dcsimg

Description

provided by AmphibiaWeb articles
Ranitomeya imitator is a small frog, with adults ranging from 17 to 22 mm (Symula et al. 2001). Dorsal skin is granular. The first toe is clearly differentiated. Digital discs are expanded as with other dendrobatids, with finger discs being at least twice the width of the finger base (Schulte 1986). Coloration is quite variable depending on the population, as this species mimics both color and pattern of several other sympatric (co-occurring) species of poison frogs (Symula et al. 2001). Ranitomeya imitator near Tarapoto, Peru, closely resembles the sympatric species Ranitomeya variabilis. Both species have yellow reticulation over a black background on the head, dorsum, flanks, and forearms, resulting in the appearance of large black patches surrounded by yellow . On the venter and legs, both species have blue-green reticulation over a black background, resulting in the appearance of small black patches surrounded by blue-green. They can be distinguished by the patterning of the black spot on the nose; in R. imitator this spot is split in half by gold reticulation, whereas it is solid in R. variabilis (Schulte 1986; Symula et al. 2001). In addition, differences in calls and in egg coloration distinguish the two species (Symula et al. 2001). In Huallaga Canyon, Peru, Ranitomeya imitator resembles a sympatric population of Ranitomeya fantastica (Symula et al. 2001). Both species in this area have a black ground coloration with yellow stripes, several of which are transverse, running across the body from side to side and extending down the arms and legs and across the midsection (as seen in the photos in Symula et al. 2001). However, R. imitator is smaller and has different ventral coloration and pattern, as well as a different call (Schulte 1986). Near Yurimaguas, Ranitomeya imitator mimics Ranitomeya ventrimaculata (Symula et al. 2001). These frogs share the coloration pattern of thin longitudinal yellow stripes on a black background, over the head, dorsum, and flanks, while the legs have blue-green reticulation over a black background, resulting in the appearance of small black patches surrounded by blue-green color (as seen in the photos in Symula et al. 2001). Here again Ranitomeya imitator appears to be distinguishable by having a black spot on the tip of the snout bisected by a gold stripe. Male calls also differ between the two species (Symula et al. 2001).This species is unusual in its mimicry of other species. It mimics not one but three other species of highly toxic poison frogs (Ranitomeya fantastica, Ranitomeya variabilis, and Ranitomeya ventrimaculata). This represents the only known example of mimetic radiation in amphibians, where different populations within a single species mimic several other species in appearance. In each case, a population of R. imitator is sympatric with a population of one of the other dendrobatid species, and looks virtually identical. Despite the similar appearances, in each case the two sympatric species can be distinguished by male calls and by egg coloration. Ranitomeya imitator populations have been confirmed by molecular phylogenetic analysis to be closely related members of a single species (Symula et al. 2001). Because both species are toxic in each case, and both benefit from the resemblance, this is an example of Müllerian mimicry.In 2011, the genus Dendrobates was subdivided into seven genera, including the new genus Ranitomeya by Brown et al (2011). This species was featured as News of the Week on 18 April 2016:Signaling between parents and offspring is a topic of interest in animal behavior and evolution, mostly in birds and mammals. A common question is whether offspring begging directed at parents represents an “honest signal” of need (hunger), or a signal of quality (with larger, higher quality offspring able to signal more strongly). Yoshioka, Meeks and Summers (2016) tested this question in Ranitomeya imitator, the Mimic Poison Frog, which shows pair-bonding and biparental care. The male and female cooperate to place tadpoles in tiny pools of water (phytotelmata), and then return to feed the tadpoles infertile eggs as it develops. They showed regulating food levels across development, tadpoles receiving less food increased begging levels significantly over the course of development, relative to tadpoles given more food. An experiment manipulating the amount of begging that tadpoles perform (under identical feeding regimes) revealed costs of begging in terms of developmental rate and growth. An experiment on parental feeding revealed that parents preferentially fed tadpoles not receiving supplemental food, relative to siblings whose diet was supplemented with extra food. They conclude that tadpole begging in this species serves as an honest signal of need (Written by Kyle Summers).
This species was featured as News of the Week on 18 March 2019:Monogamy in vertebrate evolution appears multiple times in separate lineages but their underlying genetic underpinnings are only recently explored. Young et al. (2019) compared differential gene expression between the transcriptomes of monogamous and polygamous species in five sets of species pairs across vertebrates (mice, voles, birds, frogs and fish). The frog pair were poison frogs Ranitomeya imitator (monogamous) and Oophaga pumilio (polygamous). Tests for differential gene expression between each pair revealed that congruent sets of genes (orthologous or genes of the same evolutionary genealogy) showed concordant changes in expression between the monogamous and the polygamous lineages. The directions of changes in expression in these gene sets were also concordant, such that genes which decreased in expression in the monogamous lineage of one taxonomic pair were likely to decrease in expression in the other monogamous lineages as well (for all pairwise comparisons). However, the frog species were unique in that some genes displayed the opposite direction of change in expression relative to other monogamous lineages. The poison frogs are the only lineage here in which male parental care is ancestral so monogamy with biparental care in this lineage evolved from male care (rather than female care, as in the other taxa). Overall, their research yielded a novel set of 24 candidate genes likely to be involved in the evolution of monogamy, many of which are involved in neural development, synaptic activity and cognitive function. The study provides evidence for widely conserved sets of shared genes and molecular genetic pathways contributing to the evolution of monogamous mating systems across vast gulfs of evolutionary time and change in the vertebrate lineage (Written by Kyle Summers). This species was featured as News of the Week on 4 May 2020: Neotropical poison frogs provide iconic examples of conspicuous warning coloration, yet we know very little about the biochemical mechanisms that underlie the production of these astonishing colors. Twomey et al. (2020) use a combination of spectral reflectance, chromatography, electron microscopy measurements, and simulations of coloration to identify key components of color variation in a mimetic radiation of the Peruvian mimic poison frog (Ranitomeya imitator) and related model species. They revealed that the mimic frog has a broader "palette" of colors than the models, which accords with their history of evolving to match the color patterns of other species. Surprisingly, however, the major proportion of variation did not appear to be in pigment types. Instead, the key variation occurred in the thickness of guanine platelets in a type of organelle called iridophores. The variation in platelet thickness appears to influence yellows and oranges, contradicting the traditional view that it should affect structural colors like blues and greens and hue (overall spectral reflectance). Their study provides insight into the underlying mechanisms enabling the evolution of both divergence and convergence in aposematic coloration in the Neotropical poison frogs, revealing novel mechanisms that may apply to other taxa as well (Written by Kyle Summers).

References

  • Brown, J. L., Morales, V., and Summers, K. (2010). ''A key ecological trait drove the evolution of biparental care and monogamy in an amphibian.'' American Naturalist, 175(4), 436-446.
  • Brown, J. L., Twomey, E., Morales, V. and Summers, K. (2008). ''Phytotelm size in relation to parental care and mating strategies in two species of Peruvian poison frogs.'' Behaviour, 145, 1139-1165.
  • Caldwell, J. P., and Summers, K. D. (2003). ''Imitating poison frog, Dendrobates imitator.'' Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Amphibians. 2nd edition. M. Hutchins, W. E. Duellman, and N. Schlager, eds., Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
  • Icochea, J., Angulo, A., and Jungfer, K.-H. 2004. Ranitomeya imitator. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 13 September 2010.
  • Schulte, R. (1986). ''Eine neue Dendrobates-art aus ostperu (Amphibia: Salienta: Dendrobatidae).'' Sauria, 8, 11-20.
  • Spande, T. F., Jain, P., Garraffo, H. M., Pannell, L. K., Yeh, H. J. C., Daly, J. W., Fukumoto, S., Imamura, K., Tokuyama, T., Torres, J. A., Snelling, R. R., and Jones, T. H. (1999). ''Occurrence and significance of decahydroquinolines from dendrobatid poison frogs and a myrmicine ant: Use of 1H and 13C NMR in their conformational analysis.'' Journal of Natural Products, 62, 5-21.
  • Symula, R., Schulte, R., and Summers, K. (2001). ''Molecular phylogenetic evidence for a mimetic radiation in Peruvian poison frogs supports a Müllerian mimicry hypothesis.'' Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 268, 2405-2421.

license
cc-by-3.0
author
Kellie Whittaker
author
Peera Chantasirivisal
original
visit source
partner site
AmphibiaWeb articles

Distribution and Habitat

provided by AmphibiaWeb articles
These frogs can be found on the eastern foothills of the Andes, from 250 to 1000 m in elevation, in Departamentos San Martin and Huánuco, Peru (Schulte 1986; Caldwell and Summers 2003). They inhabit montane wet forest (Caldwell and Summers 2003; Schulte 1986), and primary lowland tropical moist forest (Icochea et al. 2004) and are usually closely associated with certain secondary forest plant species (Schulte 1986).
license
cc-by-3.0
author
Kellie Whittaker
author
Peera Chantasirivisal
original
visit source
partner site
AmphibiaWeb articles

Life History, Abundance, Activity, and Special Behaviors

provided by AmphibiaWeb articles
Despite the close resemblance of R. imitator to other sympatrically occurring frog species, the call is quite different, and this facilitated the recognition that this frog represented a new species (Schulte 1986). The call of R. imitator has been described as piercing, and can be heard at some distance (Schulte 1986).Like other dendrobatids, R. imitator is diurnal. It is also arboreal and can be found in vegetation between 0.3 and 6 m above the ground, though it is mainly active between 0.5 and 1.5 m (Schulte 1986). The frog's activity period is bimodal, with a peak early in the morning and again in the afternoon, retreating to the shelter of a plant in between (Schulte 1986). Usually only a single frog occupies a "retreat" plant, and this territory will be actively and vocally defended if another male trespasses (Schulte 1986). In addition to calling, the male will position himself such that his head can be seen from below, over the edge of the leaf, with his pulsing black-flecked yellow throat pouch clearly visible against the green background (Schulte 1986).Ranitomeya imitator is the only known monogamous amphibian, with monogamy in the wild confirmed by paternity analysis in studies (Brown et al. 2010). Of twelve pairs assessed, all twelve were socially monogamous (interacted only with each other). However, one pair of the twelve showed social monogamy but not genetic monogamy, as the male was found to have sired tadpoles with another female. Mate guarding (of males by females) has been observed for this species in captivity, according to Brown et al. (2010). Both the male and female care for offspring in R. imitator; biparental care in nutrient-poor nurseries appears to have driven the evolution of monogamy, as two other dendrobatid species (Dendrobates auratus and Dendrobates leucomelas) that also show mate guarding by females but have uniparental (male) tending of offspring are not genetically monogamous (Brown et al. 2010; see references therein for D. auratus and D. leucomelas).Reproduction occurs year-round, with a peak during the rainy season (Schulte 1986). Males call to lure females to a breeding site, running ahead of the female with the female following 1-5 cm behind (Schulte 1986). Eggs are white with clear jelly and laid in dark hiding places in phytotelmata (small water pools within plants; Schulte 1986). Biparental care occurs in this species (Brown et al. 2008a; Brown et al. 2008b; Brown et al. 2010). About 12-14 days post-hatching, tadpoles will be carried singly (or very rarely, in pairs) by the male to a separate brooding site in a different plant (Schulte 1986). The water bodies in which the tadpoles are deposited are very small, just 24 ml in volume, and are nutrient-poor, such that tadpoles cannot survive without being provisioned by the female parent (Brown et al. 2008a, Brown et al. 2008b; Brown et al. 2010). The selection of smaller, nutrient-poor water bodies as nurseries has likely driven the need for biparental care and the evolution of monogamy in this species (Brown et al. 2010). Parental care is given for an extended time, in this case months, as females must provision the tadpoles with trophic (unfertilized) eggs (Brown et al. 2010). Froglets reach adult size after about six months (Schulte 1986). It is estimated that each pair of adult frogs produces at most two to four offspring a year which reach maturity (Schulte 1986).This species primarily consumes tiny ants and mites (Schulte 1986; Caldwell and Summers 2003). It is also reported to prey on drosophilid flies, beetle, and springtails (Schulte 1986; Caldwell and Summers 2003).Like other dendrobatids, R. imitator secretes alkaloids (including a number from the decahydroquinoline class, and possibly from other classes) from cutaneous granular glands in its skin (Spande et al. 1999). Schulte (1986) reports that a strong characteristic smell is emitted from this frog when it is stressed or killed, which he attributes to the skin toxins.
license
cc-by-3.0
author
Kellie Whittaker
author
Peera Chantasirivisal
original
visit source
partner site
AmphibiaWeb articles

Life History, Abundance, Activity, and Special Behaviors

provided by AmphibiaWeb articles
Ranitomeya imitator is protected under Appendix II of CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). Appendix II covers species which are not necessarily threatened with extinction but where controlling trade (import/export) helps avoid overcollecting and thus aids the species' survival. This species has been listed under CITES since 1987. As of 2007, a maximum of 500 "ranched" frogs (where eggs or tadpoles are taken from the wild and reared in captivity) per year may be exported from Peru.Its range overlaps with one protected area, the Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul in Peru. As of 2004, it was deemed stable in population. It is not thought to tolerate habitat modification, and there has been localized habitat loss. It does have a wide range and when it was last assessed by the IUCN/Global Amphibian Assessment in 2004, there appeared to be large areas of suitable habitat remaining. Illegal trade in this species has been noted by IUCN (Icochea et al. 2004).
license
cc-by-3.0
author
Kellie Whittaker
author
Peera Chantasirivisal
original
visit source
partner site
AmphibiaWeb articles

Relation to Humans

provided by AmphibiaWeb articles
Found in the pet trade due to its vivid coloration. The trade in this species is restricted (see Trends and Threats section), and illegal collection has been reported to occur by IUCN.
license
cc-by-3.0
author
Kellie Whittaker
author
Peera Chantasirivisal
original
visit source
partner site
AmphibiaWeb articles

Mimic poison frog

provided by wikipedia EN

Ranitomeya imitator (formerly Dendrobates imitator), is a species of poison dart frog found in the north-central region of eastern Peru. Its common names include mimic poison frog and poison arrow frog,[1][2] and it is one of the best known dart frogs.[3] It was discovered in the late 1980s by Rainer Schulte who later split it up into more subspecies; describing each as a specific color morph, and sometimes having a separate behavioral pattern. The acoustics, morphs, and behavior of the species have been extensively researched.[3]

Color morphology

Captive bred R. imitator 'Chazuta'

Among different populations of R. imitator, different color morphs are present to mimic other poison frog species. There are four color morphs among R. imitator populations that mimic closely related sympatric (existing in the same area) species: varadero (R. fantastica), striped (lowland R. variabilis), spotted (highland R. variabilis), and banded (R. summersi).[4] The geographic distribution of these morphs primarily includes geographically isolated populations in different areas of Peru, however there are a number of "transition zones" between populations where different color morphs interact.[5] The striped morph is the most widely spread, mimicking the striped Ranitomeya variabilis and can be found throughout the lower Huallaga River drainage in Peru.[6] The spotted morph mimics the highland spotted frog Ranitomeya variabilis with mainly blue-green coloration, but can be found in other forms, sometimes in yellow.[6] Although R. imitator closely resembles R. variabilis in coloration with its striped morph, the two species differ in many key aspects. R. imitator provides biparental care and is a monogamous species, while R. variabilis provides solely paternal care and is polygamous.[7] The aradero morph is a lowland form that lives nearby another but does not resemble it.[6] Last, the banded morph, a mimic of Ranitomeya summersi, lives in much drier climates than the average R. imitator and is most often found in Dieffenbachia and Heliconia plants.[6]

Interactions between different morphs

While populations of different color morphs are concentrated in different areas of Peru, there are transition zones between populations where different color morphs may interact.[5] These transition zones have been particular areas of interest to study reproductive isolation and incipient speciation, and recent research suggests that color pattern is likely a driving factor in reproductive isolation, as some transition zones show evidence of assortative mating, where individuals of one morph prefer to mate with others of the same morph.[4][5] Mating calls by males are an important factor in mating, and often need to be distinct in order to attract females of the same species. In R. imitator, male calls vary little among different color morphs, however it has been suggested that color pattern is the principal component that drives speciation.[8][9]

Toxicity

Like most other Ranitomeya species, R. imitator has a mild toxicity compared to other poison dart frogs. It produces the potent pumiliotoxin B, but its small size limits the amount of poison it can secrete. Like other poison dart frogs, it does not produce toxin in captivity. It probably gains its poison from consuming toxic insects or other invertebrates in the wild. Frogs of the related genus Phyllobates may derive their toxins from local melyrid beetles of genus Choresine.[10]

Reproduction and parental care

Ranitomeya imitator's developmental life stages.

The reproductive and parental care behaviors exhibited by this species have been of great interest to a variety of researchers, namely because R. imitator is the first amphibian to show evidence of monogamy, and because it independently evolved biparental care.[11] Further, the occurrence of both of these factors supports the hypothesis that biparental care favors the evolution of monogamy, for which evidence has previously been restricted to other groups of vertebrates.[12] The parental care provided to R. imitator offspring has been demonstrated to be vital for offspring growth and success.[12]

Courtship and oviposition

To attract mates, males will initiate calls while approaching a female. If the female is receptive to the male's courtship, she will follow him to an oviposition site where they will mate. She will then deposit fertilized eggs on a plant to allow them to develop.[5][11] The number of tadpoles that successfully hatch and make it to their breeding pool is relatively small, where one study observed a range of 1-4 tadpoles per mated pair.[12]

Male parental care

After mating occurs, the male will guard the fertilized eggs. Upon hatching, the male will transport individual tadpoles to their own respective phytotelma, which are small pools of water within plants.[13] Additionally, the male will strategically place tadpoles in certain rearing sites, specifically avoiding predators.[14] After tadpoles are in their rearing sites, the male will call while next to tadpoles which signals to the mother to feed an individual.[11] Tadpole begging, a behavior in which tadpoles vibrate their body, also encourages the mother to provide trophic (eggs specifically for nutrition) eggs.[15]

Female parental care

Female parental care is provided in the form of trophic egg feeding to offspring. After mating, the female will have a surplus of unfertilized eggs, which she provisions to offspring as food that aids in offspring growth and development.[12] This form of biparental care is not uncommon in poison frogs. Researchers have found that poison frogs that use phytotelma to rear offspring are more likely to exhibit egg-feeding parental care, and that this combination favors the evolution of biparental care in these species.[11] The hormonal regulation of parental care in this species remains somewhat unknown.[16]

Ownership

Compared to many other dart frog species, Ranitomeya imitator has relatively large and stable wild populations.[17] However, they are often illegally collected and exported.[18] They have also been imported legally, and multiple captive-bred varieties exist in the pet trade.

References

  1. ^ East Carolina University. March 12, 2010. Biologists find proof of first confirmed species of monogamous frog. ScienceDaily. Retrieved May 31, 2013.
  2. ^ Sherratt, T. (2008). "The Evolution of Müllerian Mimicry". Die Naturwissenschaften. 95 (8): 681–695. Bibcode:2008NW.....95..681S. doi:10.1007/s00114-008-0403-y. PMC 2443389. PMID 18542902.
  3. ^ a b J.L. Brown, E. Twomey (2011). “ZOOTAXA: A taxonomic revision of the Neotropical poison frog genus Ranitomeya (Amphibia: Dendrobatidae)” Magnolia Press pp. 68-72. In Schulte, Rainer (1989). “Eine Neue Dendrobates- Art aus Ostperu (Amphibia: Salentia: Dendrobatidae) pp. 11-21
  4. ^ a b Twomey, Evan; Vestergaard, Jacob S.; Summers, Kyle (2014-08-27). "Reproductive isolation related to mimetic divergence in the poison frog Ranitomeya imitator". Nature Communications. 5 (1): 4749. doi:10.1038/ncomms5749. ISSN 2041-1723.
  5. ^ a b c d Twomey, Evan; Vestergaard, Jacob S.; Venegas, Pablo J.; Summers, Kyle (February 2016). "Mimetic Divergence and the Speciation Continuum in the Mimic Poison Frog Ranitomeya imitator". The American Naturalist. 187 (2): 205–224. doi:10.1086/684439. ISSN 0003-0147.
  6. ^ a b c d Ranitomeya imitator”. dendrobates.org. In Schulte, Rainer (1989). “Eine Neue Dendrobates- Art aus Ostperu (Amphibia: Salentia: Dendrobatidae) Sauria 8(3): 11-20.
  7. ^ Brown, J. L.; et al. (2010). "A key ecological trait drove the evolution of biparental care and monogamy in an amphibian" (PDF). The American Naturalist. 175 (4): 436–46. doi:10.1086/650727. PMID 20180700. S2CID 20270737.
  8. ^ Twomey, Evan; Mayer, Michael; Summers, Kyle (December 2015). "Intraspecific Call Variation in the Mimic Poison Frog Ranitomeya imitator". Herpetologica. 71 (4): 252–259. doi:10.1655/HERPETOLOGICA-D-15-00004. ISSN 0018-0831.
  9. ^ Twomey, Evan; Kain, Morgan; Claeys, Myriam; Summers, Kyle; Castroviejo-Fisher, Santiago; Van Bocxlaer, Ines (May 2020). "Mechanisms for Color Convergence in a Mimetic Radiation of Poison Frogs". The American Naturalist. 195 (5): E132–E149. doi:10.1086/708157. ISSN 0003-0147.
  10. ^ Dumbacher, J. P.; et al. (2004). "Melyrid beetles (Choresine): A putative source for the batrachotoxin alkaloids found in poison-dart frogs and toxic passerine birds". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 101 (45): 15857–60. Bibcode:2004PNAS..10115857D. doi:10.1073/pnas.0407197101. PMC 528779. PMID 15520388.
  11. ^ a b c d Brown, Jason L.; Morales, Victor; Summers, Kyle (April 2010). "A Key Ecological Trait Drove the Evolution of Biparental Care and Monogamy in an Amphibian". The American Naturalist. 175 (4): 436–446. doi:10.1086/650727. ISSN 0003-0147.
  12. ^ a b c d Tumulty, James; Morales, Victor; Summers, Kyle (2014). "The biparental care hypothesis for the evolution of monogamy: experimental evidence in an amphibian". Behavioral Ecology. 25 (2): 262–270. doi:10.1093/beheco/art116. ISSN 1465-7279.
  13. ^ Summers, Kyle; Brown, Jason; Morales, Victor; Twomey, Evan (2008). "Phytotelm size in relation to parental care and mating strategies in two species of Peruvian poison frogs". Behaviour. 145 (9): 1139–1165. doi:10.1163/156853908785387647. ISSN 0005-7959.
  14. ^ Brown, J. L.; Morales, V.; Summers, K. (November 2008). "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 (6): 1534–1543. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01609.x.
  15. ^ Yoshioka, M.; Meeks, C.; Summers, K. (March 2016). "Evidence for begging as an honest signal of offspring need in the biparental mimic poison frog". Animal Behaviour. 113: 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.12.024.
  16. ^ Schulte, Lisa M.; Summers, Kyle (May 2017). "Searching for hormonal facilitators: Are vasotocin and mesotocin involved in parental care behaviors in poison frogs?". Physiology & Behavior. 174: 74–82. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.03.005.
  17. ^ Javier Icochea, Ariadne Angulo, Karl-Heinz Jungfer 2004. Ranitomeya imitator. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.
  18. ^ “Clare, John (July 30, 2011). “Imitating Dart Frog, Ranitomeya imitator/Dendrobates imitator (Schulte, 1986) - Care and Breeding”. frogforum.net
Wikispecies has information related to Ranitomeya imitator.

license
cc-by-sa-3.0
copyright
Wikipedia authors and editors
original
visit source
partner site
wikipedia EN

Mimic poison frog: Brief Summary

provided by wikipedia EN

Ranitomeya imitator (formerly Dendrobates imitator), is a species of poison dart frog found in the north-central region of eastern Peru. Its common names include mimic poison frog and poison arrow frog, and it is one of the best known dart frogs. It was discovered in the late 1980s by Rainer Schulte who later split it up into more subspecies; describing each as a specific color morph, and sometimes having a separate behavioral pattern. The acoustics, morphs, and behavior of the species have been extensively researched.

license
cc-by-sa-3.0
copyright
Wikipedia authors and editors
original
visit source
partner site
wikipedia EN