Coloma, and L.A. O'Connell. 2019. The neural basis of tadpole transport in poison frogs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 286:20191084. Google Scholar

133.

Fitzpatrick, L.C. 1973. Energy allocation in the Allegheny Mountain salamander, Desmognathus Ochrophaeus. Ecological Monographs 43:43–58. Google Scholar

134.

Fleming, R.I., C.D. Mackenzie, A. Cooper, and M.W. Kennedy. 2009. Foam nest components of the tungara frog: A cocktail of proteins conferring physical and biological resilience. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276:1787–1795. Google Scholar

135.

Forester, D.C. 1979. The adaptiveness of parental care in Desmognathus ochrophaeus (Urodela: Plethodontidae). Copeia 1979:332–341. Google Scholar

136.

Forester, D.C. 1981. Parental care in the salamander Desmognathus ochrophaeus: Female activity pattern and trophic behavior. Journal of Herpetology 15:29–34. Google Scholar

137.

Forester, D.C. 1983. Duration of the brooding period in the mountain dusky salamander (Desmognathus ochrophaeus) and its influence on aggression toward conspecifics. Copeia 1983:1098–1101. Google Scholar

138.

Forester, D.C. 1984. Brooding behavior by the mountain dusky salamander: Can the female's presence reduce clutch desiccation? Herpetologica 40:105–109. Google Scholar

139.

Frost, D.R. 2019. Amphibian Species of the World: An Online Reference. Available at  http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html . American Museum of Natural History, USA. Accessed on 26 February 2019. Google Scholar

140.

Gage, S.H. 1891. Life-history of the vermilion-spotted newt (Diemyctylus viridescens Raf.). The American Naturalist 25:1084–1110. Google Scholar

141.

García-París, M., M. Alcobendas, D. Buckley, and D.B. Wake. 2003. Dispersal of viviparity across contact zones in Iberian populations of fire salamanders (Salamandra) inferred from discordance of genetic and morphological traits. Evolution 57:129–143. Google Scholar

142.

Garrido, O., E. Pugin, and B. Jorquera. 1975. Correspondance ultrastructurale entre la bourse gutturale du Rhinoderma darwini et le tegument des larves. Bolletino di Zoologia 42:133–144. Google Scholar

143.

Gilbert, J.D.J., and A. Manica. 2010. Parental care trade-offs and life-history relationships in insects. The American Naturalist 176:212–226. Google Scholar

144.

Goicoechea, O., O. Garrido, and B. Jorquera. 1986. Evidence for a trophic paternal-larval relationship in the frog Rhinoderma darwinii. Journal of Herpetology 20:168–178. Google Scholar

145.

Göldi, E.A. 1895. Contribution to the knowledge of the breeding-habits of some tree-frogs (Hylidae) of the Serra dos Orgãos, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1895:89–97. Google Scholar

146.

Göldi, E.A. 1899. Über die Entwicklung von Siphonops annulatus. Zoologische Jahrbücher (Abteilung für Systematik, Ökologie und Geographie der Tiere) 12:170–173. Google Scholar

147.

Göldi, E.A. 1907. Description of Hyla resinifictrix Goeldi, a new Amazonian tree-frog peculiar for its breeding-habits. Journal of Zoology 77:135–140. Google Scholar

148.

Gomes, A.D., R.G. Moreira, C.A. Navas, M.M. Antoniazzi, and C. Jared. 2012. Review of the reproductive biology of caecilians (Amphibia, Gymnophiona). South American Journal of Herpetology 7:191–202. Google Scholar

149.

Gonçalves, V.F., and L. de Brito-Gitirana. 2008. Structure of the sexually dimorphic gland of Cycloramphus fuliginosus (Amphibia, Anura, Cycloramphidae). Micron 39:32–39. Google Scholar

150.

Goodwin, N.B., S. Balshine-Earn, and J.D. Reynolds. 1998. Evolutionary transitions in parental care in cichlid fish. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 265:2265–2272. Google Scholar

151.

Gower, D.J., V. Giri, M.S. Dharne, and Y.S. Shouche. 2008. Frequency of independent origins of viviparity among caecilians (Gymnophiona): Evidence from the first “live-bearing” Asian amphibian. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 21:1220–1226. Google Scholar

152.

Gower, D.J., M.T. Kouete, T.M. Doherty-Bone, E.S. Ndeme, and M. Wilkinson. 2015. Rediscovery, natural history, and conservation status of Idiocranium russeli Parker, 1936 (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Indotyphlidae). Journal of Natural History 49:233–253. Google Scholar

153.

Goyes Vallejos, J., T.U. Grafe, and K.D. Wells. 2018. Prolonged parental behaviour by males of Limnonectes palavanensis (Boulenger 1894), a frog with possible sex-role reversal. Journal of Natural History 52:2473–2485. Google Scholar

154.

Graeff, D., and R. Schulte. 1980. Neue Erkenntnisse zur Brutbiologie von Dendrobates pumilio. Herpetofauna 2:17–22. Google Scholar

155.

Green, A. 1999. Implications of pathogenic fungi for life-history evolution in amphibians. Functional Ecology 13:573–575. Google Scholar

156.

Gross, M.R. 2005. The evolution of parental care. The Quarterly Review of Biology 80:37–45. Google Scholar

157.

Gross, M.R., and R. Shine. 1981. Parental care and mode of fertilization in ectothermic vertebrates. Evolution 35:775–793. Google Scholar

158.

Gubernick, D.J., and P.H. Klopfer. 1981. Parental Care in Mammals. Plenum Press, USA. Google Scholar

159.

Guex, G.-D., and P.S. Chen. 1986. Epitheliophagy: Intrauterine cell nourishment in the viviparous alpine salamander, Salamandra atra (Laur.). Experientia 42:1205–1218. Google Scholar

160.

Guex, G.-D., and H. Greven. 1994. Structural and physiological aspects of viviparity in Salamandra atra. Mertensiella 4:161–208. Google Scholar

161.

Günther, R. 2006. Derived reproductive modes in New Guinean anuran amphibians and description of a new species with paternal care in the genus Callulops (Microhylidae). Journal of Zoology 268:153–170. Google Scholar

162.

Gunzburger, M.S., and J. Travis. 2005. Critical literature review of the evidence for unpalatability of amphibian eggs and larvae. Journal of Herpetology 39:547–571. Google Scholar

163.

Haase, A., and H. Pröhl. 2002. Female activity patterns and aggressiveness in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio (Anura: Dendrobatidae). Amphibia-Reptilia 23:129–140. Google Scholar

164.

Haddad, C.F.B., and W. Hödl. 1997. New reproductive mode in anurans: Bubble nest in Chiasmocleis leucosticta (Microhylidae). Copeia 1997:585–588. Google Scholar

165.

Haddad, C.F.B., and C.P.A. Prado. 2005. Reproductive modes in frogs and their unexpected diversity in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil. Bioscience 55:207–217. Google Scholar

166.

Halloy, M. 2006. Choice of oviposition site in Pleurodema borellii (Leptodactylidae): Importance of conspecific tadpole size. South American Journal of Herpetology 1:72–78. Google Scholar

167.

Harris, R.N., and D.E. Gill. 1980. Communal nesting, brooding behavior, and embryonic survival of the four-toed salamander Hemidactylium scutatum. Herpetologica 36:141–144. Google Scholar

168.

Harris, R.N., W.W. Hames, I.T. Knight, C.A. Carreno, and T.J. Vess. 1995. An experimental analysis of joint nesting in the salamander Hemidaetylium scutatum (Caudata: Plethodontidae): The effects of population density. Animal Behaviour 50:1309–1316. Google Scholar

169.

Hatchwell, B.J., and J. Komdeur. 2000. Ecological constraints, life history traits and the evolution of cooperative breeding. Animal Behaviour 59:1079–1086. Google Scholar

170.

Hay, O.P. 1888. Observations on Amphiuma and its young. American Naturalist 22:315–321. Google Scholar

171.

Hayes, M.P. 1991. A study of clutch attendance in the Neotropical frog Centrolenella fleischmanni (Anura: Centrolenidae). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Miami, USA. Google Scholar

172.

Henry, W.V, and V.C. Twitty. 1940. Contributions to the life histories of Dicamptodon ensatus and Ambystoma gracile. Copeia 1940:247–250. Google Scholar

173.

Hensel, R. 1867. Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Wirbelthiere Südbrasiliens. Archive für Naturgeschichte 33:120–162. Google Scholar

174.

Heyer, W.R., and R.I. Crombie. 1979. Natural history notes on Craspedoglossa stejnegeri and Thoropa petropolitana (Amphibia: Salientia, Leptodactylidae). Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 69:17–20. Google Scholar

175.

Heying, H.E. 2004. Reproductive limitation by oviposition site in a treehole breeding Madagascan poison frog (Mantella laevigata). Miscellaneous Publications Museum of Zoology University of Michigan 193:23–30. Google Scholar

176.

Highton, R., and T. Savage. 1961. Functions of the brooding behavior in the female red-backed salamander, Plethodon cinereus. Copeia 1961:95–98. Google Scholar

177.

Hirzel, H. 1909. Zur Kenntnis der intrauterinen Entwicklung von Salamandra atra. Jenaische Zeitschrift für Naturwissenschaft 45:1–56. Google Scholar

178.

Hom, C.L. 1988. Optimal reproductive allocation in female dusky salamanders: A quantitative test. The American Naturalist 131:71–90. Google Scholar

179.

Hopey, M.E., and J.W. Petranka. 1994. Restriction of wood frogs to fish-free habitats: How important is adult choice? Copeia 1994:514–518. Google Scholar

180.

Hoskin, C.J. 2004. Australian microhylid frogs (Cophixalus and Austrochaperina): Phylogeny, taxonomy, calls, distributions and breeding biology. Australian Journal of Zoology 52:237–269. Google Scholar

181.

Houck, L.D. 1977. Reproductive biology of a Neotropical salamander, Bolitoglossa rostrata. Copeia 1977:70–83. Google Scholar

182.

Howes, G.B. 1888. Notes on the gular brood-pouch of Rhinoderma darwini. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 56:231–237. Google Scholar

183.

Hubbs, C. 1962. Effects of a hurricane on the fish fauna of a coastal pool and drainage ditch. Texas Journal of Science 14:289–296. Google Scholar

184.

Hughey, M.C., J. Delia, and L.K. Belden. 2017. Diversity and stability of egg-bacterial assemblages: The role of paternal care in the glassfrog Hyalinobatrachium colymbiphyllum. Biotropica 49:792–802. Google Scholar

185.

Hurme, K.J. 2011. Parental care and tadpole schooling in the neotropical frog, Leptodactylus insularum. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, USA. Google Scholar

186.

Inger, R.F., and H.K. Voris. 1988. Taxonomic status and reproductive biology of Bornean tadpole-carrying frogs. Copeia 1060–1061. Google Scholar

187.

Iskandar, D.T., B.J. Evans, and J.A. McGuire. 2014. A novel reproductive mode in frogs: A new species of fanged frog with internal fertilization and birth of tadpoles. PLOS One 9:e115884. Google Scholar

188.

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2018. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2018-1. Available at  http://www.iucnredlist.org . International Union for Conservation of Nature, Switzerland. Accessed on 27 July 2018. Google Scholar

189.

Iwai, N., T. Kagaya, and O. Isamu. 2007. Choice of oviposition site by Rana japonica: Role of the developmental stage of conspecific eggs. Herpetologica 63:31–34. Google Scholar

190.

Jackson, M.E., D.E. Scott, and R.A. Estes. 1989. Determinants of nest success in the marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum). Canadian Journal of Zoology 67:2277–2281. Google Scholar

191.

Jacobson, S.K. 1985. Reproductive behavior and male mating success in two species of glass frogs (Centrolenidae). Herpetologica 396–404. Google Scholar

192.

Jaeger, R.G., and D.C. Forester. 1993. Social behavior of plethodontid salamanders. Herpetologica 49:163–175. Google Scholar

193.

Janvier, H. 1935. Observations biologiques sur les Rhinoderma darwinii. Annales des Sciences Naturelles 10:197–204. Google Scholar

194.

Jetz, W., and R.A. Pyron. 2018. The interplay of past diversification and evolutionary isolation with present imperilment across the amphibian tree of life. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2:850–858. Google Scholar

195.

Jiménez de la Espada, M. 1872. Sobre la reproducción de Rhinoderma darwinii. Anales de la Sociedad Española de Historia Natural 1:139–151. Google Scholar

196.

Jockusch, E.L., and M.J. Mahoney. 1997. Communal oviposition and lack of parental care in Batrachoseps nigriventris (Caudata: Plethodontidae) with a discussion of the evolution of breeding behavior in plethodontid salamanders. Copeia 1997:697–705. Google Scholar

197.

Joly, J., F. Chesnel, and D. Boujard. 1994. Biological adaptations and reproductive strategies in the genus Salamandra. Mertensiella 4:255–269. Google Scholar

198.

Jones, R.E., A.M. Gerrard, and J.J. Roth. 1973. Estrogen and brood pouch formation in the marsupial frog, Gastrotheca riobambae. Journal of Experimental Zoology 184:177–183. Google Scholar

199.

Jorquera, B., O. Garrido, and E. Pugin. 1982. Comparative studies of the digestive tract development between Rhinoderma darwinii and R. rufum. Journal of Herpetology 16:204–214. Google Scholar

200.

Juncá, F.A., R. Altig, C. Gascon, and F.A. Junca. 1994. Breeding biology of Colostethus stepheni, a dendrobatid frog with a nontransported nidicolous tadpole. Copeia 1994:747–750. Google Scholar

201.

Kam, Y.-C., and H.-W. Yang. 2002. Female–offspring communication in a Taiwanese tree frog, Chirixalus eiffingeri (Anura: Rhacophoridae). Animal Behaviour 64:881–886. Google Scholar

202.

Kam, Y.-C., Y.-H. Chen, Z.-S. Chuang, and T.-S. Huang. 1997. Growth and development of oophagous tadpoles in relation to brood care of an arboreal breeder, Chirixalus eiffingeri (Rhacophoridae). Zoological Studies 36:186–193. Google Scholar

203.

Kam, Y.-C., C.-F. Lin, Y.-S. Lin, and Y.-F. Tsal. 1998. Density effects of oophagous tadpoles of Chirixalus eiffingeri (Anura: Rhacophoridae): Importance of maternal brood care. Herpetologica 54:425–433. Google Scholar

204.

Kaplan, R.H., and M.L. Crump. 1978. The non-cost of brooding in Ambystoma opacum. Copeia 1978:99–103. Google Scholar

205.

Kappler, A. 1885. Die Tierwelt im holländischen Guiana. Das Ausland, Wochenschrift für Länder und Völkerkunde 43:858. Google Scholar

206.

Kerbert, C. 1904. Zur Fortpflanzung von Megalobatrachus maximus Schlegel (Cryptobranchus japonicus vd Hoeven). Naturwissenschaftliche Rundschau 19:229–230. Google Scholar

207.

Kessel, E.L., and B.B. Kessel. 1942. An egg cluster of Aneides lugubris lugubris (Hallowel). Wasmann Journal of Biology 5:71. Google Scholar

208.

Kiesecker, J.M., and A.R. Blaustein. 1995. Synergism between UV-B radiation and a pathogen magnifies amphibian embryo mortality in nature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 92:11049–11052. Google Scholar

209.

Kiesecker, J.M., and D.K. Skelly. 2000. Choice of oviposition site by gray treefrogs: The role of potential parasitic infection. Ecology 81:2939–2943. Google Scholar

210.

Killius, A.M., and M.B. Dugas. 2014. Tadpole transport by male Oophaga pumilio (Anura: Dendrobatidae): An observation and brief review. Herpetological Notes 7:747–749. Google Scholar

211.

Kluge, A.G. 1981. The life history, social organization, and parental behavior of Hyla rosenbergi Boulenger, a nest-building gladiator frog. Miscellaneous Publications of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 160:1–170. Google Scholar

212.

Kneller, M. 1982. Fortpflanzung von Dendrobates reticulatus im natürlichen Lebensraum und im Terrarium. Aquarium 153:148–151. Google Scholar

213.

Kok, P.J.R., and R. Ernst. 2007. A new species of Allobates (Anura: Aromobatidae: Allobatinae) exhibiting a novel reproductive behaviour. Zootaxa 1555:21–38. Google Scholar

214.

Kouete, M.T., M. Wilkinson, and D.J. Gower. 2012. First reproductive observations for Herpele Peters, 1880 (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Herpelidae): Evidence of extended parental care and maternal dermatophagy in H. squalostoma (Stutchbury, 1836). ISRn Zoology 2012. Google Scholar

215.

Kowalski, E. 2004. Husbandry and breeding of the narrow-striped dwarf siren (Pseudobranchus axanthus). Caudata.org Magazine 1:40–43. Google Scholar

216.

Krefft, P. 1911. Ueber einen lebendgebaerenden Froschlurch Deutsch-Ostafrikas (Nectophryne tornieri Roux). Zoologischer Anzeiger 37:457–462. Google Scholar

217.

Kupfer, A., H. Müller, M.M. Antoniazzi, C. Jared, H. Greven, R.A. Nussbaum, and M. Wilkinson. 2006. Parental investment by skin feeding in a caecilian amphibian. Nature 440:926–929. Google Scholar

218.

Kupfer, A., M. Wilkinson, D.J. Gower, H. Müller, and R. Jehle. 2008. Care and parentage in a skin-feeding caecilian amphibian. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological Genetics and Physiology 309:460–467. Google Scholar

219.

Kupfer, A., E. Maxwell, S. Reinhard, and S. Kuehnel. 2016. The evolution of parental investment in caecilian amphibians: A comparative approach. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 119:4–14. Google Scholar

220.

Kurdíková, V., R. Smolinský, and L. Gvoždík. 2011. Mothers matter too: Benefits of temperature oviposition preferences in newts. PLOS One 6:e23842. Google Scholar

221.

Kusano, T., A. Sakai, and S. Hatanaka. 2006. Ecological functions of the foam nests of the Japanese treefrog, Rhacophorus arboreus (Amphibia, Rhacophoridae). The Herpetological Journal 16:163–169. Google Scholar

222.

Kuzmin, S.L., R. Dasgupta, and E.M. Smirina. 1994. Ecology of the Himalayan newt (Tylototriton verrucosus) in Darjeeling himalayas, India. Russian Journal of Herpetology 1:69–76. Google Scholar

223.

Lamotte, M., and J. Lescure. 1977. Tendances adaptatives a l'affranchissement du milieu aquatique chez les amphibiens anoures. La Terre et la Vie 2:225–311. Google Scholar

224.

Lauer, A., M.A. Simon, J.L. Banning, E. André, K. Duncan, and R.N. Harris. 2007. Common butaneous bacteria from the eastern red-backed salamander can inhibit pathogenic fungi. Copeia 2007:630–640. Google Scholar

225.

Lauer, A., M.A. Simon, J.L. Banning, B.A. Lam, and R.N. Harris. 2008. Diversity of cutaneous bacteria with antifungal activity isolated from female four-toed salamanders. The ISME Journal 2:145–157. Google Scholar

226.

Lehtinen, R.M. 2003. Parental care and reproduction in two species of Mantidactylus (Anura: Mantellidae). Journal of Herpetology 37:766–768. Google Scholar

227.

Lehtinen, R.M., and R.A. Nussbaum. 2003. Parental care: A phylogenetic perspective. Pp. 343–386 inReproductive Biology and Phylogeny of Anura ( B.G.M. Jamieson, ed.). Science Publishers Inc., USA. Google Scholar

228.

Lehtinen, R.M., S.E. Green, and J.L. Pringle. 2014. Impacts of paternal care and seasonal change on offspring survival: A multiseason experimental study of a Caribbean frog. Ethology 120:400–409. Google Scholar

229.

Lescure, J. 1984. Las larvas de dendrobatidae. Reunión Iberoamericana de Conservacíon y Zoologia de Vertebrados 10:37–45. Google Scholar

230.

Lescure, J., and R. Bechter. 1982. Le comportement de reproduction en captivité et le polymorphisme de Dendrobates quinquevittatus Steindachner (Amphibia, Anura, Dendrobatidae). Revue Française d'Aquariologie, Herpétologie 8:107–118. Google Scholar

231.

Liang, M.-F., C.-H. Huang, and Y.-C. Kam. 2002. Effects of intermittent feeding on the growth of oophagous (Chirixalus eiffingeri) and herbivorous (Chirixalus idiootocus) tadpoles from Taiwan. Journal of Zoology 256:207–213. Google Scholar

232.

Lin, Y.-S., R.M. Lehtinen, and Y.-C. Kam. 2008. Time- and context-dependent oviposition site selection of a phytotelm-breeding frog in relation to habitat characteristics and conspecific cues. Herpetologica 64:413–421. Google Scholar

233.

Lips, K.R. 2016. Overview of chytrid emergence and impacts on amphibians. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371:20150465. Google Scholar

234.

Lips, K.R., F. Brem, R. Brenes, J.D. Reeve, R.A. Alford, J. Voyles, C. Carey, L. Livo, A.P. Pessier, and J.P. Collins. 2006. Emerging infectious disease and the loss of biodiversity in a Neotropical amphibian community. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103:3165–3170. Google Scholar

235.

Liu, Y., L.B. Day, K. Summers, and S.S. Burmeister. 2016. Learning to learn: Advanced behavioural flexibility in a poison frog. Animal Behaviour 111:167–172. Google Scholar

236.

Lodé, T. 2012. Oviparity or viviparity? That is the question... Reproductive Biology 12:259–264. Google Scholar

237.

Lottinger, A.J. 1776. Der Kukuk: Oder des Hr. AJ Lottingers, MD auf eigene Erfahrung gegründete Nachrichten über die Natur-Geschichte dieses wunderbaren Vogels. König, Germany. Google Scholar

238.

Love, A.C. 2015. Collaborative explanation, explanatory roles, and scientific explaining in practice. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 52:88–94. Google Scholar

239.

Lutz, B. 1947. Trends towards non-aquatic and direct development in frogs. Copeia 1947:242–252. Google Scholar

240.

Lydekker, R. 1895. Some strange nursing habits. Scientific American 39:16212–16214. Google Scholar

241.

Mangold, A., K. Trenkwalder, M. Ringler, W. Hödl, and E. Ringler. 2015. Low reproductive skew despite high male-biased operational sex ratio in a glass frog with paternal care. BMC Evolutionary Biology 15:181. Google Scholar

242.

Marco, A., M. Lizana, A. Alvarez, and A.R. Blaustein. 2001. Egg-wrapping behaviour protects newt embryos from UV radiation. Animal Behaviour 61:639–644. Google Scholar

243.

Márquez, R. 1992. Terrestrial paternal care and short breeding seasons: Reproductive phenology of the midwife toads Alytes obstetricans and A. cisternasii. Ecography 15:279–288. Google Scholar

244.

Márquez, R. 1993. Male reproductive success in two midwife toads, Alytes obstetricans and A. cisternasii. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 32:283–291. Google Scholar

245.

Martinho, A., and A. Kacelnik. 2016. Ducklings imprint on the relational concept of “same or different.” Science 353:286–288. Google Scholar

246.

McDiarmid, R.W. 1978. Evolution of parental care in frogs. Pp. 127–147 inThe Development of Behavior: Comparative and Evolutionary Aspects ( G.M. Burghardt and M. Bekoft, eds.). Garland Press, USA. Google Scholar

247.

McKeon, C.S., and K. Summers. 2013. Predator driven reproductive behavior in a tropical frog. Evolutionary Ecology 27:725–737. Google Scholar

248.

Méndez-Narváez, J., S.V. Flechas, and A. Amézquita. 2015. Foam nests provide context-dependent thermal insulation to embryos of three leptodactylid frogs. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 88:246–253. Google Scholar

249.

Merian, M.S. 1705. Metamorphosis Insectorum Surinamensium: Ofte Verandering der Surinaamsche Insecten. Merian, M.S., Netherlands. Google Scholar

250.

Meuche, I., K.E. Linsenmair, and H. Pröhl. 2011. Female territoriality in the strawberry poison frog (Oophaga pumilio). Copeia 2011:351–356. Google Scholar

251.

Meuche, I., O. Brusa, K. Linsenmair, A. Keller, and H. Pröhl. 2013. Only distance matters—non-choosy females in a poison frog population. Frontiers in Zoology 10:29. Google Scholar

252.

Miaud, C. 1993. Predation on newt eggs (Triturus alpestris and T. helveticus): Identification of predators and protective role of oviposition behaviour. Journal of Zoology 231:575–581. Google Scholar

253.

Miaud, C. 1994. Role of wrapping behavior on egg survival in three species of Triturus (Amphibia: Urodela). Copeia 1994:535–537. Google Scholar

254.

Miaud, C. 1995. Oviposition site selection in three species of European Newts (Salamandridae) genus Triturus. Amphibia-Reptilia 16:265–272. Google Scholar

255.

Miller, L. 1944. Notes on the eggs and larvae of Aneides lugubris. Copeia 1944:224–230. Google Scholar

256.

Mitchell, N.J. 2002. Low tolerance of embryonic desiccation in the terrestrial nesting frog Bryobatrachus nimbus (Anura: Myobatrachinae). Copeia 2002:364–373. Google Scholar

257.

Mole, R.R., and F.W. Urich. 1894. A preliminary list of the reptiles and batrachians of the island of Trinidad. Journal of the Trinidad Field Naturalists' Club 2:77–90. Google Scholar

258.

Moore, B.R. 2004. The evolution of learning. Biological Reviews 79:301–335. Google Scholar

259.

Moore, F.L., S.K. Boyd, and D.B. Kelley. 2005. Historical perspective: Hormonal regulation of behaviors in amphibians. Hormones and Behavior 48:373–383. Google Scholar

260.

Neff, B.D. 2003. Decisions about parental care in response to perceived paternity. Nature 422:716–719. Google Scholar

261.

Neff, B.D., and M.R. Gross. 2001. Dynamic adjustment of parental care in response to perceived paternity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 268:1559–1565. Google Scholar

262.

Ng, M.Y., and H.M. Wilbur. 1995. The cost of brooding in Plethodon cinereus. Herpetologica 51:1–8. Google Scholar

263.

Nishikawa, K., M. Matsui, P.Y. Imbun, M.B. Lakim, and M. Mohamed. 2008. Field observation of egg brooding in the caecilian Caudacaecilia asplenia from Sabah, Malaysia (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Ichthyophiidae). The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 56:205–208. Google Scholar

264.

Noble, G.K. 1926. The “buccal brooding habits” of the African tree frog Leptopelis brevirostris. Copeia 1926:134–135. Google Scholar

265.

Noble, G.K. 1931. The Biology of Amphibia. McGraw-Hill Book Co., UK. Google Scholar

266.

Noble, G.K., and G. Evans. 1932. Observations and experiments on the life history of the salamander, Desmognathus fuscus fuscus (Rafinesque). American Museum Novitates 533:1–16. Google Scholar

267.

Norris, K.M., and C.A. Hosie. 2005. A quantified ethogram for oviposition in Triturus newts: Description and comparison of T. helveticus and T. vulgaris. Ethology 111:357–366. Google Scholar

268.

Nussbaum, R.A. 1985. The evolution of parental care in salamanders. Miscellaneous Publications, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 169:1–49. Google Scholar

269.

Nussbaum, R.A. 1987. Parental care and egg size in salamanders: An examination of the safe harbor hypothesis. Researches on Population Ecology 29:27–44. Google Scholar

270.

Nussbaum, R.A. 2003. Parental care. Pp. 527–612 inReproductive Biology and Phylogeny of Urodela ( D.M. Sever, ed.). Science Publishers Inc., USA. Google Scholar

271.

Nussbaum, R.A., and D.L. Schultz. 1989. Coevolution of parental care and egg size. American Naturalist 133:591–603. Google Scholar

272.

O'Connell, L.A., B.J. Matthews, and H.A. Hofmann. 2012. Isotocin regulates paternal care in a monogamous cichlid fish. Hormones and Behavior 61:725–733. Google Scholar

273.

O'Connor, D.E., and R. Shine. 2004. Parental care protects against infanticide in the lizard Egernia saxatilis (Scincidae). Animal Behaviour 68:1361–1369. Google Scholar

274.

Okada, S., Y. Fukuda, and M.K. Takahashi. 2015. Paternal care behaviors of Japanese giant salamander Andrias japonicus in natural populations. Journal of Ethology 33:1–7. Google Scholar

275.

Oneto, F., D. Ottonello, M.V. Pastorino, and S. Salvidio. 2010. Posthatching parental care in salamanders revealed by infrared video surveillance. Journal of Herpetology 44:649–653. Google Scholar

276.

O'Reilly, J.C., D. Fenolio, L.C. Rania, and M. Wilkinson. 1998. Altriciality and extended parental care in the West African caecilian Geotrypetes seraphini (Gymnophiona: Caeciliidae). American Zoologist 38:187A. Google Scholar

277.

Orizaola, G., and F. Brana. 2003. Oviposition behaviour and vulnerability of eggs to predation in four newt species (genus Triturus). Herpetological Journal 13:121–124. Google Scholar

278.

Ortiz-Santaliestra, M.E., A. Marco, M.J. Fernández-Benéitez, and M. Lizana. 2007. Effects of ammonium nitrate exposure and water acidification on the dwarf newt: The protective effect of oviposition behaviour on embryonic survival. Aquatic Toxicology 85:251–257. Google Scholar

279.

Ospina- L., A.M. P.A. Navarro-Salcedo, J.A. Rios-Soto, S. Duarte-Marin, and F. Vargas-Salinas. 2019. Temporal patterns, benefits, and defensive behaviours associated with male parental care in the glassfrog Centrolene savagei. Ethology Ecology and Evolution 32:162–174. Google Scholar

280.

Parker, H.W. 1936. The amphibians of the Mamfe division, Cameroons. I. Zoogeography and systematics. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 106:135–163. Google Scholar

281.

Parker, H.W. 1956. Viviparous caecilians and amphibian phylogeny. Nature 178:250–252. Google Scholar

282.

Parker, H.W., and E.R. Dunn. 1964. Dentitional metamorphosis in the Amphibia. Copeia 1964:75–86. Google Scholar

283.

Parker, M.V. 1937. Some amphibians and reptiles from Reelfoot Lake. 12:60–86. Google Scholar

284.

Pašukonis, A., K. Trenkwalder, M. Ringler, E. Ringler, R. Mangione, J. Steininger, I. Warrington, and W. Hödl. 2016. The significance of spatial memory for water finding in a tadpole-transporting frog. Animal Behaviour 116:89–98. Google Scholar

285.

Pašukonis, A., K.B. Beck, M.-T. Fischer, S. Weinlein, S. Stückler, and E. Ringler. 2017. Induced parental care in a poison frog: A tadpole cross-fostering experiment. The Journal of Experimental Biology 220:3949–3954. Google Scholar

286.

Pašukonis, A., M.-C. Loretto, and B. Rojas. 2019. How far do tadpoles travel in the rainforest? Parent-assisted dispersal in poison frogs. Evolutionary Ecology 33:613–623. Google Scholar

287.

Pengilley, R.K. 1971. Calling and associated behaviour of some species of Pseudophryne (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Journal of Zoology 163:73–92. Google Scholar

288.

Peters, W. 1876. Hr. W. Peters las über eine von Hrn. Viceconsul L. Krug und Dr. J. Gundlach auf der Insel Puertorico gemachte Sammlung von Säugethieren und Amphibien, so wie über die Entwickelung eines Batrachiers, Hylodes martinicensis Dum. Bibr., ohne Metamorpho. Monatsberichte der Königlichen Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1876:703–714. Google Scholar

289.

Petranka, J.W. 1990. Observations on nest site selection, nest desertion, and embryonic survival in marbled salamanders. Journal of Herpetology 24:229. Google Scholar

290.

Petranka, J.W., and J.G. Petranka. 1981. On the evolution of nest site selection in the marbled salamander, Ambystoma opacum. Copeia 1981:387–391. Google Scholar

291.

Petranka, J.W., M.E. Hopey, B.T. Jennings, S.D. Baird, and S.J. Boone. 1994. Breeding habitat segregation of wood frogs and American toads: The role of interspecific tadpole predation and adult choice. Copeia 1994:691–697. Google Scholar

292.

Piersol, W.H. 1910. The habits and larval state of Plethodon cinereus erythronotus. Transactions of the Canadian Institute 8:469–493. Google Scholar

293.

Poelman, E.H., and M. Dicke. 2007. Offering offspring as food to cannibals: Oviposition strategies of Amazonian poison frogs (Dendrobates ventrimaculatus). Evolutionary Ecology 21:215–227. Google Scholar

294.

Poelman, E.H., and M. Dicke. 2008. Space use of Amazonian poison frogs: Testing the reproductive resource defense hypothesis. Journal of Herpetology 42:270–278. Google Scholar

295.

Poelman, E.H., R.P.A. van Wijngaarden, and C.E. Raaijmakers. 2013. Amazon poison frogs (Ranitomeya amazonica) use different phytotelm characteristics to determine their suitability for egg and tadpole deposition. Evolutionary Ecology 27:661–674. Google Scholar

296.

Polder, W.N. 1974. Pflege and Fortpflanzung von Dendrobates azureus and anderer Dendrobatiden III. Aquarien Terrarien 27:28–32. Google Scholar

297.

Pombal, J.P., Jr., I. Sazima, and C.F.B. Haddad. 1994. Breeding behavior of the pumpkin toadlet, Brachycephalus ephippium (Brachycephalidae). Journal of Herpetology 28:516–519. Google Scholar

298.

Poo, S., and D.P. Bickford. 2013. The adaptive significance of egg attendance in a South-East Asian tree frog. Ethology 119:671–679. Google Scholar

299.

Poo, S., T.A. Evans, M.K. Tan, and D.P. Bickford. 2016. Dynamic switching in predator attack and maternal defence of prey. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 118:901–910. Google Scholar

300.

Poorten, T.J., and R.E. Kuhn. 2009. Maternal transfer of antibodies to eggs in Xenopus laevis. Developmental & Comparative Immunology 33:171–175. Google Scholar

301.

Pramuk, J.B., and B.I. Hiler. 1999. An investigation of obligate oophagy of Dendrobates pumilio tadpoles. Herpetological Review 30:219–220. Google Scholar

302.

Pröhl, H. 2002. Population differences in female resource abundance, adult sex ratio, and male mating success in Dendrobates pumilio. Behavioral Ecology 13:175–181. Google Scholar

303.

Pröhl, H. 2005. Clutch loss affects the operational sex ratio in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 58:310–315. Google Scholar

304.

Pröhl, H., and O. Berke. 2001. Spatial distributions of male and female strawberry poison frogs and their relation to female reproductive resources. Oecologia 129:534–542. Google Scholar

305.

Pröhl, H., and W. Hödl. 1999. Parental investment, potential reproductive rates, and mating system in the strawberry dart-poison frog, Dendrobates pumilio. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 46:215–220. Google Scholar

306.

Pyron, A.R., and J.J. Wiens. 2011. A large-scale phylogeny of Amphibia including over 2800 species, and a revised classification of extant frogs, salamanders, and caecilians. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61:543–583. Google Scholar

307.

Raxworthy, C.J. 1990. Non-random mating by size in the midwife toad Alytes obstetricans: Bigger males carry more eggs. Amphibia-Reptilia 11:247–252. Google Scholar

308.

Reinhard, S., S. Voitel, and A. Kupfer. 2013. External fertilisation and paternal care in the paedomorphic salamander Siren intermedia Barnes, 1826 (Urodela: Sirenidae). Zoologischer Anzeiger: A Journal of Comparative Zoology 253:1–5. Google Scholar

309.

Reinhard, S., S. Voitel, and A. Kupfer. 2015. Haltung und Vermehrung des kleinen Armmolchs Siren intermedia mit Berichten zum Fortpflanzungsund Brutpflegeverhalten. Amphibia 14:16–24. Google Scholar

310.

Resetarits, W.J., Jr., and H.M. Wilbur. 1989. Choice of oviposition site by Hyla chrysoscelis: Role of predators and competitors. Ecology 70:220–228. Google Scholar

311.

Rilling, J.K., and L.J. Young. 2014. The biology of mammalian parenting and its effect on offspring social development. Science 345:771–776. Google Scholar

312.

Ringler, E., M. Ringler, R. Jehle, and W. Hödl. 2012. The female perspective of mating in A. femoralis, a territorial frog with paternal care—A spatial and genetic analysis. PLoS One 7:e40237. Google Scholar

313.

Ringler, E., A. Pašukonis, W. Hödl, and M. Ringler. 2013. Tadpole transport logistics in a Neotropical poison frog: Indications for strategic planning and adaptive plasticity in anuran parental care. Frontiers in Zoology 10:67. Google Scholar

314.

Ringler, E., A. Pašukonis, W.T. Fitch, L. Huber, W. Hödl, and M. Ringler. 2015a. Flexible compensation of uniparental care: Female poison frogs take over when males disappear. Behavioral Ecology 26:1219–1225. Google Scholar

315.

Ringler, M., W. Hödl, and E. Ringler. 2015b. Populations, pools, and peccaries: Simulating the impact of ecosystem engineers on rainforest frogs. Behavioral Ecology 26:340–349. Google Scholar

316.

Ringler, E., R. Mangione, and M. Ringler. 2015c. Where have all the tadpoles gone? Individual genetic tracking of amphibian larvae until adulthood. Molecular Ecology Resources 15:737–746. Google Scholar

317.

Ringler, E., A. Pašukonis, M. Ringler, and L. Huber. 2016. Sex-specific offspring discrimination reflects respective risks and costs of misdirected care in a poison frog. Animal Behaviour 114:173–179. Google Scholar

318.

Ringler, E., K.B. Beck, S. Weinlein, L. Huber, and M. Ringler. 2017. Adopt, ignore, or kill? Male poison frogs adjust parental decisions according to their territorial status. Scientific Reports 7:43544. Google Scholar

319.

Ringler, E., G. Szipl, R.J. Harrigan, P. Bartl-Binder, R. Mangione, and M. Ringler. 2018. Hierarchical decision-making balances current and future reproductive success. Molecular Ecology 27:2289–2301. Google Scholar

320.

Ritter, W.E. 1903. Further notes on the habits of Autodax lugubris. American Naturalist 37:883–886. Google Scholar

321.

Roberts, J.D. 1984. Terrestrial egg deposition and direct development in Arenophyrne rotunda Tyler, a myobatrachid frog from coastal sand dunes at Shark Bay, WA. Wildlife Research 11:191–200. Google Scholar

322.

Roithmair, M.E. 1992. Territoriality and male mating success in the dart poison frog, Epipedobates femoralis (Dendrobatidae, Anura). Ethology 92:331–343. Google Scholar

323.

Rojas, B. 2014. Strange parental decisions: Fathers of the dyeing poison frog deposit their tadpoles in pools occupied by large cannibals. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 68:551–559. Google Scholar

324.

Rojas, B. 2015. Mind the gap: Treefalls as drivers of parental trade-offs. Ecology and Evolution 5:4028–4036. Google Scholar

325.

Rojas, B., and A. Pašukonis. 2019. From habitat use to social behavior: Natural history of a voiceless poison frog, Dendrobates tinctorius. PeerJ 7:e7648. Google Scholar

326.

Roland, A.B., and L.A. O'Connell. 2015. Poison frogs as a model system for studying the neurobiology of parental care. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 6:76–81. Google Scholar

327.

Rollins-Smith, L.A., L.K. Reinert, V. Miera, and J.M. Conlon. 2002. Antimicrobial peptide defenses of the Tarahumara frog, Rana tarahumarae. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 297:361–367. Google Scholar

328.

Rudolf, V.H.W., and M.-O. Rödel. 2005. Oviposition site selection in a complex and variable environment: The role of habitat quality and conspecific cues. Oecologia 142:316–325. Google Scholar

329.

Ryan, M. 1977. Parental care in salamanders. Bulletin of the New York Herpetological Society 13:23–27. Google Scholar

330.

Ryan, M.J. 1985. The Túngara Frog: A Study in Sexual Selection and Communication. University of Chicago Press, USA. Google Scholar

331.

Ryan, M.J., and D.S. Barry. 2011. Competitive interactions in phytotelmata-breeding pools of two poison-dart frogs (Anura: Dendrobatidae) in Costa Rica. Journal of Herpetology 45:438–443. Google Scholar

332.

Salthe, S.N. 1969. Reproductive modes and the number and sizes of ova in the urodeles. American Midland Naturalist 81:467–490. Google Scholar

333.

Salthe, S.N., and W.E. Duellman. 1973. Quantitative constraints associated with reproductive mode in anurans. Pp. 229–249 inEvolutionary Biology of the Anurans: Contemporary Research on Major Problems ( J.L. Vial, ed.). University of Missouri Press, USA. Google Scholar

334.

Salthe, S.N., and J.S. Mecham. 1974. Reproductive and courtship patterns. Physiology of the Amphibia 2:309–521. Google Scholar

335.

Sampson, L.V. 1900. Unusual modes of breeding and development among anura. American Naturalist 34:687–715. Google Scholar

336.

Samuk, K., D. Iritani, and D. Schluter. 2014. Reversed brain size sexual dimorphism accompanies loss of parental care in white sticklebacks. Ecology and Evolution 4:3236–3243. Google Scholar

337.

San Mauro, D., D.J. Gower, H. Müller, S.P. Loader, R. Zardoya, R.A. Nussbaum, and M. Wilkinson. 2014. Life-history evolution and mitogenomic phylogeny of caecilian amphibians. Molecular Phylogenetics and eEvolution 73:177–189. Google Scholar

338.

Sanderson, I.T. 1937. Animal Treasure. Viking Press, USA. Google Scholar

339.

Santangelo, N. 2015. Female breeding experience affects parental care strategies of both parents in a monogamous cichlid fish. Animal Behaviour 104:31–37. Google Scholar

340.

Saporito, R.A., M.W. Russell, C.L. Richards-Zawacki, and M.B. Dugas. 2019. Experimental evidence for maternal provisioning of alkaloid defenses in a dendrobatid frog. Toxicon 161:40–43. Google Scholar

341.

Sarasin, P., and F. Sarasin. 1887. Ergebnisse naturwissenschaftlicher Forschungen auf Ceylon in den Jahren 1884–1886: Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte und Anatomie der ceylonesischen Blindwühle Ichthyophis glutinosus. L. Kreidels Verlag, Germany. Google Scholar

342.

Scheele, B.C., F. Pasmans, L.F. Skerratt, L. Berger, A. Martel, W. Beukema, A.A. Acevedo, P.A. Burrowes, T. Carvalho, and A. Catenazzi. 2019. Amphibian fungal panzootic causes catastrophic and ongoing loss of biodiversity. Science 363:1459–1463. Google Scholar

343.

Schiesari, L., M. Gordo, and W. Hödl. 2003. Treeholes as calling, breeding, and developmental sites for the Amazonian canopy frog, Phrynohyas resinifictrix (Hylidae). Copeia 2003:263–272. Google Scholar

344.

Schrader, M., B.J.M. Jarrett, and R.M. Kilner. 2015. Parental care masks a density-dependent shift from cooperation to competition among burying beetle larvae. Evolution 69:1077–1084. Google Scholar

345.

Schulte, L.M. 2014. Feeding or avoiding? Facultative egg feeding in a Peruvian poison frog (Ranitomeya variabilis). Ethology Ecology & Evolution 26:58–68. Google Scholar

346.

Schulte, L.M. 2016. Semiochemicals in anurans: Testing different categories with one poison frog species. Pp. 339–350 inChemical Signals in Vertebrates 13 ( B.A. Schulte, T.E. Goodwin, and M.H. Ferkin, eds.). Springer, Germany. Google Scholar

347.

Schulte, L.M., and S. Lötters. 2013. The power of the seasons: Rainfall triggers parental care in poison frogs. Evolutionary Ecology 27:711–723. Google Scholar

348.

Schulte, L.M., and S. Lötters. 2014. A danger foreseen is a danger avoided: How chemical cues of different tadpoles influence parental decisions of a Neotropical poison frog. Animal Cognition 17:267–275. Google Scholar

349.

Schulte, L.M., and M. Mayer. 2017. Poison frog tadpoles seek parental transportation to escape their cannibalistic siblings. Journal of Zoology 303:83–89. Google Scholar

350.

Schulte, L.M., and D. Rödder. 2016. Adolpho (1855–1940) und Bertha Lutz (1884–1976) - Leben und Werke. Pp. 245–260 inMertensiella 23 ( A. Kwet and M. Niekisch, eds.). DGHT, Germany. Google Scholar

351.

Schulte, L.M., and K. Summers. 2017. Searching for hormonal facilitators: Are vasotocin and mesotocin involved in parental care behaviors in poison frogs? Physiology & Behavior 174:74–82. Google Scholar

352.

Schulte, L.M., and M. Veith. 2014. Is the response of a Neotropical poison frog (Ranitomeya variabilis) to larval chemical cues influenced by relatedness? The Herpetological Journal 24:189–192. Google Scholar

353.

Schulte, L.M., D. Rödder, R. Schulte, and S. Lötters. 2010. Preference and competition for breeding plants in coexisting Ranitomeya species (Dendrobatidae): Does height play a role? Salamandra 46:180–184. Google Scholar

354.

Schulte, L.M., J. Yeager, R. Schulte, M. Veith, P. Werner, L.A. Beck, and S. Lötters. 2011. The smell of success: Choice of larval rearing sites by means of chemical cues in a Peruvian poison frog. Animal Behaviour 81:1147–1154. Google Scholar

355.

Schulte, L.M., R. Schulte, and S. Lötters. 2013. Avoiding predation: The importance of chemical and visual cues in poison frog reproductive behaviour. Pp. 309–321 inChemical Signals in Vertebrates 12 ( M.L. East and M. Dehnhard, eds.). Springer, Germany. Google Scholar

356.

Schulte, L.M., M. Krauss, S. Lötters, T. Schulze, and W. Brack. 2015. Decoding and discrimination of chemical cues and signals: Avoidance of predation and competition during parental care behavior in sympatric poison frogs. PLoS One 10:e0129929. Google Scholar

357.

Schwalbe, G. 1896. Zur Biologie und Entwicklungsgeschichte von Salamandra atra und maculosa. Zeitschrift für Biologie 16:340–396. Google Scholar

358.

Sever, D.M., E.C. Moriarty, L.C. Rania, and W.C. Hamlett. 2001. Sperm storage in the oviduct of the internal fertilizing frog Ascaphus truei. Journal of Morphology 248:1–21. Google Scholar

359.

Simmaco, M., G. Mignogna, and D. Barra. 1998. Antimicrobial peptides from amphibian skin: What do they tell us? Biopolymers 47:435–450. Google Scholar

360.

Simon, M.P. 1983. The ecology of parental care in a terrestrial breeding frog from New Guinea. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 14:61–67. Google Scholar

361.

Simpson, M.R. 1995. Convariation of spider egg and clutch size: The influence of foraging and parental care. Ecology 76:795–800. Google Scholar

362.

Smith, B.G. 1907. The life history and habits of Cryptobranchus allegheniensis. The Biological Bulletin 13:5–39. Google Scholar

363.

Smith, H.H. 1887. On oviposition and nursing in the batrachian genus Dendrobates. The American Naturalist 21:307–311. Google Scholar

364.

Sneddon, L.U., J. Margareto, and A.R. Cossins. 2005. The use of transcriptomics to address questions in behaviour: Production of a suppression subtractive hybridisation library from dominance hierarchies of rainbow trout. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 78:695–705. Google Scholar

365.

Snyder, D.H. 1971. The function of brooding behavior in the plethodontid salamander, Aneides aeneus: A field study. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Notre Dame, USA. Google Scholar

366.

Spalding, D.A. 1873. Instinct. With original observations on young animals. Macmillan's Magazine 27:282–293. Google Scholar

367.

Spieler, M., and K.E. Linsenmair. 1997. Choice of optimal oviposition sites by Hoplobatrachus occipitalis (Anura: Ranidae) in an unpredictable and patchy environment. Oecologia 109:184–199. Google Scholar

368.

Stahlschmidt, Z.R. 2011. Taxonomic chauvinism revisited: Insight from parental care research. PLoS One 6:e24192. Google Scholar

369.

Stebbins, R.C. 1954. Amphibians and Reptiles of Western North America. McGraw-Hill, USA. Google Scholar

370.

Steinhart, G.B., E.S. Dunlop, M.S. Ridgway, and E.A. Marschall. 2008. Should I stay or should I go? Optimal parental care decisions of a nest-guarding fish. Evolutionary Ecology Research 10:351. Google Scholar

371.

Stejneger, L. 1907. Herpetology of Japan and adjacent territory. Bulletin United States National Museum 58:47–162. Google Scholar

372.

Stevens, R.A. 1971. A new tree-frog from Malawi (Hyperoliinae, Amphibia). African Zoology 6:313–320. Google Scholar

373.

Storer, T.I. 1925. A Synopsis of the Amphibia of California. University of California Press, USA. Google Scholar

374.

Storm, R.M. 1947. Eggs and young of Aneides ferreus. Herpetologica 4:60–62. Google Scholar

375.

Straughan, I.R., and A.R. Main. 1966. Speciation and polymorphism in the genus Crinia Tschudi (Anura, Leptodactylidae) in Queensland. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland 78:11–28. Google Scholar

376.

Strecker, J.K., Jr. 1908. Notes on the habits of two Arkansas salamanders and a list of batrachians and reptiles collected at Hot Springs. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 21:85–89. Google Scholar

377.

Stuart, S.N., J.S. Chanson, N.A. Cox, B.E. Young, A.S.L. Rodrigues, D.L. Fischman, and R.W. Waller. 2004. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306:1783–1786. Google Scholar

378.

Stynoski, J.L. 2009. Discrimination of offspring by indirect recognition in an egg-feeding dendrobatid frog, Oophaga pumilio. Animal Behaviour 78:1351–1356. Google Scholar

379.

Stynoski, J.L., and V.R. Noble. 2012. To beg or to freeze: Multimodal sensory integration directs behavior in a tadpole. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 66:191–199. Google Scholar

380.

Stynoski, J.L., and L.A. O'Connell. 2017. Developmental morphology of granular skin glands in pre-metamorphic egg-eating poison frogs. Zoomorphology 136:219–224. Google Scholar

381.

Stynoski, J.L., Y. Torres-Mendoza, M. Sasa-Marin, and R.A. Saporito. 2014a. Evidence of maternal provisioning of alkaloid-based chemical defenses in the strawberry poison frog Oophaga pumilio. Ecology 95:587–593. Google Scholar

382.

Stynoski, J.L., G. Shelton, and P. Stynoski. 2014b. Maternally derived chemical defences are an effective deterrent against some predators of poison frog tadpoles (Oophaga pumilio). Biology Letters 10:20140187. Google Scholar

383.

Stynoski, J.L., L.M. Schulte, and B. Rojas. 2015. Quick guide: Poison frogs. Current Biology 25:R1026–R1028. Google Scholar

384.

Stynoski, J.L., P.B. Stynoski, and V.R. Noble. 2018. Empirical evidence for multiple costs of begging in poison frog tadpoles. Zoologischer Anzeiger 273:203–209. Google Scholar

385.

Summers, K. 1989. Sexual selection and intra-female competition in the green poison-dart frog, Dendrobates auratus. Animal Behaviour 37:797–805. Google Scholar

386.

Summers, K. 1990. Paternal care and the cost of polygyny in the green dart-poison frog. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 27:307–313. Google Scholar

387.

Summers, K. 1992. Mating strategies in two species of dart-poison frogs: A comparative study. Animal Behaviour 43:907–919. Google Scholar

388.

Summers, K. 1999. The effects of cannibalism on Amazonian poison frog egg and tadpole deposition and survivorship in Heliconia axil pools. Oecologia 119:557–564. Google Scholar

389.

Summers, K., and W. Amos. 1997. Behavioral, ecological, and molecular genetic analyses of reproductive strategies in the Amazonian dart-poison frog, Dendrobates ventrimaculatus. Behavioral Ecology 8:260–267. Google Scholar

390.

Summers, K., and S. McKeon. 2006. The evolution of parental care and egg size: A comparative analysis in frogs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 273:687–692. Google Scholar

391.

Summers, K., and J. Tumulty. 2014. Parental care, sexual selection, and mating systems in neotropical poison frogs. Pp. 289–320 inSexual Selection: Perspectives and Models from the Neotropics ( R.H. Macedo and G. Machado, eds.). Elsevier, USA. Google Scholar

392.

Székely, T., and I.C. Cuthill. 2000. Trade-off between mating opportunities and parental care: Brood desertion by female Kentish plovers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 267:2087–2092. Google Scholar

393.

Tago, K. 1929. Notes on the habits and life history of Megalobatrachus japonicus. 10th Congrés International de Zoologie, Budapest 1:828–838. Google Scholar

394.

Taigen, T.L., F.H. Pough, and M.M. Stewart. 1984. Water balance of terrestrial anuran (Eleutherodactylus coqui) eggs: Importance of parental care. Ecology 65:248–255. Google Scholar

395.

Takahashi, M. 2007. Oviposition site selection: Pesticide avoidance by gray treefrogs. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 26:1476–1480. Google Scholar

396.

Takahashi, M.K., S. Okada, and Y. Fukuda. 2017. From embryos to larvae: Seven-month-long paternal care by male Japanese giant salamander. Journal of Zoology 302:24–31. Google Scholar

397.

Tanaka, S., and M. Nishihira. 1987. Foam nest as a potential food source for anuran larvae: A preliminary experiment. Journal of Ethology 5:86–88. Google Scholar

398.

Ten Eyck, G.R., and A. ul Haq. 2012. Arginine vasotocin activates aggressive calls during paternal care in the Puerto Rican coquí frog, Eleutherodactylus coqui. Neuroscience Letters 525:152–156. Google Scholar

399.

Tewksbury, J.J., J.G.T. Anderson, J.D. Bakker, . . . T.A. Wheeler. 2014. Natural history's place in science and society. BioScience 64:300–310. Google Scholar

400.

Thiel, M. 2007. Social behavior of parent–offspring groups in crustaceans. Pp. 294–318 inEvolutionary Ecology of Social and Sexual Systems: Crustaceans as Model Organisms ( J.E. Duffy and M. Thiel, eds.). Oxford University Press, UK. Google Scholar

401.

Tilley, S.G. 1972. Aspects of parental care and embryonic development in Desmognathus ochrophaeus. Copeia 1972:532–540. Google Scholar

402.

Todd, E.V., M.A. Black, and N.J. Gemmell. 2016. The power and promise of RNA-seq in ecology and evolution. Molecular Ecology 25:1224–1241. Google Scholar

403.

Tóth, Z., H. Hoi, and A. Hettyey. 2011. Intraspecific variation in the egg-wrapping behaviour of female smooth newts, Lissotriton vulgaris. Amphibia-Reptilia 32:77–82. Google Scholar

404.

Touchon, J.C., and J.L. Worley. 2015. Oviposition site choice under conflicting risks demonstrates that aquatic predators drive terrestrial egg-laying. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 282:20150376. Google Scholar

405.

Townsend, D., and W. Moger. 1987. Plasma androgen levels during male parental care in a tropical frog (Eleutherodactylus). Hormones and Behavior 21:93–99. Google Scholar

406.

Townsend, D., B. Palmer, and L. Guillette. 1991. The lack of influence of exogenous testosterone on male parental behavior in a Neotropical frog (Eleutherodactylus): A field experiment. Hormones and Behavior 25:313–322. Google Scholar

407.

Townsend, D.S. 1986. The costs of male parental care and its evolution in a neotropical frog. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 19:187–195. Google Scholar

408.

Townsend, D.S., M.M. Stewart, and F.H. Pough. 1984. Male parental care and its adaptive significance in a neotropical frog. Animal Behaviour 32:421–431. Google Scholar

409.

Trauth, S.E., M.L. McCallum, R.R. Jordan, and D.A. Saugey. 2006. Brooding postures and nest site fidelity in the western slimy salamander, Plethodon albagula (Caudata: Plethodontidae), from an abandoned mine shaft in Arkansas. Herpetological Natural History 9:141–149. Google Scholar

410.

Trivers, R.L. 1974. Parent–offspring conflict. American Zoologist 14:249–264. Google Scholar

411.

Tumulty, J., V. Morales, and K. Summers. 2014. The biparental care hypothesis for the evolution of monogamy: Experimental evidence in an amphibian. Behavioral Ecology 25:262–270. Google Scholar

412.

Tyler, M.J., and D.B. Carter. 1981. Oral birth of the young of the gastric brooding frog Rheobatrachus silus. Animal Behaviour 29:280–282. Google Scholar

413.

Tyler, M., D. Shearman, R. Franco, P. O'Brien, R. Seamark, and R. Kelly. 1983. Inhibition of gastric acid secretion in the gastric brooding frog, Rheobatrachus silus. Science 220:609–610. Google Scholar

414.

Ursprung, E., M. Ringler, R. Jehle, and W. Hödl. 2011. Strong male/male competition allows for nonchoosy females: High levels of polygynandry in a territorial frog with paternal care. Molecular Ecology 20:1759–1771. Google Scholar

415.

van Wijngaarden, R., and F. Bolaños. 1992. Parental care in Dendrobates granuliferus (Anura: Dendrobatidae), with a description of the tadpole. Journal of Herpetology 26:102–105. Google Scholar

416.

Valenzuela-Sánchez, A., G. Harding, A.A. Cunningham, C. Chirgwin, and C. Soto-Azat. 2014. Home range and social analyses in a mouth brooding frog: Testing the coexistence of paternal care and male territoriality. Journal of Zoology 294:215–223. Google Scholar

417.

Vandel, A., and M. Bouillon. 1959. La reproductuion du Protee (Proteus anhuinus Laurenti). Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Seances de l'Academie des Sciences 248:1267–1272. Google Scholar

418.

Vargas-Salinas, F., A. Quintero-Angel, D. Osorio-DomÃnguez, J.A. Rojas-Morales, S. Escobar-Lasso, P.D.A. Gutiérrez-Cárdenas, M. Rivera-Correa, and A. Amézquita. 2014. Breeding and parental behaviour in the glass frog Centrolene savagei (Anura: Centrolenidae). Journal of Natural History 48:1689–1705. Google Scholar

419.

Vaz-Ferreira, R., and A. Gehrau. 1974. Protección de la prole en leptodactylidos. Revista de biología del Uruguay 2:59–62. Google Scholar

420.

Vergne, A.L., M.B. Pritz, and N. Mathevon. 2009. Acoustic communication in crocodilians: From behaviour to brain. Biological Reviews 84:391–411. Google Scholar

421.

Verrell, P.A. 1989. The sexual strategies of natural populations of newts and salamanders. Herpetologica 45:265–282. Google Scholar

422.

Verrell, P.A., and L.E. Brown. 1993. Competition among females for mates in a species with male parental care, the midwife toad Alytes obstetricans. Ethology 93:247–257. Google Scholar

423.

Villa, J. 1979. Two fungi lethal to frog eggs in Central America. Copeia 1979:650–655. Google Scholar

424.

Vilter, V., and A. Lugand. 1959. Trophisme intra-uterin et croissance embryonnaire chez Nectophrynoides occidentalis Angel crapaud totalement vivipare du Mont Nimba (HauteGuinee). Comptes Rendus des Séances de la Société de Biologie et de ses Filiales 153:29–32. Google Scholar

425.

Vilter, V., and A. Vilter. 1960. On pregnancy of the black salamander Salamandra atra Laur. Comptes rendus des seances de la Societe de biologie et de ses filiales 154:290–294. Google Scholar

426.

Vilter, V., and A. Vilter. 1964. Sur l'evolution des corps jaunes ovariens chez Salamandra atra Laur. des Alpes vaudoises. Comptes Rendus des Séances de la Société de Biologie et de ses Filiales 158:457–461. Google Scholar

427.

Vockenhuber, E.A., W. Hödl, and A. Amézquita. 2009. Glassy fathers do matter: Egg attendance enhances embryonic survivorship in the glass frog Hyalinobatrachium valerioi. Journal of Herpetology 43:340–344. Google Scholar

428.

von Ihering, H. 1886. On the oviposition in Phyllomedusa iheringii. Journal of Natural History 17:461–463. Google Scholar

429.

von Linné, C. 1758. Systema Naturae. Holminae, Impensis Direct, Laurentii Salvii, Sweden. Google Scholar

430.

von May, R., M. Medina-Müller, M.A. Donnelly, and K. Summers. 2009. Breeding-site selection by the poison frog Ranitomeya biolat in Amazonian bamboo forests: An experimental approach. Canadian Journal of Zoology 87:453–464. Google Scholar

431.

Wake, M.H. 1977a. The reproductive biology of caecilians: An evolutionary perspective. Pp. 73–101 inThe Reproductive Biology of Amphibians ( D.H. Taylor and S.I. Guttman, eds.). Springer, USA. Google Scholar

432.

Wake, M.H. 1977b. Fetal maintenance and its evolutionary significance in the Amphibia: Gymnophiona. Journal of Herpetology 11:379–386. Google Scholar

433.

Wake, M.H. 1980. Reproduction, growth, and population structure of the Central American caecilian Dermophis mexicanus. Herpetologica 3:244–256. Google Scholar

434.

Wake, M.H. 1992. Reproduction in caecilians. Pp. 112–120 inReproductive Biology of South American Vertebrates ( W.C. Hamlett, ed.). Springer, USA. Google Scholar

435.

Wake, M.H. 1993. Evolution of oviductal gestation in amphibians. Journal of Experimental Zoology 266:394–413. Google Scholar

436.

Wake, M.H. 2015. Fetal adaptations for viviparity in amphibians. Journal of Morphology 276:941–960. Google Scholar

437.

Waldmann, B., and M. Tocher. 1998. Behavioral ecology, genetic diversity, and declining amphibian populations. Pp. 394–447 inBehavioral Ecology and Conservation Biology ( T. Caro, ed.). Oxford University Press, UK. Google Scholar

438.

Ward, D., and O.J. Sexton. 1981. Anti-predator role of salamander egg membranes. Copeia 1981:724–726. Google Scholar

439.

Warkentin, K.M. 1995. Adaptive plasticity in hatching age: A response to predation risk trade-offs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 92:3507–3510. Google Scholar

440.

Warkentin, K.M. 2011. Environmentally cued hatching across taxa: Embryos respond to risk and opportunity. Integrative and Comparative Biology 51:14–25. Google Scholar

441.

Warkentin, K.M., C.R. Currie, and S.A. Rehner. 2001. Egg-killing fungus induces early hatching of red-eyed treefrog eggs. Ecology 82:2860–2869. Google Scholar

442.

Warne, R.W., and A. Catenazzi. 2016. Pouch brooding marsupial frogs transfer nutrients to developing embryos. Biology Letters 12:20160673. Google Scholar

443.

Weber, J.A. 1944. Observations on the life history of Amphiuma means. Copeia 1944:61–62. Google Scholar

444.

Weinland, D.F. 1854. Über den Beutelfrosch. Müllers Archiv für Anatomie und Physiologie 21:449–477. Google Scholar

445.

Wells, K.D. 1977. The social behaviour of anuran amphibians. Animal Behaviour 25:666–693. Google Scholar

446.

Wells, K.D. 1980. Evidence for growth of tadpoles during parental transport in Colosthetus inguinalis. Journal of Herpetology 14:428–430. Google Scholar

447.

Wells, K.D. 1981. Parental behavior of male and female frogs. Pp. 184–197 inNatural Selection and Social Behavior ( R.D. Alexander and D.W. Tinkle, eds.). Chiron Press, USA. Google Scholar

448.

Welsch, U., W. Müller, and C. Schubert. 1977. Electronmicroscopical and histochemical observations on the reproductive biology of viviparous caecilians (Chthonerpeton indistinctum). Zoologisches Jahrbuch für Anatomie 97:532–549. Google Scholar

449.

Weltner, W. 1896. Rhinoderma darwinii Dum. & Bibr., eine brutpflegende Kröte. Blätter für Aquarien- und Terrarienkunde 7:137–140. Google Scholar

450.

Weygoldt, P. 1980. Complex brood care and reproductive behaviour in captive poison-arrow frogs, Dendrobates pumilio O. Schmidt. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 7:329–332. Google Scholar

451.

Weygoldt, P. 1987. Evolution of parental care in dart poison frogs (Amphibia: Anura: Dendrobatidae). Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 25:51–67. Google Scholar

452.

Wiedersheim, R. 1900. Brutpflege bei niederen Wirbeltieren (Schluss). Biologisches Zentralblatt 20:321–343. Google Scholar

453.

Wilder, I.W. 1913. The life history of Desmognathus fusca. The Biological Bulletin 24:251–292. Google Scholar

454.

Wilder, I.W. 1917. On the breeding habits of Desmognathus fusca. The Biological Bulletin 32:13–20. Google Scholar

455.

Wilkinson, M., and R.A. Nussbaum. 1998. Caecilian viviparity and amniote origins. Journal of Natural History 32:1403–1409. Google Scholar

456.

Wilkinson, M., A. Kupfer, R. Marques-Porto, H. Jeffkins, M.M. Antoniazzi, and C. Jared. 2008. One hundred million years of skin feeding? Extended parental care in a Neotropical caecilian (Amphibia: Gymnophiona). Biology Letters 4:358–361. Google Scholar

457.

Wilkinson, M., E. Sherratt, F. Starace, and D.J. Gower. 2013. A new species of skin-feeding caecilian and the first report of reproductive mode in Microcaecilia (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Siphonopidae). PLOS One 8:e57756. Google Scholar

458.

Wilson, E. 1975. Sociobiology. The New Synthesis. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, USA. Google Scholar

459.

Wollenberg, K.C., F. Glaw, A. Meyer, and M. Vences. 2007. Molecular phylogeny of Malagasy reed frogs, Heterixalus, and the relative performance of bioacoustics and color-patterns for resolving their systematics. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 45:14–22. Google Scholar

460.

Wong, J.W.Y., J. Meunier, and M. Kölliker. 2013. The evolution of parental care in insects: The roles of ecology, life history and the social environment. Ecological Entomology 38:123–137. Google Scholar

461.

Woodruff, D.S. 1977. Male postmating brooding behavior in three Australian Pseudophryne (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Herpetologica 33:296–303. Google Scholar

462.

Wu, Z., A.E. Autry, J.F. Bergan, M. Watabe-Uchida, and C.G. Dulac. 2014. Galanin neurons in the medial preoptic area govern parental behaviour. Nature 509:325–330. Google Scholar

463.

Wunder, W. 1932. Nestbau und Brutpflege bei Amphibien. Pp. 180–220 inErgebnisse der Biologie ( K. von Frisch, R. Goldschmidt, W. Ruhland, and H. Winterstein, eds.). Springer, Germany. Google Scholar

464.

Wunderer, H. 1910. Entwicklung von Salamandra atra Laur. Zoologische Jahrbücher. Abteilung für Anatomie und Ontogenie der Tiere 29:367–414. Google Scholar

465.

Wyman, J. 1857. Exhibition of Hylodes lineatus. Proceeding of the Boston Society of Natural History 6:268–269. Google Scholar

466.

Wyman, J. 1859. On some unusual modes of gestation. The American Scientist 27:5–13. Google Scholar

467.

Yip, E.C., and L.S. Rayor. 2014. Maternal care and subsocial behaviour in spiders. Biological Reviews 89:427–449. Google Scholar

468.

Yoshioka, M., C. Meeks, and K. Summers. 2016. Evidence for begging as an honest signal of offspring need in the biparental mimic poison frog. Animal Behaviour 113:1–11. Google Scholar

469.

Young, R.L., M.H. Ferkin, N.F. Ockendon-Powell, V.N. Orr, S.M. Phelps, Á. Pogány, C.L. Richards-Zawacki, K. Summers, T. Székely, and B.C. Trainor. 2019. Conserved transcriptomic profiles underpin monogamy across vertebrates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116:1331–1336. Google Scholar

470.

Yurewicz, K.L., and H.M. Wilbur. 2004. Resource availability and costs of reproduction in the salamander Plethodon cinereus. Copeia 2004:28–36. Google Scholar

471.

Zimmermann, H., and E. Zimmermann. 1984. Durch Nachzucht erhalten: Baumsteigerfrösche Dendrobates quinquevittatus und D. reticulatus. Aquarien Magazin 18:35–41. Google Scholar
© 2020 by The Herpetologists' League, Inc.
Lisa M. Schulte, Eva Ringler, Bibiana Rojas, and Jennifer L. Stynoski "Developments in Amphibian Parental Care Research: History, Present Advances, and Future Perspectives," Herpetological Monographs 34(1), 71-97, (15 July 2020). https://doi.org/10.1655/HERPMONOGRAPHS-D-19-00002.1
Accepted: 18 February 2020; Published: 15 July 2020
JOURNAL ARTICLE
27 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top