바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

  • KOREAN
  • P-ISSN2287-8327
  • E-ISSN2288-1220
  • SCOPUS, KCI

ISSN : 2287-8327

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.33 No.4

Citation Share

Calling song and phonotactic selectivity in the field cricket Teleogryllus emma (Orthoptera: Gryllidae)

Journal of Ecology and Environment / Journal of Ecology and Environment, (P)2287-8327; (E)2288-1220
2010, v.33 no.4, pp.307-315



& (2010). Calling song and phonotactic selectivity in the field cricket Teleogryllus emma (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Journal of Ecology and Environment, 33(4), 307-315.

Abstract

Males of the field cricket Teleogryllus emma produce calling songs that are attractive to receptive females. The calling songs of T. emma consist of two components, the long chirp that is composed of up to 12 single pulses, followed by a variable number of short chirps. Based on the analysis of coefficient of variation (CV), temporal characters of the long chirp were less variable than those of the short chirps in male calling songs. To test for phonotactic selectivity of females,we conducted a single-stimulus playback experiment in which five stimuli (standard, long chirp only, long chirp augmented,short chirps only, and short chirps augmented) were used. The standard stimulus included both long and short chirps whose characteristics were derived from the calling songs of field populations. Results of the playback experiment showed that female crickets oriented more frequently toward the stimuli that included the long chirp (standard, long chirp only, and long chirp augmented stimuli) than toward the stimuli lacking the long chirp (short chirps only and short chirps augmented stimuli), indicating that the long chirp in the calling songs was required to elicit positive phonotaxis in the female crickets. The result of CV analysis of the male calling songs and the findings of the female phonotaxis experiment suggested that the long chirp of calling songs may play a role in species recognition in T. emma.

keywords
coefficient of variation, geographic variation, playback experiment, species recognition

Reference

1.

Adamo SA, Hoy RR. 1994. Mating behaviour of the field cricket Gryllus bimaculatus and its dependence on social and environmental cues. Anim Behav 47: 857-868.

2.

Alexander RD. 1962. Evolutionary change in cricket acoustical communication. Evolution 16: 443-467.

3.

Bell WJ. 1991. Searching Behavior: the Behavioural Ecology of Finding Resources. Chapman and Hall, London.

4.

Bennet-Clark HC. 1989. Songs and the physics of sound production. In: Cricket Behavior and Neurobiology (Huber F, Moore TE, Loher W, eds). Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp 227-261.

5.

Butlin RK, Hewitt GM, Webb SF. 1985. Sexual selection for intermediate optimum in Chorthippus brunneus (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Anim Behav 33: 1281-1292.

6.

Doherty JA, Callos JD. 1991. Acoustic communication in the trilling field cricket, Gryllus rubens (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). J Insect Behav 4: 67-82.

7.

Ewing AW, Miyan JA. 1986. Sexual selection, sexual isolation and the evolution of song in the Drosophila repleta group of species. Anim Behav 34: 421-429.

8.

Ferreira M, Ferguson JWH. 2002. Geographic variation in the calling song of the field cricket Gryllus bimaculatus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) and its relevance to mate recognition and mate choice. J Zool 257: 163-170.

9.

Gerhardt HC. 1991. Female mate choice in treefrogs: static and dynamic acoustic criteria. Anim Behav 42: 615-635.

10.

Gerhardt HC, Huber F. 2002. Acoustic Communication in Insects and Anurans. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

11.

Gray DA, Cade WH. 2000. Sexual selection and speciation in field crickets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97: 14449-14454.

12.

Greenfield MD. 2002. Signalers and Receivers: Mechanisms and Evolution of Arthropod Communication. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

13.

Hennig RM, Weber T. 1997. Filtering of temporal parameters of the calling song by cricket females of two closely related species: a behavioral analysis. J Comp Physiol A 180: 621-630.

14.

Honda-Sumi E. 2004. Female recognition of trills in the male calling song of the field cricket, Teleogryllus taiwanemma. J Ethol 22: 135-141.

15.

Honda-Sumi E. 2005. Difference in calling song of three field crickets of the genus Teleogryllus: the role in premating isolation. Anim Behav 69: 881-889.

16.

Huber F, Thorson J. 1985. Cricket auditory communication. Sci Am 253: 60-68.

17.

Jang Y, Gerhardt HC. 2006. Divergence in female calling song discrimination between sympatric and allopatric populations of the southern wood cricket Gryllus fultoni (Orthoptera : Gryllidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60: 150-158.

18.

Jang Y, Bockhorst A, Gerhardt HC. 2007. Reproductive isolation in the wood cricket Gryllus vernalis (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Ethology 113: 87-96.

19.

Klappert K, Reinhold K. 2003. Acoustic preference functions and sexual selection on the male calling song in the grasshopper Chorthippus biguttulus. Anim Behav 65: 225-233.

20.

Loher W, Dambach M. 1989. Reproductive behavior. In: Cricket Behavior and Neurobiology (Huber F, Moore TE, Loher W, eds). Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp 43-82.

21.

Masaki S, Ohmachi F. 1967. Divergence of photoperiodic response and hybrid development in Teleogryllus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Konchu 35: 83-105.

22.

Ohmachi F, Masaki S. 1964. Interspecific crossing and development of hybrids between the Japanese species of Teleogryllus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Evolution 18: 405-416.

23.

Ohmachi F, Matsuura I. 1951. On the Japanese large field cricket and its allied species. Bull Fac Agric Mie Univ 2: 63-72.

24.

Otte D. 1992. Evolution of cricket songs. J Orthoptera Res 1: 25-49.

25.

Price T. 1998. Sexual selection and natural selection in bird speciation. Philos Trans R Soc London B Biol Sci 353: 251-260.

26.

Ritchie MG. 1996. The shape of female mating preferences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93: 14628-14631.

27.

Ritchie MG, Couzin ID, Snedden WA. 1995. What’s in a song? Female bushcrickets discriminate against the song of older males. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 262: 21-27.

28.

Saarikettu M, Liimatainen JO, Hoikkala A. 2005. The role of male courtship song in species recognition in Drosophila montana. Behav Genet 35: 257-263.

29.

Schul J, Bush SL. 2002. Non-parallel coevolution of sender and receiver in the acoustic communication system of treefrogs. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 269: 1847-1852.

30.

Shaw KL, Herlihy DP. 2000. Acoustic preference functions and song variability in the Hawaiian cricket Laupala cerasina. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 267: 577-584.

31.

Simmons LW, Zuk M, Rotenberry JT. 2001. Geographic variation in female preference functions and male songs of the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. Evolution 55: 1386-1394.

32.

Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. 1995. Biometry: the Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. 3rd ed. Freeman, New York, NY.

33.

Wollerman L. 1998. Stabilizing and directional preferences of female Hyla ebraccata for calls differing in static properties. Anim Behav 55: 1619-1630.

34.

Zuk M, Simmons LW. 1997. Reproductive strategies of the crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). In: The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids (Choe JC, Crespi BJ, eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 89-109.

35.

Zuk M, Rotenberry JT, Simmons LW. 2001. Geographical variation in calling song of the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus: the importance of spatial scale. J Evol Biol 14: 731-741.

Journal of Ecology and Environment

e-Submission OA Policy