Tiếng Việt
1. Đảng uỷ - Hội đồng nhân dân - uỷ ban nhân dân - uỷ ban mặt trận xã Phú Thành, 2010. Lịch sử địa chí xã Phú Thành. Phú Thành, Yên Thành.
2. Khoa học, 2010. Vì sao ếch đực kêu rất to, website: vietsciences1.free.fr (truy cập ngày 6 tháng 3 năm 2010).
3. Lê văn Anh, 2009. “Lời nói đầu”, Báo cáo Khoa học hội thảo quốc gia về Lưỡng cư và bò sát ở Việt Nam lần thứ nhất. Nxb Đại học Huế.
4. Trần Kim Đôn, 2004. Địa lý các huyện, thành phố, thị xã tỉnh Nghệ An. Nxb Thời Đại, Hà Nội.
5. Trần Kim Đôn, 2009. Địa lý tỉnh Nghệ An. Nxb Thời Đại, Hà Nội.
6. Lê Vũ Khôi, 2005. Động vật học có xương sống. Nxb Giáo duc.
Tiếng Anh
7. Californiaherps, 2010. Sounds of Rana catesbeiana - American Bullfrog, website www.californiaherps.com (truy cập ngày 25-09-2010).
8. Evergreen, 2010. Introduction to Amphibians 1. Amphibians: some basic facts, website www.evergreen.com (truy cập ngày 25-09-2010).
9. Wikipedia, 2010. Frog of audible frequencies, website: en.wikipedia.org (truy cập ngày 22-09-2010).
10. Abrunhosa P. A., Pimenta B. V. S., Cruz C. A. G. and Haddad C. F. B., 2005. Advertisement calls of species of the Hyla albosignata group (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae). Arquivos do Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, 63 (2), pp. 275–282.
11. Allen D. M., 1973. Some relationships of vocalization to behavior in the Pacific treefrog Hyla regilla, Herpetologica, 29, pp. 366–371.
12. Arak A., 1983. “Male-male Competition and mate choice in anuran Amphibians”. In: Bateson P, editor. Mate choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Baogen Y.U. and Zheng R. Q., 2009. The advertisement call of the giant spiny frog Paa spinosa, Current Zoology, 55 (6), pp. 1-10.
14. Benedix J. H. Jr and Narins P. M., 1999. Competitive calling behavior by male treefrogs, Eleutherodactylus coqui (Anura: Leptodactylidae),
Copeia, pp.1118–1122.
15. Blair W. F., 1958. Mating call in the speciation of anuran amphibians,
Am Nat, 92, pp. 27–51.
16. Boake C. R., 2003. Coevolution of senders and receivers of sexual signals: Genetic coupling and genetic correlations. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA.
17. Bosch J. and Delariva. I., 2004. Are frog calls modulated by the environment? An analysis with anuran species from Bolivia, J. Zool. 82 (6), pp. 880–888.
18. Bradbury J. W. and Vehrencamp S. L., 1998. Principles of animal communication - Sinauer Associates of Sunderland, MIT Press. Cambridge. MA.
19. Bregman A., 1990. Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound. MIT Press. Cambridge. MA.
20. Briggs V. S., 2010. Call trait variation in morelett’s treefrog, agalychnis moreletii, of belize, Herpetologica, 66 (3), pp. 241–249.
21. Brooke P. N., Alford R. A., Schwarzkopf L., 2000. Environmental Factors and social influence chorusing behavior in a tropical frog: examining temporal and spatial scales various, Sociobiol., 49, pp. 79-97.
22. Brumm H. and Slabbekoorn H., 2005. Acoustic communication in noise,
23. Bush S. L., 1997. Vocal behavoir of males and females in the Majorcan midwife toad, J Herpetol, 31, pp. 251 -257.
24. Canedo C. and Pombanl J. R., 2007. Two new species of torrent frog of the genus Hylodes (anuran, Hylodidae) with nuptial thimb tubercles,
Herpetologica, 63 (2), pp. 224–235.
25. Castellano S., Cuatto. B., Rinella R., Rosso A. and Giacoma C., 2002. The advertisement call of the European Treefrogs (Hyla arborea): a multilevel study of variation, Ethology, 108, pp. 75–89.
26. Delarive I., Marquez R. and Bosch J., 1996b. Advertisement calls of
microhylid frogs from Bolivia (amphibia, Anura), Am. Midl. Nat., 136,
pp. 418-422.
27. Diakow C., 1978. A hormonal basis for breeding behaviour in female frogs: Vasotocin inhibits the release call of Rana pipiens, Science, 199, pp. 1456–1457.
28. Duellam W. E. and Pyles R. A., 1983. Acoustic resource partitioning in anuran communities, Copeia, 3, pp. 639-649.
29. Duellman W. E. and Trueb L.,1994. Biology of Amphibians. The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
30. Emerson S. B. and Boyd S. K., 1999. Female mating vocalizations of Frogs: Control and evolutionary mechanisms, Brain Behav Evol, 53, pp. 187-197.
31. Esteban M., Herraiz M. J. S., Barbadillo L. J, Castanet J. and Marquez R., 2002. Effects of age, size and temperature on the advertisement calls of two Spanish populations of Pelodytes punctatus, Diptera-Reptilia, 23, pp. 249-258.
32. Ewert J.P., 2004. Motion perception shapes the visual world of amphibians. MIT Press, Cambridge. MA.
33. Feng A. S., Narins P. M. and Xu C. H., 2002. Vocal acrobatics in a Chinese frog Amolops tormotus, Naturwissenschaften, 89, pp. 3.
34. Forrest T. G., 1994. From sender to receiver: Propagation and environmental effects on acoustic signals, Am. Zool., 34, pp. 644–654.
35. Gasser H., Amezquita A. and Hold W., 2009. Who is Calling? Intraspecific Call Variation in the Aromobatid Frog Allobates femoralis,
Ethology, 115, pp. 596 – 607.
36. Gerhardt H. C., 1978b. Temperature coupling in the vocal communication system of the gray treefrog Hyla versicolor, Science, 199, pp. 992–994.
37. Gerhardt H. C., 1981. Mating call recognition in the barking treefrog (Hyla gratiosa): Responses to synthetic calls and comparisons with the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), J Comp Physiol, 144, pp. 17-25.
38. Gerhardt H. C., 1991. Female mate choice in treefrogs: Static and dynamic acoustic criteria, Anim. Behav., 42, pp. 615–635.
39. Gerhardt H. C., 1994. The evolution of vocalization in frogs and toads,
Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 25, pp. 293–324.
40. Gerhardt H. C., 2005b. Advertisement-call preferences in diploid- tetraploid treefrogs (Hyla chrysoscelis and Hyla versicolor): Implications for mate choice and the evolution of communication systems, Evolution, 59, pp. 395–408.
41. Gerhardt H. C., Diekamp B. and Ptacek M., 1989. Inter-male spacing in choruses of the spring peeper, Pseudacris (Hyla) crucifer, Anim Behav, 38, pp. 1012–1024.
42. Gerharardt H. C. and Huber F., 2002. Acoustic Communication in Insects and anurans: Common problems and diverse solutions. University of Chicago press, Chicago.
43. Gerhardt H. C. and Klump G. M., 1988. Masking of acoustic signals by the chorus background noise in the green treefrog - a limitation on mate choice, Anim. Beha., 36, pp. 1247-1249.
44. Gerhardt H. C. and Mudry K. M., 1980. Temperature effects on frequency preferences and mating call frequencies in the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea) (Anura: Hylidae), J. Comp. Physiol. A., 137, pp. 1–6.
45. Gerhardt H. C., Roberts J. D., Bee M. A. and Schwartz J. J., 2000. Call matching in the quacking frog (Crinia georgiana), Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol, 48, pp. 243–51.
46. Giacoma C., Zugolaro C. and Beani L., 1997. The advertisement calls of the green toad (Bufo viridis): Variability and role in mate choice,
Herpetologica, 3, pp. 454-464.
47. Given M. F., 1988. Territoriality and Aggressive interactions of male Carpenter Frogs, Rana virgatipes, Copeia, pp. 411-421.
48. Given M. F., 1999. Frequency alteration of the advertisement call in the carpenter frog, Rana virgatipes, Herpetologica, 55, pp.304–317.
49. Given M. F., 2005. Vocalizations and Reproductive Behavior of Male Pickerel Frogs, Rana palustris, Journal of Herpetology, 39 ( 2), pp. 223– 233.
50. God M., Alexander F. and Hodl W., 2007. The influence of internote- interval variation of the advertisement call on the phonotactic behaviour in male Allobates femoralis (Dendrobatidae), Amphibia-Reptilia, 28, pp. 227-234.
51. Heyer W. R. and Reid Y. R., 2003. Does advertisement call variation coincide with genetic variation in the genetically diverse frog taxon currently known as Leptodactylus fuscus (Amphibia: Leptodactylidae)?
Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, 75 (1), p. 39-54.
52. Heyer W. R., Rand A. S., Cruz C. A. G., Peixoto O. L. and Nelson C. E.,
1990. Frogs of Boraceia, Arquivos de Zoologia, 31, pp. 231-410.
53. Hodl W. and Amezquita A., 2001. Visual signalling in anuran amphibians, Anuran Communication, pp. 121–141.
54. Hoglund and Robertson G. M., 1988. Chorusing behavior, a density- dependent alternative mating strategy in male common toads (Bufo bufo), Etholog Medicine, 70, pp. 324-332.
55. Hoskin C. J. and Goosem M. W., 2010. Road Impacts on Abundance, Call Traits, and Body Size of Rain forest Frogs in Northeast Australia. Australian National University, Auatralia.
56. Howard D. R. and Hill P. S. M., 2006. Morphology and calling song characteristics in Gryllotalpa maior Saussure (Orthoptera: Gryllotalpidae). Journal of Orthoptera Rechearch, 15 (1), pp. 53-57.
57. Kirschel A. N., Blumstein D. T., Cohen. R. E., Wolfgang Buermann W., Smith T. B. and Slabbekoornc H., 2009. Birdsong tuned to the environment: green hylia song varies with elevation, tree cover, and noise, Behavioral Ecology, 10, pp. 1089-1095.
58. Klump G. M., Gerhardt H. C., 1987. Use of non-arbitrary acoustic criteria in mate choice by female gray tree frogs, Nature, 326, pp. 286– 288.
59. Kotiaho J. S., 2001. Costs of sexual traits: a mismatch between theoretical considerations and empirical evidence, Biol.Rev.,76, pp. 365– 76.
60. Larson K. A., 2004. Advertisement Call Complexity in Northern Leopard Frogs, Rana pipien, Copeia, 3, pp. 676-682.
61. Laurance W. F., Albernaz A. K. M. and Costa D. C., 2001. Is deforestation accelerating in theBrazilian Amazon?, Environ. Conserv. 28, pp. 305-311.
62. Lea J., Dyson M., Halliday T., 2001.Calling by male midwife toads stimulates females to maintain reproductive condition, Anim. Behav., 61:373–377.
63. Leary C. J., Jessop T. S., Garcia A. M. and Lnapp R, 2004. Steroid hormone profile ang relative body condition of calling and satellite
toads: Implications for proximate regulations of behavior in anurans,
Behav. Ecol., 15, pp. 313-320.
64. Lemckert F. L., 2001. The influence of micromộteorological factors on the calling activity of the frog Crinia signifera(Anura: Myobatrachidae),
Aust. Zool., 31, pp. 625–631.
65. Lemckert F. L. and Shine R., 1993. Costs of reproduction in a population of the frog, Crinia signifera (Anura: Myobatrachidae) from Southeastern Australia, J. Herpetol., 27, pp. 25-240.
66. Lewis E. R. and Narins P. M., 1999. The acoustic periphery of amphibians: Anatomy and physiology, Comparative Hearing: Fishes and Amphibians. Springer, New York.
67. Lindquist E. D., and Hetherington T. E., 1996. Field studies on visual and acoustic signaling in the ''earless'' Panamian golden frog Atelopus zeteki, Journal of Herpetology, 30, pp. 347-354.
68. Lingnau R., and R. P. Bastos R. P., 2007. Vocalizations of the Brazilian Hylodes heyeri torrent frog (Anura: Hylodidae): Repertoire and influence of air temperature on advertisement call variation, Journal of Natural History, 41, pp. 1227-1235.
69. Littlejohn M. J., 2001. Patterns of differentiation in temporal properties of acoustic signals of anurans. Institution Press, Washington.
70. Littlejohn M. J. and Harrison P. A., 1985. The functional significance of call of the diphasic Advertisement Geocrinia victoriana (Anura: Leptodactylidae), Behav. Ecol. Sociobio., 16, pp. 363-373.
71. Lopez P. T., Narins P. M., Lewis E. D. and Moore S. W., 1988. Acoustically induced call modification in the white-lipped frog, Leptodactylus albilabris, Anim. Behav., 36, pp. 1295–1308.
72. Lorcher L., 1969. Vergleichende bio-akustische Untersuchungen an der Rot- und Gelbbauchunke Bombina bombina, Bombina v. variegata, 3, pp. 84–124.
73. Luddecke H., Amezquita A., Bernal X and Guzman.F., 2000. Partitioning of vocal activity in a Neotropical highland-frog community,
Stud. Neotrop. Fauna & Environm , 35, pp. 185–194.
74. Marquez R., Delariva I. and Bosh J., 1993. Advertisement call of Bolivian species of Hyla ebraccata (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae).
Biotropica, 25(4), pp. 426-443.
75. Marquez R. and Bosch J., 2001. Communication and mating in the midwife toads (Alytes Alytes obstetricans and cisternasii Anuran communication. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
76. Marquez R. and Tejedo M., 1990. Size-based mating pattern in the tree- frog Hyla arborea, Herpetologica, 46, pp. 172-178.
77. Martin W. F., 1972. “Evolution of vocalizations in the genus bufo”. In:
Evolution in the genus bufo (Blair W. F., ed.) pp. 279-306, University Press Texas, Austin.
78. Mcclellandl B. E., Wllczynsll W. and Ryan. M. J., 1996. Correlations between call characteristis and morphology in male cricket frogs (Acris crepitans), The Journal of Experimental Biology, 199, pp. 1907–1919.
79. Michelsen A., 1978. Sound reception in different environments,
Perspectivesin Sensory Ecology, pp. 345–373.
80. Mork T., 2008. Call Quality and Distribution of Male Hyla versicolor,
Bois, 33502 (1), pp. 1-17.
81. Nally M., 1981. On the Reproductive energetics of chorusing males: Energy depletion profile, restoration and growth of Ranidella in two species (Anura), Oecologia, 51, pp. 181-188.
82. Narins P. M., E. R. Lewis E. R. and McClelland B. E., 2000. Hyperextended call note repertoire of the endemic Madagascar Treefrog Boophis madagascariensis (Rhacophoridae), J. Zool., London, 250, pp. 283-298.
83. Narins P. M., Feng A. S., Lin W. Y., Schnitzler H. U., Denzinger A., Suthers R. A. and Xyu C. H., 2004. Old World frog and bird, vocalizations contain prominent ultrasonic harmonics, J. Acoust. Soc. Am, 115, pp. 910-913.
84. Narins. P. M., Feng A. S., Fay. R. R. and Popper A. N., 2007. Hearing and sound communication in amphbians. Spinger Sience+Business Media, New York, USA.
85. Navas C. A., 1996. Thermal dependency of field locomotor and vocal performance of high elevation anurans in the tropical Andes, J. Herpetol, 30, pp. 478-87.
86. Navas C. A. and Bevier C. R., 2001. Thermal dependency of calling performance in the eurythermic frog, Colostethus subpunctatus,
Herpetologica, 57, pp. 384-95.
87. Nevo. E., 1973., Adaptine variation in size of cricket frog, Ecology, 54, pp. 1271 -1281.
88. Owen P. C., 2003. The structure, function, and evolution of aggressive signals in anuranamphibians. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
89. Padial J .M, Jorn Kohler J. K., Munoz A. M and Riva. I. D. L., 2008. The taxonomic status Asessing proposals through tropical Frogs bioacoustic: Geographical variation in the advertisement calls in the Eleutherodactylus Species discoidalis group (Anura), Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 152, pp. 353-365.
90. Padgham M., 2004. Reverberation and frequency attenuation in forests - Implications for acoustic communication in animals, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 115, pp. 402–410.
91. Passmore N. I., 1981. The relevance of the specific mate recognition concept to anuran reprodutive biology, Monitore Zool. Ital., 6, pp. 93- 108.
92. Patricelli G. L., Uy J. A. C., Walsh G. and Borgia G., 2002. Sexual selection: male displays adjusted to female’s response, Nature, 415, pp. 279–80.
93. Prestwich K. N., 1994. The energetics of acoustic signaling in anurans and Insects, Am. Zool., 34, pp. 625-43.
94. Rinberg D. and Davidowitz H., 2003. Wind spectra and the response of the cercal system in the cockroach, J. Comp. Physiol. A., 189, pp. 867– 876.
95. Robertson J. G. M., 1986. Female choice, male strategies and the role of vocalization in the Australian frog Uperoleia rugosa, Animal Behaviour, 34, pp. 773-784.
96. Rose G. J. and Brenowits E. A, 2001. Pacific treefrogs use temporal integration to differentiate advertisement from encounter calls, University of Washington.
97. Rowley J. R. and Cao Tien Trung., 2009. A New Species of Leptolalax (Anura: Megophryidae) from central Vietnam, Zootaxa, 2198, pp. 51-60.
98. Ryan M. J., 1980. Female mate choice in a Neotropical Frog, Science, 209, pp. 523–525.
99. Ryan M. J., 1985. A study in sexual selection and communication. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
100. Ryan M. J., 1986. Factors influencing the evulation of acoustic communication: Biological constrains. Brain Behav. Evol., 28, pp. 70-82
101. Ryan M. J., 1988. Constraints and patterns in the evolution of anuran acoustic communication. Department of Zoology University of Texax Austin, Texas.
102. Ryan M. J., 1988. Energy, calling and selection, Am. Zool, 28, pp. 885– 98.
103. Ryan M. J., 2001. Anuran communication. Washington, Smithsonian
Institution Press.
104. Ryan M. J. and Hector K. A., 1992. Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases, Amer. Nat., 139, pp.4–35.
105. Sallthe, S. N. and Mecham J. S., 1974. Reproductive and courtship patterns, Physiology of the Amphibia, 2, pp. 309-521.
106. Schlaepfer M. A. and Sandi F. R., 1998. Female reciprocal calling in a Costa Rican leaflitter frog Eleutherodactylus podiciferus, Copeia, 1998, pp. 1076–1080.
107. Schwartz J. J. and Wells K. D., 1984. Interspecific acoustic interactions of the Neotropical treefrog Hyla ebraccata, Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 14, pp. 211–224.
108. Shannon C.E. and Weaver W., 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Illinois University Press, Urbana.
109. Shirley M. D. F., Armitage V. L., Barden T. L., Gough M., Lurz, P. W. W., Oatway D. E., South A. B. and Rushton S. P., 2001. Assessing the impact of a music festival on theemergence behaviour of a breeding colony of Daubenton’s bats (Myotis daubentonii), J. Zool. Lond., 254, pp. 367-373.
110. Smith M. J. and Roberts J. D., 2003. Call structure may affect male mating success in the quacking frog Crinia georgiana (Anura: Myobatrachidae). University of Western Australia, Australia.
111. Sullivan B. K. and Hinshaw S. H.,1990. Female choice and selection on male calling behaviourin the grey treefrog Hyla versicolor. Anim. Behav., 44, pp. 733-744.
112. Sullivan B. K. and Malmos K. B., 1994. Call variation in the Colorado River toad (Bufo alvarius): Phylogenetic and behavioral implications,
Herpetologica, 50, pp. 146-156.
113. Sullivan B. K., Ryan M. J. and Verrill P. A., 1995. Female choice and mating system structure, Social Behaviour, 2, pp. 469–517.
114. Sun J. W .C. and Narins P.M., 2005. Anthropogenic sounds differentially affect amphibiancall rate, Biol. Conserv., 121, pp. 419- 427.
115. Trespannier T. L., Amy lathrop and Robert M.Wurphy, 1999. Rhacophorus leucomystax in Vietnam with acoustic Analyses of courtship and Territorial, Asiatic Herrpetological Reseach, 8, pp. 102- 106.
116. Wagner W. E. Jr., 1989. Social correlates of variation in male calling behavior in Blanchard's Cricket Frog, Acris crepitansblanchardi,
Ethology, 82, pp. 27-45.
117. Walkowiak W., 1988a. “Neuroethology of anuran call recognition”, In:
The Evolution of the AmphibianAuditory System, pp. 485–509.
118. Wells K. D., 1977a. The social behaviour of anuran amphibians, Anim. Behav., 25, pp. 666-693.
119. Wells K. D., 1977b. “The courtship of Frogs”. In: Taylor D, Guttman S (eds) The Reproductive Biology of Amphibians. New York: Plenum, pp. 233-262.
120. Wells K. D., 1980. Intra- and interspecific comunication in the neotropical frog Hyla ebraccata. Amer. Zool., 20 (4), pp. 712-724.
121. Wells K. D., 1988. “The effect of social interactions on anuran vocal behavior”, In: The evolution of the amphibian Auditory system. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 433-454.
122. Wells K. D., 2001. “The energetics of calling in frogs”, In: Ryan MJ
