Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 431–440 | Cite as

the effect of pair formation on diel calling patterns in two cricket species,Gryllus veletis andGryllodes sigillatus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae)

  • Dianne M. Burpee
  • Scott K. Sakaluk
Article

Abstract

After pair formation, male crickets should reduce calling to minimize the risks to males of attracting predators and/or rivals. We tested this hypothesis in two cricket species, one in which males exhibit a high mating propensity (Gryllus veletis)and another in which the mating propensity of males is constrained by the manufacture of elaborate, bipartite spermatophores (Gryllodes sigillatus).Calling durations of male G. veletisdeclined precipitously after the introduction of females but remained unchanged in G. sigillatus.We attribute the asymmetric effect of female proximity on male calling to differences in the mating propensity of males of the two species. Male G. veletisabstain from further calling in favor of repeated matings with the same female. Male G. sigillatusprobably lack the opportunity to mate repeatedly with the same female and, thus, resume calling shortly after mating to increase their probability of attracting additional mates.

Key words

acoustic signaling crickets mating spermatophore Gryllodes sigillatus Gryllus veletis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander, R. D. (1962). Evolutionary change in cricket acoustical communication.Evolution 16: 443–467.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, R. D. (1967). Acoustical communication in arthropods.Annu. Rev. Entomol. 12: 495–526.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, R. D., and Meral, G. H. (1967). Seasonal and daily chirping cycles in the northern spring and fall field crickets,Gryllus veletis and Gpennsylvanicus.Ohio J. Sci. 67: 200–209.Google Scholar
  4. Backus, V. L., and Cade, W. H. (1986). Sperm competition in the field cricketGryllus integer (Orthoptera: Gryllidae).Fla. Entomol. 69: 722–728.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, P. D. (1979). Acoustic attraction of herons by crickets.J. N.Y. Entomol. Soc. 87: 126–127.Google Scholar
  6. Belwood, J. J., and Morris, G. K. (1987). Bat predation and its influence on calling behavior in neotropical katydids.Science 238: 64–67.Google Scholar
  7. Boake, C. R. B. (1983). Mating systems and signals in crickets. 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. 28–44.Google Scholar
  8. Burk, T. (1988). Acoustic signals, arms races and the costs of honest signalling.Fla. Entomol. 71: 400–409.Google Scholar
  9. Burpee, D. M., and Sakaluk, S. K. (1993). Repeated matings offset costs of reproduction in female crickets.Evol. Ecol. 7: in press.Google Scholar
  10. Cade, W. (1975). Acoustically orienting parasitoids: Fly phonotaxis to cricket song.Science 190: 1312–1313.Google Scholar
  11. Cade, W. (1979). The evolution of alternative male reproductive strategies in field crickets. In Blum, M. S., and Blum, N. A. (eds.),Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects, Academic Press, New York, pp. 343–379.Google Scholar
  12. Cade, W. (1980). Alternative male reproductive behaviors.Fla. Entomol. 63: 30–45.Google Scholar
  13. Cade, W. H. (1985). Insect mating and courtship behaviour. In Kerkut, G. A., and Gilbert, L. I. (eds.),Comprehensive Insect Physiology, Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 591–619.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. French, B. W., and Cade, W. H. (1987). The timing of calling, movement, and mating in the field cricketsGryllus veletis, G. pennsylvanicus, and G.integer.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 21: 157–162.Google Scholar
  16. Heath, J. E., and Josephson, R. K. (1970). Body temperature and singing in the katydid,Neoconocephalus robustus (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae).Biol. Bull. 138: 272–285.Google Scholar
  17. Hedrick, A. V. (1986). Female preferences for male calling bout duration in a field cricket.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 19: 73–77.Google Scholar
  18. Hissmann, K. (1990). Strategies of mate finding in the European field cricket (Gryllus campestris) at different population densities: A field study.Ecol. Entomol. 15: 281–291.Google Scholar
  19. Huber, F. (1962). Central nervous control of sound production in crickets and some speculation on its evolution.Evolution 16: 429–442.Google Scholar
  20. Kavanagh, M. W. (1987). The efficiency of sound production in two cricket species,Gryllotalpa australis andTeleogryllus commodus (Orthoptera: Grylloidea).J. Exp. Biol. 130: 107–119.Google Scholar
  21. Kidder, G. W., III, and Sakaluk, S. K. (1989). Simple and inexpensive electronic device for automatic recording and analysis of insect acoustical activity.Fla. Entomol. 72: 642–649.Google Scholar
  22. Loher, W. (1974). Circadian control of spermatophore formation in the cricketTeleogryllus commodus Walker.J. Insect Physiol. 20: 1155–1172.Google Scholar
  23. Loher, W., and Rence, B. (1978). The mating behavior ofTeleogryllus commodus (Walker) and its central and peripheral control.Z. Tierpsychol. 46: 225–259.Google Scholar
  24. Otte, D. (1977). Communication in Orthoptera. In Sebeok, T. A. (ed.),How Animals Communicate, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp. 334–361.Google Scholar
  25. Otte, D., and Alexander, R. D. (1983).The Australian Crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae), Monograph 22, Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  26. Parker, G. A., Simmons, L. W., and Kirk, H. (1990). Analysing sperm competition data: Simple models for predicting mechanisms.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 27: 55–65.Google Scholar
  27. Popov, A. V., and Shuvalov, V. F. (1977). Phonotactic behavior of crickets.J. Comp. Physiol. A 119: 111–126.Google Scholar
  28. 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. B 143: 199–212.Google Scholar
  29. Rost, R., and Honegger, H. W. (1987). The timing of premating and mating behavior in a field population of the cricketGryllus campestris L.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 21: 279–289.Google Scholar
  30. Sakaluk, S. K. (1984). Male crickets feed females to ensure complete sperm transfer.Science 223: 609–610.Google Scholar
  31. Sakaluk, S. K. (1985). Spermatophore size and its role in the reproductive behaviour of the cricket,Gryllodes supplicans (Orthoptera: Gryllidae).Can. J. Zool. 63: 1652–1656.Google Scholar
  32. Sakaluk, S. K. (1986). Sperm competition and the evolution of nuptial feeding behavior in the cricket,Gryllodes supplicans (Walker).Evolution 40: 584–593.Google Scholar
  33. Sakaluk, S. K. (1987). Reproductive behaviour of the decorated cricket,Gryllodes supplicans (Orthoptera: Gryllidae): Calling schedules, spatial distribution, and mating.Behaviour 100: 202–225.Google Scholar
  34. Sakaluk, S. K. (1990). Sexual selection and predation: Balancing reproductive and survival needs. In Evans, D. L., and Schmidt, J. O. (eds.),Insect Defenses: Adaptive Mechanisms and Strategies of Prey and Predators, State University of New York Press, Albany, pp. 63–90.Google Scholar
  35. Sakaluk, S. K. (1991). Post-copulatory mate guarding in decorated crickets.Anim. Behav. 41: 207–216.Google Scholar
  36. Sakaluk, S. K., and Belwood, J. J. (1984). Gecko phonotaxis to cricket calling song: A case of satellite predation.Anim. Behav. 32: 659–662.Google Scholar
  37. Sakaluk, S. K., and Cade, W. H. (1980). Female mating frequency and progeny production in singly and doubly mated house and field crickets.Can. J. Zool. 58: 404–411.Google Scholar
  38. Sakaluk, S. K., and Cade, W. H. (1983). The adaptive significance of female multiple matings in house and field crickets. 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. 319–336.Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. SAS Institute Inc. (1988).SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 6.03 Edition, SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  41. Simmons, L. W. (1987). Sperm competition as a mechanism of female choice in the field cricket,Gryllus bimaculatus.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 21: 197–202.Google Scholar
  42. Snedden, W. A., and Sakaluk, S. K. (1992). Acoustical signalling and its relation to male mating success in sagebrush crickets.Anim. Behav. 44: 633–639.Google Scholar
  43. Walker, T. J., Jr. (1957). Specificity in the response of female tree crickets (Orthoptera, Gryllidae, Oecanthinae) to calling songs of the males.Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 50: 626–636.Google Scholar
  44. Walker, T. J. (1964). Experimental demonstration of a cat locating orthopteran prey by the prey's calling song.Fla. Entomol. 47: 163–165.Google Scholar
  45. Walker, T. J. (1983a). 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
  46. Walker, T. J. (1983b). Mating modes and female choice in short-tailed crickets(Anurogryllus arboreus). 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. 240–267.Google Scholar
  47. Walker, T. J. (1989). A live trap for monitoringEuphasiopteryx and tests withE. ochracea (Diptera: Tachinidae).Fla. Entomol. 72: 314–319.Google Scholar
  48. Zuk, M. (1987). The effects of gregarine parasites, body size, and time of day on spermatophore production and sexual selection in field crickets.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 21: 65–72.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dianne M. Burpee
    • 1
  • Scott K. Sakaluk
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecology Group, Department of Biological SciencesIllinois State UniversityNormal

Personalised recommendations