Journal of Ethology

, 28:141

Mate choice in field crickets: can females acoustically detect male body size?

Article

Abstract

Females can potentially choose high-quality males by evaluating male secondary sexual traits such as acoustic signals. In field crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae), body size is thought to indicate male quality. Song carrier frequency (FQ) has been suggested to indicate male body size because the areas of the wing that control FQ (harp) scale with body size. However, no direct evidence showing that males can advertise their size via FQ exists for grylline crickets. Firstly, we show the lack of evidence indicating a clear relationship between FQ and body size for grylline crickets by conducting a literature review. We then calculate the three-way relationship between body size, harp size and FQ and show no relationship between FQ and body size for Gryllus bimaculatus. Eight other commonly measured song parameters also failed to indicate body size. Individual female preference functions for FQ are calculated and we demonstrate that females cannot select large males on the basis of FQ. Furthermore, we demonstrate that variation in male FQ falls within the range of female preference at the population level. Females probably cannot evaluate male body size based on the temporal and spectral properties of male calling song and alternative avenues of study are suggested.

Keywords

Body size Female preference Gryllus bimaculatus Harp size Mate choice Song frequency Spectral bandwidth 

References

  1. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey WJ, Cunningham RR, Lebel L (1990) Song power, spectral distribution and female phonotaxis in the bush cricket Requena verticalis (Tettigonidae: Orthoptera): active choice or passive attraction. Anim Behav 40:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateman PW, Ferguson Gilson LN, WH J (2001) Male size and sequential mate preference in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Anim Behav 61:631–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman PW, Ferguson JWH, Ferreira M (2004) The influence of physical and acoustic experience on sequential mate preference in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Is song important? J Ins Behav 17:843–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batschelet E (1981) Circular statistics in biology. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Baugh AT, Akre KL, Ryan MJ (2008) Categorical perception of a natural, multivariate signals: mating call recognition in Túngara frogs. PNAS 105:8985–8988CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker WA (1984) Manual of quantitative genetics, 4th edn. Academic Enterprises, PullmanGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennet-Clark HC (1989) Songs and the physics of sound production. In: Huber F, Moore TE, Loher W (eds) Cricket behavior and neurobiology. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  9. Bennet-Clark HC (2003) Wing resonances in the Australian field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. J Exp Biol 206:1479–1496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown WD, Wideman J, Andrade MCB, Mason AC, Gwynne DT (1996) Female choice for an indicator of male size in the song of the black-horned tree cricket, Oecanthus nigricornis (Orthoptera: Gryllidae: Oecanthinae). Evolution 50:2400–2411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Del Castillo RC, Gwynne DT (2007) Increase in song frequency decreases spermatophore size: correlative evidence of a macroevolutionary trade-off in katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). J Evol Biol 20:1028–1036CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Doherty JA (1985a) Trade-off phenomena in calling song recognition and phonotaxis in the cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (Orthoptera, Gryllidae). J Comp Physiol A 156:787–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doherty JA (1985b) Phonotaxis in the cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus De Geer: comparison of choice and no-choice paradigms. J Comp Physiol A 157:279–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferreira M, Ferguson JWH (2002) Geographic variation in the calling song of the field cricket Gryllus bimaculatus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) and its relevance to mate recognition and mate choice. J Zool Lond 257:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gagliardo A, Ioale P, Bingman VP (1999) Homing in pigeons: the role of the hippocampal formation in the representation of landmarks used for navigation. J Neurosci 19:311–315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerhardt HC, Huber F (2002) Acoustic communication in insects and anurans: common problems and diverse solutions. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. Gray DA (1997) Female house crickets, Acheta domesticus, prefer the chirps of large males. Anim Behav 54:1553–1562CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hedrick A, Weber T (1998) Variance in female response to the fine structure of male song in the field cricket, Gryllus integer. Behav Ecol 9:582–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holzer B, Jacot A, Brinkhof MWG (2003) Condition-dependent signaling affects male sexual attractiveness in field crickets, Gryllus campestris. Behav Ecol 14:353–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jacot A, Scheuber H, Kurtz J, Brinkhof MWG (2005) Juvenile immune status affects the expression of a sexually selected trait in field crickets. J Evol Biol 18:1060–1068CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacot A, Scheuber H, Brinkhof MWG (2007) The effect of age on a sexually selected acoustic display. Ethology 113:615–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kramer E (1976) The orientation of walking honeybees in odour fields with small concentration gradients. Physiol Entomol 1:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loher W, Weber T, Huber F (1992) The effect of mating on phonotactic behavior in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus (De Geer). Physiol Entomol 18:57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meyer J, Elsner N (1996) How well are frequency sensitivities of grasshopper ears tuned to species-specific song spectra? J Exp Biol 199:1631–1642PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Nocke H (1971) Biophysik der Schallerzeugung durch die Vorderflügel der Grillen. Zeit vergl Physiol 74:272–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parker GA (1983) Mate quality and mating decisions. In: Bateson P (ed) Mate choice. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 141–166Google Scholar
  28. Rice WR (1989) Analysing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ringach DL, Shapley RM, Hawken MJ (2002) Orientation selectivity in macaque V1: diversity and laminar dependence. J Neurosci 22:5639–5651PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Ritchie MG (1996) The shape of female mating preferences. Proc Natl Acad Sci 93:14628–14631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Ritchie MG, Saarikettu M, Livingstone S, Hoikkala A (2001) Characterisation of female preference functions for Drosophila montana courtship song and a test of the temperature coupling hypothesis. Evolution 55:721–727CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Ryder JJ, Siva-Jothy M (2000) Male calling song provides a reliable signal of immune function in a cricket. Proc R Soc B 267:1171–1175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Sakaluk SK, Burpee DL, Smith RL (1992) Phenotypic and genetic variation in the stridulatory organs of male decorated crickets, Gryllodes sigillatus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Can J Zool 70:453–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scheuber H, Jacot A, Brinkhof MWG (2003a) The effect of past condition on a multicomponent sexual signal. Proc R Soc B 270:1779–1784CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Scheuber H, Jacot A, Brinkhof MWG (2003b) Condition dependence of a multicomponent sexual signal in the field cricket Gryllus campestris. Anim Behav 65:721–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schildberger K, Huber F, Wohlers DW (1989) Central auditory pathway: neuronal correlates of phonotactic behavior. In: Huber F, Moore TE, Loher W (eds) Cricket behavior and neurobiology. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  37. Schluter D (1988) Estimating the form of natural selection on a quantitative trait. Evolution 42:849–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simmons LW (1986) Female choice in the field cricket Gryllus bimaculatus (De Geer). Anim Behav 23:1463–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simmons LW (1988a) Male size, mating potential and lifetime reproductive success in the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (De Geer). Anim Behav 36:372–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simmons LW (1988b) 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 36:380–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Simmons LW (1992) Sexual selection and body size in a natural population of the field cricket. Gryllus campestris (L). J Orthop Res 1:12–13Google Scholar
  42. Simmons LW (1995) Correlates of male quality in the field cricket Gryllus campestris L.: age size and symmetry determine pairing success in field populations. Behav Ecol 6:376–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Simmons LW, Ritchie MG (1996) Symmetry in the songs of crickets. Proc R Soc B 263:1305–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Simmons LW, Zuk M (1992) Variability in call structure and pairing success of male field crickets, Gryllus bimaculatus: the effects of age, size and parasite load. Anim Behav 44:1145–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Simmons LW, Zuk M, Rotenberry JT (2001) Geographic variation in female preference functions and male songs of the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. Evolution 55:1386–1394PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Simmons LW, Zuk M, Rotenberry JT (2005) Immune function reflected in calling song characteristics in a natural population of the cricket Teleogryllus commodus. Anim Behav 69:1235–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Verburgt L, Ferguson JWH, Weber T (2008) Phonotactic response of female crickets on the Kramer treadmill: methodology, sensory and behavioural implications. J Comp Physiol A 194:79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wagner WE Jr (1998) Measuring female mating preferences. Anim Behav 55:1029–1042CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Webb KL, Roff DA (1992) The quantitative genetics of sound production in Gryllus firmus. Anim Behav 45:823–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weber T, Thorson J (1988) Auditory behavior of the cricket. IV. Interaction of direction of tracking with perceived temporal pattern in split-song paradigms. J Comp Physiol A 163:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zuk M, Rotenberry JT, Simmons LW (1998) Calling song of field crickets (Teleogryllus oceanicus) with and without phonotactic parasitoid infection. Evolution 52:166–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Ethological Society and Springer 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Zoology and EntomologyUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.Centre for Environmental StudiesUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations