These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22479134)

  • 1. Linking amphibian call structure to the environment: the interplay between phenotypic flexibility and individual attributes.
    Ziegler L; Arim M; Narins PM
    Behav Ecol; 2011 May; 22(3):520-526. PubMed ID: 22479134
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Combined effects of physiological condition and environmental attributes in determining call plasticity.
    Ziegler L; Arim M; Bozinovic F
    Behav Processes; 2018 Aug; 153():25-30. PubMed ID: 29747043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Intraspecific scaling in frog calls: the interplay of temperature, body size and metabolic condition.
    Ziegler L; Arim M; Bozinovic F
    Oecologia; 2016 Jul; 181(3):673-81. PubMed ID: 26552381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Current knowledge on bioacoustics of the subfamily Lophyohylinae (Hylidae, Anura) and description of Ocellated treefrog
    Forti LR; Foratto RM; Márquez R; Pereira VR; Toledo LF
    PeerJ; 2018; 6():e4813. PubMed ID: 29868262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Calling at the highway: The spatiotemporal constraint of road noise on Pacific chorus frog communication.
    Nelson DV; Klinck H; Carbaugh-Rutland A; Mathis CL; Morzillo AT; Garcia TS
    Ecol Evol; 2017 Jan; 7(1):429-440. PubMed ID: 28070305
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. How the environment shapes animal signals: a test of the acoustic adaptation hypothesis in frogs.
    Goutte S; Dubois A; Howard SD; Márquez R; Rowley JJL; Dehling JM; Grandcolas P; Xiong RC; Legendre F
    J Evol Biol; 2018 Jan; 31(1):148-158. PubMed ID: 29150984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Neotropical frogs and mating songs: The evolution of advertisement calls in glassfrogs.
    Escalona Sulbarán MD; Ivo Simões P; Gonzalez-Voyer A; Castroviejo-Fisher S
    J Evol Biol; 2019 Feb; 32(2):163-176. PubMed ID: 30481406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The use of bioacoustics in anuran taxonomy: theory, terminology, methods and recommendations for best practice.
    Köhler J; Jansen M; Rodríguez A; Kok PJR; Toledo LF; Emmrich M; Glaw F; Haddad CFB; Rödel MO; Vences M
    Zootaxa; 2017 Apr; 4251(1):1-124. PubMed ID: 28609991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A test of the acoustic adaptation hypothesis in four species of marmots.
    Daniel JC; Blumstein DT
    Anim Behav; 1998 Dec; 56(6):1517-1528. PubMed ID: 9933550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Noise constrains the evolution of call frequency contours in flowing water frogs: a comparative analysis in two clades.
    Zhao L; Santos JC; Wang J; Ran J; Tang Y; Cui J
    Front Zool; 2021 Aug; 18(1):37. PubMed ID: 34348772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Heterospecific Acoustic Interference: Effects on Calling in Oophaga pumilio.
    Wong S; Parada H; Narins PM
    Biotropica; 2009 Jan; 41(1):74-80. PubMed ID: 20953296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Adjusted phonotactic reactions to sound amplitude and pulse number mediate territoriality in the harlequin poison frog.
    Gil-Guevara O; Amézquita A
    Behav Processes; 2020 Dec; 181():104249. PubMed ID: 32971222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Behavioural variables influence contact call rate more than characteristics of the vegetation in a group-living passerine species.
    Meaux E; Peabotuwage I; Mammides C; Malykhina K; Quan RC; Goodale E
    Behav Processes; 2021 Apr; 185():104345. PubMed ID: 33545319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Environmental and morphological constraints interact to drive the evolution of communication signals in frogs.
    Muñoz MI; Goutte S; Ellers J; Halfwerk W
    J Evol Biol; 2020 Dec; 33(12):1749-1757. PubMed ID: 33047401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Ultrasonic frogs call at a higher pitch in noisier ambiance.
    Zhang F; Chen P; Chen Z; Zhao J
    Curr Zool; 2015 Dec; 61(6):996-1003. PubMed ID: 32256536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Geographic variation in advertisement calls of a Microhylid frog - testing the role of drift and ecology.
    Lee KH; Shaner PJ; Lin YP; Lin SM
    Ecol Evol; 2016 May; 6(10):3289-98. PubMed ID: 27103987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Audience effects in a group-living bird: How contact call rate is affected by vegetation and group size and composition.
    Meaux E; He C; Zeng X; He R; Jiang A; Goodale E
    Ecol Evol; 2023 Mar; 13(3):e9909. PubMed ID: 36969923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Call differences and calling site segregation in anuran species from central Amazonian floating meadows.
    Hödl W
    Oecologia; 1977 Dec; 28(4):351-363. PubMed ID: 28308940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Audience effects, but not environmental influences, explain variation in gorilla close distance vocalizations-A test of the acoustic adaptation hypothesis.
    Hedwig D; Mundry R; Robbins MM; Boesch C
    Am J Primatol; 2015 Dec; 77(12):1239-52. PubMed ID: 26352614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effects of anthropogenic light on anuran calling site.
    Kobisk A; Kwiatkowski MA
    Environ Pollut; 2023 Sep; 333():122005. PubMed ID: 37330191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.