Data from: Collateral damage or a shadow of safety? The effects of signaling heterospecific neighbors on the risks of parasitism and predation

Although males often display from mixed-species aggregations, the influence of nearby heterospecifics on risks associated with sexual signaling has not been previously examined. We tested whether predation and parasitism risks depend on proximity to heterospecific signalers. Using field playback experiments with calls of two species that often display from the same ponds, túngara frogs and hourglass treefrogs, we tested two hypotheses: (1) Calling near heterospecific signalers attractive to eavesdroppers results in increased attention from predatory bats and parasitic midges (Collateral Damage hypothesis); or (2) Calling near heterospecific signalers reduces an individual’s predation and parasitism risks, as eavesdroppers are drawn to the heterospecifics (Shadow of Safety hypothesis). Bat visitation was not affected by calling neighbors. The number of frog-biting midges attracted to hourglass treefrog calls, however, rose threefold when played near túngara calls, supporting the collateral damage hypothesis. We thus show that proximity to heterospecific signalers can drastically alter both the absolute risks of signaling and the relative strengths of pressures from predation and parasitism. Through these mechanisms, interactions between heterospecific guild members are likely to influence the evolution of signaling strategies and the distribution of species at both local and larger scales.,HeterospecificRiskTransferDatasheets 1-3: Bat visitations to calling frogs next to calling heterospecific versus calling conspecific neighbors. Datasheets 4-6: Number of flies coming to calling frogs next to calling heterospecific versus calling conspecific neighbors. ealone= D. ebraccatus alone; etungara = D. ebraccatus next to a calling E. pustulosus; econspecific = D. ebraccatus next to another calling D. ebraccatus; talone = E. pustulosus alone.,