Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 269–281 | Cite as

Plants as transmission channels for insect vibrational songs

  • Axel Michelsen
  • Flemming Fink
  • Matija Gogala
  • Dieter Traue
Article

Summary

The vibrational songs of several species of cydnid bugs and ‘small cicadas’ (leafhoppers and planthoppers) living on various types of plants are recorded by means of laser vibrometry. The recorded vibrational songs are analysed with respect to amplitude, frequency spectrum and structure in the time domain (Figs. 2–5).

The emission of vibrational songs from singing insects on plants is simulated. A small magnet is glued to the surface of the plant and moved by means of an electromagnet about one cm away (Fig. 1). The vibrations are recorded by means of laser vibrometry. The propagation velocity of the vibrations increases with the square root of frequency, i.e. in the way expected for bending waves.

The mechanical properties of plants ranging from soft bean plants to stiff reeds and maples are measured. The results are used for calculating the theoretical propagation velocities of bending waves. The measured and the calculated values are rather close (Table 1). Although the mechanical properties of the plants studied vary widely, the propagation velocities at a certain frequency are of the same order of magnitude (Table 1).

In all the plants studied, only little vibrational energy is lost by friction at frequencies below some kHz. Communication by means of bending waves is possible over distances of some meters. The bending waves are reflected with little loss of energy both from the root and from the top of the plant. The vibration signals may therefore travel up and down the plant several times before decaying completely (Fig. 7). The vibration at a certain spot on the plant depends not only on the distance to and nature of the emitter, but also on the modes of vibration of the plant. The amplitude of vibration does not decrease monotonically with distance from the emitter (Fig. 6).

These filtering properties of the plants mean that it is essentially impossible to predict which frequencies in the signals will be amplified or attenuated in the plant at the location of the receiving animal. The vibrational signals recorded from the animals cover wide frequency bandwidths. The signals are therefore well adapted to the filtering properties of the plants, but the signals of the species studied here do not appear to be particularly adapted to specific properties of the host plants.

The muscular power needed for communication by means of various types of vibrational signals is calculated. The result of this calculation supports the conclusion that the signals recorded here are carried by means of bending waves.

The communication strategies open to small insects are considered. Vibrational signals appear to be an efficient means of communication, but only certain types of signals are suited, because the plants cause a considerable distortion of the signals. One kind of distortion, the dispersive property, may — in theory — be used by the listening animals to obtain information about the direction and distance to the singing animals.

Keywords

Frequency Spectrum Propagation Velocity Communication Strategy Vibrational Energy Vibration Signal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alonso M, Finn EJ (1972) Physics, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell PD (1980) Transmission of vibrations along plant stems: Implications for insect communication. J NY Entomol Soc 88:210–216Google Scholar
  3. Brownell P, Farley RD (1979) Detection of vibrations in sand by tarsal sense organs of the nocturnal scorpion, Paruroctonus mesaenis. J Comp Physiol 131:23–30Google Scholar
  4. Chvála M, Doskoěil J, Mook JH, Pokorný V (1974) The genus Lipara Meigen (Diptera, Chloropidae), systematics, morphology, behaviour, and ecology. Tijdschr Entomol 117:1–25Google Scholar
  5. Čokl A, Amon T (1980) Vibratory interneurons in the central nervous system of Nezara viridula L. (Pentatomidae, Heteroptera). J Comp Physiol 139:87–95Google Scholar
  6. Čokl A, Kalmring K, Wittig H (1977) The response of auditory ventralcord neurons of Locusta migratoria to vibration stimuli. J Comp Physiol 120:161–172Google Scholar
  7. Čokl A, Gogala M, Blaževič A (1978) Principles of sound recognition in three pentatomide bug species (Heteroptera). Biol Vestn 26:81–94Google Scholar
  8. Cremer L, Heckl M, Ungar EE (1973) Structure-borne sound. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Devetak D, Gogala M, Čokl A (1978) A contribution to the physiology of vibration receptors in the bugs of the family Cydnidae (Heteroptera). Biol Vestr 26:131–139 (in Slovene)Google Scholar
  10. Drašlar K, Gogala M (1976) Structure of stridulatory organs from the family Cydnidae (Heteroptera). Biol Vestn 24:175–200 (in Slovene)Google Scholar
  11. Ewing M, Press F (1956) Surface waves and guided waves. In: Flügge S (ed) Encyclopedia of physics, vol 47 (Geophysics I). Springer, Berlin Göttingen Heidelberg, pp 119–139Google Scholar
  12. Gogala M (1969) Die akustische Kommunikation bei der Wanze Tritomegas bicolor (L.) (Heteroptera, Cydnidae). Z Vergl Physiol 63:379–391Google Scholar
  13. Gogala M (1970) Artsspezificität der Lautäußerungen bei Erdwanzen (Heteroptera, Cydnidae). Z Vergl Physiol 70:20–28Google Scholar
  14. Gogala M (1978) Acoustic signals of four bug species of the family Cydnidae (Heteroptera). Biol Vestn 26:153–168 (in Slovene)Google Scholar
  15. Gogala M, Čokl A, Drašlar K, Blaževič A (1974) Substrate-borne sound communication in Cydnidae (Heteroptera). J Comp Physiol 94:25–31Google Scholar
  16. Ichikawa T (1976) Mutual communication by substrate vibrations in the mating behavior of planthoppers (Homoptera, Delphacidae). Appl Entomol Zool 11:8–21Google Scholar
  17. Ichikawa T (1979) Studies on the mating behavior of the four species of Auchenorrhynchous Homoptera which attack the rice plant. Mem Fac Agric Kagawa Univ 34:1–58Google Scholar
  18. Jensen M (1956) Biology and physics of locust flight. III. The aerodynamics of locust flight. Philos Trans R Soc Lond [Biol] 239:511–552Google Scholar
  19. Kühne R, Lewis B, Kalmring K (1980) The responses of ventral cord neurons of Decticus verrucivorus (L.) to sound and vibration stimuli. Behav Proc 5:55–74Google Scholar
  20. Land MF (1981) Optics and vision in invertebrates. In: Autrum H (ed) Handbook of sensory physiology, vol VII/6B. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 471–592Google Scholar
  21. Markl H (1968) Die Verständigung durch Stridulationssignale bei Blattschneiderameisen. II. Erzeugung und Eigenschaften der Signale. Z Vergl Physiol 60:103–150Google Scholar
  22. Markl H (1973) Leistungen des Vibrationssinnes bei wirbellosen Tieren. Fortschr Zool 21:100–120Google Scholar
  23. Michelsen A (1978) Sound reception in different environments. In: Ali MA (ed) Sensory ecology, review and perspectives. Plenum Press, New York London, pp 345–373Google Scholar
  24. Michelsen A, Larsen ON (1978) Biophysics of the ensiferan ear. I. Tympanal vibrations in bushcrickets (Tettigoniidae) studied with laser vibrometry. J Comp Physiol 123:193–203Google Scholar
  25. Michelsen A, Nocke H (1974) Biophysical aspects of sound communication in insects. Adv Insect Physiol 10:247–296Google Scholar
  26. Ossiannilsson F (1949) Insect drummers. Opusc Entomol (Suppl) 10:1–145Google Scholar
  27. Rupprecht R (1968) Das Trommeln von Plecopteren. Z Vergl Physiol 59:38–71Google Scholar
  28. Strübing H (1977) Lauterzeugung oder Substratvibration als Kommunikationsmittel bei Kleinzikaden? Zool Beitr 23:323–332Google Scholar
  29. Traue D (1978a) Zur Biophysik der Schallabstrahlung bei Kleinzikaden am Beispiel von Euscelis incisus (Homoptera-Cicadina: Jassidae). Zool Beitr NF 24:155–164Google Scholar
  30. Traue D (1978b) Vibrationskommunikation bei Euides speciosa Boh. (Homoptera-Cicadina: Delphacidae). Verh Dtsch Zool Ges 1978:167Google Scholar
  31. Wiley RH, Richards DG (1978) Physical constraints on acoustic communication in the atmosphere: Implications for the evolution of animal vocalizations. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 3:69–94Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Axel Michelsen
    • 1
  • Flemming Fink
    • 1
  • Matija Gogala
    • 2
  • Dieter Traue
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of BiologyOdense UniversityOdense MDenmark
  2. 2.Institute of BiologyUniversity E. KardeljLjubljanaYugoslavia
  3. 3.Institut für Allgemeine ZoologieFreie UniversitätBerlin

Personalised recommendations