Novel system of communication in crickets originated at the same time as bat echolocation and includes male-male multimodal communication
Understanding the evolutionary origins of communication signals requires careful study of multiple species within a known phylogenetic framework. Most cricket species produce low-frequency calls for mate attraction, whereas they startle to high-frequency sounds similar to bat echolocation. Male crickets in the tribe Lebinthini produce high-frequency calls, to which females reply with vibrational signals. This novel communication system likely evolved by male sensory exploitation of acoustic startle to high-frequency sounds in females. This behavior was previously described for the Lebinthini from Asia. Here we demonstrate that this novel communication system is found in a Neotropical species, Ponca hebardi, and is therefore likely shared by the whole tribe Lebinthini, dating the origin of this behavior to coincide with the origin of echolocation in bats. Furthermore, we document male duets involving both acoustic and vibratory signals not previously described in crickets, and we tentatively interpret it as competitive masking between males.
KeywordsOrthoptera Predation High-frequency calls Vibrational signals Multimodal duets
We thank the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute staff for logistical assistance during field collections on Barro Colorado Island (Panamá). Specimens were collected under scientific permit No.SEX/A-27-17 from the Ministerio de Ambiente de Panama. We thank Stefan Schöneich for advice and Marion Guillaume for cricket maintenance assistance in MNHN.
TR collected the specimens. J.L.B.-L. conducted behavioral recording experiments. All authors contributed to the conception, design, analysis, and writing.
The study was realized as part of the PhD project of JLBL, funded by Colciencias scholarship (756–2016). Field work in Panama was possible thanks to a grant from Actions Transversales du Muséum (MNHN).
Compliance with ethical standards
All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.
- Bailey W, Macleay C, Gordon T (2006) Acoustic mimicry and disruptive alternative calling tactics in an Australian bush cricket (Caedicia; Phaneropterinae; Tettigoniidae; Orthoptera): does mating influence male calling tactic? Physiol Entomol 31:201–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3032.2006.00501.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bailey WJ (1991) Acoustic behaviour of insects. An evolutionary perspective, Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Bennet-Clark HC (1989) Songs and the physics of sound production. In: Huber F, Moore TE, Loher W (eds) Cricket behavior and neurobiology. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca and London, pp 227–261Google Scholar
- Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (2011) Principles of animal communication, Second edn. Sinauer, Sunderland MAGoogle Scholar
- Cocroft R B, Gogala M, Hill PS, & Wessel A (Eds). (2014). Studying vibrational communication (Vol. 3). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Robillard T, Desutter-Grandcolas L (2004b) Evolution of acoustic communication in crickets: phylogeny of Eneopterinae reveals an adaptive radiation involving high-frequency calling (orthoptera, grylloidea, eneopteridae). An Acad Bras Cienc 76:297–300. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0001-37652004000200018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ryan MJ, Cummings ME (2013) Perceptual biases and mate choice. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 44:437–459. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135901 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Searcy WA, Nowicki S (2005) The evolution of animal communication: reliability and deception in signaling systems. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJGoogle Scholar
- Specht R (2008) Avisoft-SASlab pro: sound analysis and synthesis laboratory, BerlinGoogle Scholar