Advertisement

The Science of Nature

, 107:9 | Cite as

Novel system of communication in crickets originated at the same time as bat echolocation and includes male-male multimodal communication

  • Jose Luis Benavides-Lopez
  • Hannah ter Hofstede
  • Tony RobillardEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Orthoptera Predation High-frequency calls Vibrational signals Multimodal duets 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

Authors’ contributions

TR collected the specimens. J.L.B.-L. conducted behavioral recording experiments. All authors contributed to the conception, design, analysis, and writing.

Funding information

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

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

References

  1. 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
  2. Bailey WJ (1991) Acoustic behaviour of insects. An evolutionary perspective, Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Bertram SM, Rook VLM, Fitzsimmons LP (2010) Strutting their stuff: victory displays in the spring field cricket, Gryllus veletis. Behaviour 147:1249–1266.  https://doi.org/10.1163/000579510X514535 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (2011) Principles of animal communication, Second edn. Sinauer, Sunderland MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown WD, Smith AT, Moskalik B, Gabriel J (2006) Aggressive contests in house crickets: size, motivation and the information content of aggressive songs. Anim Behav 72:225–233.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.01.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christy JH, Schober U, Backwell PRY (2003) Interspecific attractiveness of structures built by courting male fiddler crabs: experimental evidence of a sensory trap. Anim Behav 53:84–91.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-002-0553-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cocroft R B, Gogala M, Hill PS, & Wessel A (Eds). (2014). Studying vibrational communication (Vol. 3). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Fleishman LJ (1992) The influence of the sensory system and the environment on motion patterns in the visual displays of anoline lizards and other vertebrates. Am Nat 139:S36–S61.  https://doi.org/10.1086/285304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Legendre F, Marting PR, Cocroft RB (2012) Competitive masking of vibrational signals during mate searching in a treehopper. Anim Behav 83:361–368.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mazzoni V, Lucchi A, Čokl A et al (2009a) Disruption of the reproductive behaviour of Scaphoideus titanus by playback of vibrational signals. Entomol Exp Appl 133:174–185.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2009.00911.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mazzoni V, Prěsern J, Lucchi A, Virant-Doberlet M (2009b) Reproductive strategy of the Nearctic leafhopper Scaphoideus titanus ball (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae). Bull Entomol Res 99:401–413.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485308006408 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Mc Gregor PK (2005) Animal communication networks. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McCarthy TM, Keyes J, Cade WH (2013) Phonotactic behavior of male field crickets (Gryllus texensis) in response to acoustic calls from conspecific males. J Insect Behav 26:634–648.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10905-013-9375-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nakano R, Takanashi T, Surlykke A, Skals N, Ishikawa Y (2013) Evolution of deceptive and true courtship songs in moths. Sci Rep 3:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep02003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Polajnar J, Eriksson A, Valerio M et al (2014) The process of pair formation mediated by substrate-borne vibrations in a small insect. Behav Process 107:68–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.07.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Proctor HC (1992) Sensory exploitation and the evolution of male mating behaviour: a cladistic test using water mites (Acari: Parasitengona). Anim Behav 44:745–752.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80300-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rajaraman K, Godthi V, Pratap R, Balakrishnan R (2015) A novel acoustic-vibratory multimodal duet. J Exp Biol 218:3042–3050.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.122911 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Robillard T, Desutter-Grandcolas L (2004a) High-frequency calling in Eneopterinae crickets (Orthoptera, Grylloidea, Eneopteridae): adaptive radiation revealed by phylogenetic analysis. Biol J Linn Soc 83:577–584.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2004.00417.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Robillard T, Desutter-Grandcolas L (2005) A revision of Neotropical crickets (Orthoptera, Grylloidea, Eneopteridae). Insect Syst Evol:411–435.  https://doi.org/10.1163/187631204788912427 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rodd FH, Hughes KA, Grether GF, Baril CT (2002) A possible non-sexual origin of mate preference: are male guppies mimicking fruit? Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 269:475–481.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1891 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Searcy WA, Nowicki S (2005) The evolution of animal communication: reliability and deception in signaling systems. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJGoogle Scholar
  25. Shaw KC, Galliart PL, Smith B (1990) Acoustic behavior of Amblycorypha parvipennis ( Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae ). Ann Entomol Soc Am 83:617–625.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/83.3.617 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shaw KL (1995) Phylogenetic tests of the sensory exploitation model of sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 10:117–120.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-5347(00)89005-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Shi JJ, Rabosky DL (2015) Speciation dynamics during the global radiation of extant bats. Evolution (N Y) 69:1528–1545.  https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12681 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Specht R (2008) Avisoft-SASlab pro: sound analysis and synthesis laboratory, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  29. Sueur J, Aubin T, Simonis C (2008) Seewave: a free modular tool for sound analysis and synthesis. Bioacoustics 18:213–226.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09524622.2008.9753600 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tauber E (2001) Bidirectional communication system in katydids: the effect on chorus structure. Behav Ecol 12:308–312.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/12.3.308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ter Hofstede HM, Schöneich S, Robillard T, Hedwig B (2015) Evolution of a communication system by sensory exploitation of startle behavior. Curr Biol 25:3245–3252.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.10.064 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Thiagavel J, Cechetto C, Santana SE, Jakobsen L, Warrant EJ, Ratcliffe JM (2018) Auditory opportunity and visual constraint enabled the evolution of echolocation in bats. Nat Commun 9:9–10.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02532-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vicente N, Kergoat GJGJ, Dong J et al (2017) In and out of the Neotropics: historical biogeography of Eneopterinae crickets. J Biogeogr 44:2199–2210.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wyttenbach RA, May ML, Hoy RR (1996) Categorical perception of sound frequency by crickets. Science (80- ) 273:1542–1544  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.273.5281.1542 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut de Systématique, Evolution et Biodiversité (ISYEB), Muséum national d′Histoire naturelle, CNRSSorbonne Université, EPHE, Université des AntillesParis Cedex 05France
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesDartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA
  3. 3.Smithsonian Tropical Research InstituteAnconPanamá

Personalised recommendations