Advertisement

Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 361–377 | Cite as

Calling behavior in bushcrickets of the genusPoecilimon with differing communication systems (Orthoptera: Tettigonioidea, Phaneropteridae)

  • Klaus -Gerhard Heller
  • Dagmar von Helversen
Article

Abstract

In bushcricket communication systems males have to signal acoustically to attract females. The calling activity, however, not only may increase mating success, but also may result in costs in terms of energy and predation risks. In this study the calling activity of males and its timing during the day were analyzed for several species of the genus Poecilimon,representing two different communication systems. In species with mute females that approach the males phonotactically, calling was restricted to darkness and syllable rates were high. In species where females respond acoustically to male song and thus can induce the male to approach them phonotactically, males called during both day and night or during the day only, and syllable rates were low. After mating, male acoustic activity dropped to a very low level but was restored during the following 2 to 3 days, a time period longer than the minimal male mating interval. The results are discussed with regard to possible energetic limitations, the risk of attracting predators and parasitoids, and the spermatophore production of males.

Key words

Orthoptera Tettigonioidea acoustic communication mating behavior predation risk 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Achmann, R., Heller, K.-G., and Epplen, J. T. (1992). Last-male sperm precedence in the bushcricketPoecilimon veluchianus demonstrated by DNA fingerprinting.Mol. Ecol. 1:47–54.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, W. J. (1991).Acoustic Behaviour of Insects. An Evolutionary Perspective, Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  3. Bailey, W. J., and Rentz, D. C. F. (eds.) (1990).The Tettigoniidae. Biology, Systematics and Evolution, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey, W. J., and Robinson, D. (1971). Song as a possible isolating mechanism in the genusHomorocoryphus (Tettigonioidea, Orthoptera).Anim. Behav. 19: 390–397.Google Scholar
  5. Belwood, J. J. (1990). Anti-predator defences and ecology of neotropical forest katydids, especially the Pseudophyllinae. In Bailey, W. J., and Rentz, D. C. F. (eds.),The Tettigoniidae. Biology, Systematics and Evolution, Springer, Berlin, pp. 8–26.Google Scholar
  6. Belwood, J. J., and Morris, G. K. (1987). Bat predation and its influence on calling behavior in neotropical katydids.Science 238: 64–66.Google Scholar
  7. Burk, T. (1982). Evolutionary significance of predation on sexually signalling males.Fla. Entomol. 65: 90–104.Google Scholar
  8. Busnel, R.-G., Dumortier, B., and Busnel, M.-C. (1956). Recherches sur le comportement acoustique des Ephippigeres (Orthoptères, Tettigoniidae).Bull. Biol. Fr. Belg. 90: 221–286.Google Scholar
  9. Cade, W. H. (1991). Inter- and intraspecific variation in nightly calling durations in field crickets,Gryllus integer andG. rubens (Orthoptera: Gryllidae).J. Insect Behav. 4: 185–194.Google Scholar
  10. Cade, W. H., and Wyatt, D. R. (1984). Factors affecting calling behaviour in field crickets,Teleogryllus andGryllus (age, weight, density, and parasites).Behaviour 88: 61–75.Google Scholar
  11. Dodson, G. N., Morris, G. K., and Gwynne, D. T. (1983). Mating behaviour of the primitive Orthopteran genusCyphoderris (Haglidae). In Gwynne, D. T., and Morris, G. K. (eds.),Orthopteran Mating Systems. Sexual Competition in a Diverse Group of Insects, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 305–318.Google Scholar
  12. Dumortier, B. (1963). The physical characteristics of sound emissions in Arthropoda. In Busnel, R. G. (ed.),Acoustic Behaviour of Animals, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 346–556.Google Scholar
  13. Forrest, T. G. (1980). Phonotaxis in mole crickets: Its reproductive significance.Fla. Entomol. 63: 45–53.Google Scholar
  14. Forrest, T. G., and Green, D. M. (1991). Sexual selection and female choice in mole crickets (Scapteriscus: Gryllotalpidae): Modelling the effects of intensity and male spacing.Bioacoustics 3: 93–109.Google Scholar
  15. Gerhardt, H. C. (1988). Acoustic properties used in call recognition by frogs and toads. In Fritzsch, B., Ryan, M. J., Wilczynski, W., Hetherington, T., and Walkowiak, W. (eds.),The Evolution of the Amphibian Auditory System, John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 455–483.Google Scholar
  16. Greenfield, M. D. (1990). Evolution of acoustic communication in the genusNeoconocephalus: Discontinuous songs, synchrony, and interspecific interactions. In Bailey, W. J., and Rentz, D. C. F. (eds.),The Tettigoniidae. Biology, Systematics and Evolution, Springer, Berlin, pp. 71–97.Google Scholar
  17. Gwynne, D. T. (1977). Mating behavior ofNeoconocephalus ensiger (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) with notes on the calling song.Can. Entomol. 109: 237–242.Google Scholar
  18. Hartley, J. C., Robinson, D. J., and Warne, A. C. (1974). Female response song in the ephippigerinesSteropleurus stali andPlatystolus obvious.Anim. Behav. 22: 382–389.Google Scholar
  19. Hedrick, A. (1986). Female preferences for male calling bout duration in a field cricket.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 19: 73–77.Google Scholar
  20. Heller, K.-G. (1988).Bioakustik der europäischen Laubheuschrecken, J. Margraf, Weikersheim.Google Scholar
  21. Heller, K.-G. (1992). Risk shift between males and females in the pair-forming behavior of bushcrickets.Naturwissenschaften 79: 89–91.Google Scholar
  22. Heller, K.-G., and von Helversen, O. (1990). Survival of a phaneropterid bushcricket studied by a new marking technique.Entomol. Gener. 15: 203–208.Google Scholar
  23. Heller, K.-G., and von Helversen, D. (1991). Operational sex ratio and individual mating frequency in two species of bushcrickets (Orthoptera, Tettigonioidea,Poecilimon).Ethology 89: 211–228.Google Scholar
  24. Huber, F., Moore, T. E., and Loher, W. (eds.) (1989).Cricket Behavior and Neurobiology, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, and London.Google Scholar
  25. Klump, G. M., and Gerhardt, H. C. (1987). Use of non-arbitrary acoustic criteria in mate choice by female gray tree frogs.Nature 326: 286–288.Google Scholar
  26. Lakes-Harlan, R., and Heller, K.-G. (1992). Ultrasound sensitive ears in a parasitoid fly.Naturwissenschaften 79: 224–226.Google Scholar
  27. Loher, W. (1989). Temporal organization of reproductive behaviour. In Huber, F., Moore, T. E., and Loher, W. (eds.),Cricket Behavior and Neurobiology, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, and London, pp. 83–113.Google Scholar
  28. Meixner, A. J., and Shaw, K. C. (1986). Acoustic and associated behavior of the coneheaded katydid,Neoconocephalus nebrascensis (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae).Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 79: 554–565.Google Scholar
  29. Morris, G. K., Gwynne, D. T., Klimas, D. E., and Sakaluk, S. K. (1989). Virgin male mating advantage in a primitive acoustic insect (Orthoptera: Haglidae).J. Insect Behav. 2: 173–185.Google Scholar
  30. Prestwich, K. N., and Walker, T. J. (1981). Energetics of singing in crickets: Effect of temperature in three trilling species (Orthoptera: Gryllidae).J. Comp. Physiol. 143: 199–212.Google Scholar
  31. Popov, A. V., and Shuvalov, V. F. (1977). Phonotactic behavior of crickets.J. Comp. Physiol. 119: 111–126.Google Scholar
  32. Robinson, M. H. (1969). Defenses against visually hunting predators. In Dobzhansky, T., Hecht, M. K., and Steere, W. C. (eds.),Evolutionary Biology, Vol. III, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 225–259.Google Scholar
  33. Robinson, D. J. (1980). Acoustic communication between the sexes of the bush cricket,Leptophyes punctatissima.Physiol. Entomol. 5: 183–189.Google Scholar
  34. Römer, H., and Bailey, W. J. (1986). Insect hearing in the field. II. Male spacing behaviour and correlated acoustic cues in the bushcricketMygalopsis marki.J. Comp. Physiol. A 159: 627–638.Google Scholar
  35. Römer, H., Bailey, W. J., and Dadour, I. (1989). Insect hearing in the field. III. Masking by noise.J. Comp. Physiol. A 164: 609–620.Google Scholar
  36. Ryan, M. J. (1985).The Tungara Frog. A Study in Sexual Selection and Communication, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  37. Ryan, M. J. (1988). Energy, calling, and selection.Am. Zool. 28: 885–898.Google Scholar
  38. Sakaluk, S. K., and Snedden, W. A. (1990). Nightly calling durations of male sagebrush crickets,Cyphoderris strepitans: size, mating and seasonal effects.Oikos 57: 153–160.Google Scholar
  39. Sakaluk, S. K., Morris, G. K., and Snedden, W. A. (1987). Mating and its effect on acoustic signalling behaviour in a primitive orthopteran,Cyphoderris strepitans (Haglidae): The cost of feeding females.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 21: 173–178.Google Scholar
  40. Simmons, L. W. (1986). The calling song of the field cricket,Gryllus bimaculatus (De Geer): Constraints on transmission and its role in intermale competition and female choice.Anim. Behav. 36: 380–394.Google Scholar
  41. Simmons, L. W. (1990). Nuptial feeding in tettigoniids: Male costs and the rates of fecundity increase.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 27: 43–47.Google Scholar
  42. Stevens, E. D., and Josephson, R. K. (1977). Metabolic rate and body temperature in singing katydids.Physiol. Zool. 50: 31–42.Google Scholar
  43. Tuttle, M. D., and Ryan, M. J. (1980). Bat predation and the evolution of frog vocalizations in the neotropics.Science 214: 677–678.Google Scholar
  44. Ulagaraj, S. M., and Walker, T. J. (1975). Response of flying mole crickets to three parameters of synthetic songs broadcast outdoors.Nature 253: 530–531.Google Scholar
  45. von Heiversen, D. (1972). Gesang des Männchens und Lautschema des Weibchens bei der FeldheuschreckeChorthippus biguttulus.J. Comp. Physiol. 81: 381–422.Google Scholar
  46. von Heiversen, O., and von Heiversen, D. (1987). Innate receiver mechanisms in the acoustic communication of orthopteran insects. In Guthrie, D. M. (ed.),Aims and Methods in Neuroethology, Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp. 104–150.Google Scholar
  47. Walker, T. J. (1957). Specificity in the responses of female tree crickets (Orthoptera, Gryllidae, Oecanthinae) to calling songs of the males.Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 50: 626–636.Google Scholar
  48. Walker, T. J. (1983). Diel patterns of calling in nocturnal Orthoptera. In Gwynne, D. T., and Morris, G. K. (eds.),Orthopteran Mating Systems. Sexual Competition in a Diverse Group of Insects, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 45–72.Google Scholar
  49. Walker, T. J., and Whitesell, J. J. (1982): Singing schedules and sites for a tropical burrowing cricket (Anurogryllus muticus).Biotropica 14: 220–227.Google Scholar
  50. Willemse, F., and Heller, K.-G. (1992). Notes on systematics of Greek species ofPoecilimon Fischer, 1853 (Orthoptera: Phaneropterinae).Tijdsch. voor Entomol. 135: 299–315.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus -Gerhard Heller
    • 1
  • Dagmar von Helversen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Zoology IIUniversity of Erlangen-NürnbergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations