Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 437–449

The influence of female age on phonotaxis during single and multiple song presentations in the field cricket,Gryllus integer (Orthoptera: Gryllidae)

  • Melanie R. Prosser
  • Anne-Marie Murray
  • William H. Cade


The influence of age on variation in female phonontaxis in the field cricket,Gryllus integer, was investigated using a Kugel treadmill-type device. Synthetic male calling songs, with different pulse rates, were presented in both single-stimulus and three-stimulus designs. Females were either 11–14 or 25–28 days postecdysis. Females varied in motivation, or the degree of reproductive effort they exhibited, but only in single-stimulus trials: older females achieved higher scores than younger females. Females varied in selectivity, or the extent to which they discriminated among potential mates, in both presentation designs. All females discriminated against atypical pulse rates. In multiple-stimulus trials with normal range pulse rates, younger females were discriminatory; older females were not. Mated females showed reduced phonotaxis and selectivity irrespective of mating interval.

Key words

female choice phonotaxis age selectivity Gryllus 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alexander, R. D. (1957). The taxonomy of the field crickets of the eastern United States (Orthoptera: Gryllidae:Acheta).Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 50: 584–602.Google Scholar
  2. Berglund, A. (1993). The operational sex ratio influences choosiness in a pipefish.Behav. Ecol. 5: 254–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burpee, D. M., and Sakaluk, S. K. (1993). Repeated matings offset costs of reproduction in female crickets.Evol. Biol. 7: 240–250.Google Scholar
  4. Cade, W. H. (1976). Male reproductive competition and sexual selection in the field cricketGryllus integer, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  5. Cade, W. H. (1979). Effect of male deprivation on female phonotaxis in field crickets (Orthoptera: Grylidae:Gryllus).Can. Entomol. 111: 741–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caswell, H. (1982). Optimal life histories and the age-specific costs of reproduction.J. Theor. Biol. 98: 519–529.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doherty, J. A. (1985). Phonotaxis in the cricket,Gryllus bimaculatus De Geer: Comparison of choice and no-choice paradigms.J. Comp. Physiol. A 157: 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doherty, J. A., and Pires, A. (1987). A new microcomputer-based method for measuring walking phonotaxis in field crickets (Gryllidae).J. Exp. Biol. 130: 425–432.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Doherty, J. A., and Storz, M. M. (1992). Calling song and selective phonotaxis in the field crickets,Gryllus firmus andG. pennsylvanicus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae).J. Insect Behav. 5: 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. French, B. W., and Cade, W. H. (1987). The timing of calling, movement, and mating in the field cricketsGryllus veletis, G. pennsylvanicus, andG. integer.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 21: 157–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Loher, W., and Dambach, M. (1989). Reproductive behavior. In Huber, F., Moore, T. E., and Loher, W. (eds.),Cricket Behavior and Neurobiology, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 43–82.Google Scholar
  12. Morris, G. K., Kerr, G. E., and Gwynne, D. T. (1975). Ontogeny of phonotaxis inOrchelium gladiator (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae: Concephalinae).Can. J. Zool. 53: 1127–1130.Google Scholar
  13. Morris, G. K., Kerr, G. E., and Fullard, J. H. (1977). Phonotactic preferences of female meadow katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae:Conocephalus nigropleurum).Can. J. Zool. 56: 1479–1487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pollack, G. S., and Hoy, R. R. (1979). Phonotaxis to individual rhythmic components of a complex cricket calling song.J. Comp. Physiol. A 144: 367–373.Google Scholar
  15. Popov, A. V., and Shuvalov, V. F. (1977). Phonotactic behavior of crickets.J. Comp. Physiol. 119: 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Prosser, M. (1994).Effect of Age on Female Choice in the Field Cricket, Gryllus integer, M.Sc. dissertation, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario.Google Scholar
  17. Ryan, M. J., and Keddy-Hector, A. (1992). Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases.Am. Nat. (Suppl.) 139: s4-s35.Google Scholar
  18. Sakaluk, S. K. (1984). Male crickets feed females to ensure complete sperm transfer.Science 223: 609–610.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. (eds.),Orthopteran Mating Systems: Sexual Competition in a Diverse Group of Insects, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 319–336.Google Scholar
  20. Shelly, T. E., and Bailey, W. J. (1992). Experimental manipulation of mate choice by male katydids: The effect of female encounter rate.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 30: 277–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Simmons, L. W. (1988). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Simmons, L. W., and Zuk, M. (1992). Variability in call structure and pairing success of male field crickets,Gryllus bimaculatus: The effect of age, size and parasite load.Anim. Behav. 44: 1145–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Solymar, B., and Cade, W. H. (1990). Age of first mating in field cricketsGryllus integer (Orthoptera: Gryllidae).Fla. Entomol. 73(1): 193–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Souroukis, K. (1990).Sources of Natural Variation in the Calling Song of Gryllus integer, B.Sc. thesis, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario.Google Scholar
  25. Souroukis, K., and Murray, A.-M. (1995). Female mating behavior in the field cricket,Gryllus pennsylvanicus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae), at different operational sex-ratios.J. Insect Behav. 8: 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Souroukis, K., Cade, W. H., and Rowell, G. (1992). Factors that possibly influence variation in the calling song of field crickets: Temperature, time and male size, age and wing morphology.Can. J. Zool. 70: 950–955.Google Scholar
  27. Stearns, S. C. (1992).The Evolution of Life Histories, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Stout, J. F., and McGhee, R. (1988). Attractiveness of the maleAcheta domestica calling song to females.J. Comp. Physiol. A 164: 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thorson, J., Weber, T., and Huber, F. (1982). Auditory behavior of the cricket. II. Simplicity of calling-sond recognition inGryllus, and anomalous phonotaxis at abnormal carrier frequencies.J. Comp. Physiol. 146: 361–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wagner, W. E., Jr., Murray, A.-M., and Cade, W. H. (1995). Phenotypic variation in the mating preferences of female field crickets,Gryllus integer.Anim. Behav. 49: 1269–1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Walikonis, R., Schoun, D., Zacharias, D., Henley, J., Coburn, P., and Stout, J. (1991). Attractiveness of the maleAcheta domesticus calling song to females. III. The relation of age-correlated changes in syllable period recognition and phonotactic threshold to juvenile hormone III biosynthesis.J. Comp. Physiol. A 169: 751–764.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walker, T. J. (1962). Factors responsible for intraspecific variation in the calling songs of crickets.Evolution 16: 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilkinson, L. (1989).SYSTAT: The System for Statistics, SYSTAT, Inc., Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
  34. Zar, J. H. (1984).Biostatistical Analysis, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melanie R. Prosser
    • 1
  • Anne-Marie Murray
    • 1
  • William H. Cade
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesBrock UniversitySt. CatharinesCanada
  2. 2.Department of BiologyMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations