Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 233–243 | Cite as

Phonotactic parasitoids and cricket song structure: An evaluation of alternative hypotheses

  • John T. Rotenberry
  • Marlene Zuk
  • Leigh W. Simmons
  • Cassandra Hayes
Article

Summary

Calling characteristics of field crickets (Teleogryllus oceanicus) differ between Pacific populations parasitized and unparasitized by a phonotactic fly (Ormia ochracea). Although we inferred that these song differences were due to natural selection by the fly, other environmental differences among sampling localities may also influence the cricket song. To evaluate the contribution of parasitoid pressure to variation in song structure, we analysed calls of crickets from five areas arrayed along a gradient of prevalence of parasitization. A novel use of canonical correlation analysis allowed us to test simultaneously the robustness of alternative hypotheses and their predictions. There is strong inference that selection pressures by phonotactic parasitoid flies have shaped song characteristics of field crickets in the Hawaiian Islands. Not all song components appear to have been equally affected by parasitoid selection and approximately 80–90% of total song variation among individuals is associated with other, unmeasured ecological and environmental attributes.

Keywords

acoustically orienting parasitoid canonical correlation cricket song redundancy analysis Ormia ochracea Teleogryllus oceanicus 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, T.H.F. and Starr, T.B. (1983)Hierarchy:Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  2. Cade, W. (1975) Acoustically orienting parasitoids: fly phonotaxis to cricket song.Science 190 1312–13.Google Scholar
  3. Cade, W. 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
  4. Cooley, W.W. and Lohnes, P.R. (1971)Multivariate Data Analysis. John Wiley, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  5. Dayton, P.K. and Tegner, M.J. (1984) The importance of scale in community ecology: a kelp forest example with terrestrial analogs. InA new ecology: novel approaches to interactive systems (P.W. Price, C.N. Slobodchikoff and W.S. Gaud, eds), pp. 457–81. John Wiley, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  6. Kevan, D.K. McE. (1990) Introduced crickets and grasshoppers in Micronesia.Boletin de Sanidad Vegetal Plagas (Fuera de serie)20 105–23.Google Scholar
  7. Otte, D. (1992) Evolution of cricket songs.J. Orthopt. Res. 1 25–49.Google Scholar
  8. Otte, D. and Alexander, R.D. (1983) The Australian crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae).Acad. Natl Sci. Philadelphia Monogr. 22. Google Scholar
  9. Robert, D., Amoroso, J. and Hoy, R.R. (1992) The evolutionary convergence of hearing in a parasitoid fly and its cricket host.Science 258 1135–7.Google Scholar
  10. Ryan, M. (1985)The Tungara Frog:A Study in Sexual Selection and Communication. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  11. Sabrosky, C.W. (1953a) Taxonomy and host relations of the tribe Ormiini in the western hemisphere.Proc. Entomol. Soc. Washington 55 167–83.Google Scholar
  12. Sabrosky, C.W. (1953b) Taxonomy and host relations of the tribe Ormiini in the western hemisphere II.Proc. Entomol. Soc. Washington 55 289–305.Google Scholar
  13. Sakaluk, S.K. (1990) Sexual selection and predation: balancing reproductive and survival needs. InInsect defenses (D.L. Evans and J.O. Schmidt, eds), pp. 63–90. SUNY, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  14. SAS Institute Inc. (1988)SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 6.03 Edition. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  15. Stewart, D.K. and Love, W.A. (1968) A general canonical correlation index.Psychol. Bull. 70 160–3.Google Scholar
  16. Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (1983)Using Multivariate Statistics. Harper and Row, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  17. Walker, T.J. (1975) Effects of temperature on rates in poikilotherm nervous systems: evidence from the calling songs of meadow katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae:Orchelimum) and reanalysis of published data.J. Comp. Physiol. 101 57–69.Google Scholar
  18. Walker, T.J. (1983) Diel patterns of calling in nocturnal orthoptera. InOrthopteran mating systems:sexual competition in a diverse group of insects (D.T. Gwynne and G.K. Morris, eds), pp. 45–72. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  19. Walker, T.J. (1993) Phonotaxis in femaleOrmia ochracea (Diptera: Tachinidae), a parasitoid of field crickets.J. Insect Behav. 6 389–410.Google Scholar
  20. Walker, T.J. and Wineriter, S.A. (1991) Hosts of a phonotactic parasitoid and levels of parasitism (Diptera: Tachinidae:Ormia ochracea).Fla. Entomol. 74 554–9.Google Scholar
  21. Wiens, J.A., Rotenberry, J.T. and Van Horne, B. (1987) Habitat occupancy patterns of shrubsteppe birds: the effects of spatial scale.Oikos 48 132–47.Google Scholar
  22. Zuk, M., Simmons, L.W. and Cupp, L. (1993) Calling characteristics of parasitized and unparasitized populations of the field cricketTeleogryllus oceanicus.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 33 339–43.Google Scholar
  23. Zuk. M., Simmons, L.W. and Rotenberry, J.T. (1995) Parasitization of calling and silent males in the field cricketTeleogryllus oceanicus by an acoustically-orienting parasitoid.Ecol. Entomol. in press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • John T. Rotenberry
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marlene Zuk
    • 2
  • Leigh W. Simmons
    • 3
  • Cassandra Hayes
    • 2
  1. 1.Natural Reserve SystemUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA
  3. 3.Department of Environmental and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations