Codivergence but Limited Covariance of Wing Shape and Calling Song Structure in Field Crickets (Gryllus)

  • Thomas Blankers
  • Rafael Block
  • R. Matthias Hennig
Research Article
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

Morphological traits are often used in performing ecological tasks or in sexual display behaviour. Variation in morphology is thus expected to be coupled to variation in idiosyncratic behaviours across ecologically or sexually diverged lineages. However, it is poorly understood whether this prediction holds and how functional constraints, shared ancestry, or selection contribute to morphology-behaviour co-evolution. Here, we test this prediction in four cricket species, which differ strikingly in their sexually selected mate calling songs, produced by engaging their specialized forewings. Using geometric morphometrics we provide the first evidence that wing shape and size varies consistently across species. We then test whether wing shape and song co-evolve and whether co-evolution is best explained by individual-level functional/genetic covariance or by population-level evolutionary covariance. Song structure and wing shape are coupled, even after accounting for phylogeny. However, there is limited covariance within species. Thus, wing morphology and sexual signalling behaviour in crickets are likely linked due to shared (ancestral) effects from neutral and selective processes. We show that morphology and behaviour can be linked across but not within species and discuss how evolutionary stasis, genetic linkage, and evolutionary covariance help explain this pattern.

Keywords

Co-evolution Functional morphology Sexual communication Geometric morphometrics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank D. A. Gray for providing preliminary results of the phylogenetic relationships among the species included in this study. We also thank one anonymous reviewer and Benedikt Hallgrimsson as well as three other anonymous reviewers for comments that improved earlier versions of this manuscript. The performed experiments comply with the Principles of Animal Care (1985) of the National Institute of Health and with the current laws of Germany. This study is part of the GENART project funded by the Leibniz Association (SAW-2012-MfN-3).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Adams, D., Rohlf, F., & Slice, D. (2004). Geometric morphometrics: Ten years of progress following the “revolution”. Italian Journal of Zoology, 71, 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, R. (1962). Evolutionary change in cricket acoustical communication. Evolution, 16, 443–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Armbruster, W. S., Pélabon, C., Bolstad, G. H., & Hansen, T. F. (2014). Integrated phenotypes: Understanding trait covariation in plants and animals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1649), 20130245. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armbruster, W. S., & Schwaegerle, K. E. (1996). Causes of covariation of phenotypic traits among populations. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 9(3), 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bailey, N. W. (2008). Love will tear you apart: Different components of female choice exert contrasting selection pressures on male field crickets. Behavioral Ecology, 19, 960–966. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arn054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennet-Clark, H. (1989). Songs and the physics of sound production. In F. Huber, T. Moore & W. Loher (Eds.), Cricket behavior and neurobiology (pp. 227–261). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bennet-Clark, H. C. (1999). Resonators in insect sound production: How insects produce loud pure-tone songs. Journal of Experimental Biology, 202, 3347–3357.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bennet-Clark, H. C. (2003). Wing resonances in the Australian field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. The Journal of experimental biology, 206(Pt 9), 1479–1496.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bennet-Clark, H. C., & Ewing, A. W. (1968). The wing mechanism involved in the courtship of Drosophila. Journal of Experimental Biology, 49(1), 117–128.Google Scholar
  11. Blankers, T., Adams, D. C., & Wiens, J. J. (2012). Ecological radiation with limited morphological diversification in salamanders. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 25(4), 634–646.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Blankers, T., Gray, D. A., & Hennig, R. M. (2017). Multivariate phenotypic evolution: Divergent acoustic signals and sexual selection in Gryllus field crickets. Evolutionary Biology, 44(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-016-9388-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blankers, T., Hennig, R. M., & Gray, D. A. (2015). Conservation of multivariate female preference functions and preference mechanisms in three species of trilling field crickets. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 28(3), 630–641. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12599.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cade, W. H., & Cade, E. S. (1992). Male mating success, calling and searching behaviour at high and low densities in the field cricket, Gryllus integer. Animal Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80070-3.Google Scholar
  15. Cheverud, J. M. (1996). Developmental integration and the evolution of pleiotropy. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 36(1), 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/36.1.44.Google Scholar
  16. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection: Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: Murray.Google Scholar
  17. Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Felsenstein, J. (1988). Phylogenies and quantitative characters. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 19(1), 445–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fox, J., Friendly, M., & Monette, G. (2009). Visualizing hypothesis tests in multivariate linear models: The heplots package for R. Computational Statistics, 24(2), 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gavrilets, S. (2003). Perspective: Models of speciation: What have we learned in 40 years? Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution, 57(10), 2197–2215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00233.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Gerhardt, H. C., & Huber, F. (2002). Acoustic communication in insects and anurans. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gray, D. A., Gabel, E., Blankers, T., & Hennig, R. M. (2016). Multivariate female preference tests reveal latent perceptual biases. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 283, 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hansen, T. F., & Houle, D. (2008). Measuring and comparing evolvability and constraint in multivariate characters. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 21, 1201–1219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01573.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hennig, R. M. (1990). Neuronal control of the forewings in two different behaviours: Stridulation and flight in the cricket, Teleogryllus commodus. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 167, 617–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00192655.Google Scholar
  25. Hennig, R. M., Blankers, T., & Gray, D. A. (2016). Divergence in male cricket song and multivariate female preference functions in three allopatric sister species. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 202, 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klingenberg, C. P. (2011). MorphoJ: An integrated software package for geometric morphometrics. Molecular Ecology Resources, 11(2), 353–357.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Klingenberg, C. P. (2014). Studying morphological integration and modularity at multiple levels: Concepts and analysis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 369(1649), 20130249. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0249.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Klingenberg, C. P., Debat, V., & Roff, D. A. (2010). Quantitative genetics of shape in cricket wings: Developmental integration in a functional structure. Evolution, 64(10), 2935–2951. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01030.x.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lande, R., & Arnold, S. J. (1983). The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution, 37(6), 1210–1226.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Legendre, P., & Legendre, L. F. J. (2012). Numerical ecology (Vol. 24). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  31. Losos, J. B. (1990). Ecomorphology, performance capability, and scaling of West Indian Anolis lizards: An evolutionary analysis. Ecological Monographs, 60(3), 369–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mayr, E. (1942). Systematics and the origin of species, from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Mhatre, N., Montealegre-z, F., Balakrishnan, R., & Robert, D. (2012). Changing resonator geometry to boost sound power decouples size and song frequency in a small insect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(22), E1444–E1452. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1200192109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Montealegre-Z, F., Jonsson, T., & Robert, D. (2011). Sound radiation and wing mechanics in stridulating field crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Journal of Experimental Biology, 214(12), 2105–2117.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Montealegre-Z, F., Windmill, J. F. C., Morris, G. K., & Robert, D. (2009). Mechanical phase shifters for coherent acoustic radiation in the stridulating wings of crickets: The plectrum mechanism. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 212(Pt 2), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.022731.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Nocke, H. (1971). Biophysik der Schallerzeugung durch die Vorderfl{ü}gel der Grillen. Zeitschrift f{ü}r vergleichende Physiologie, 74(3), 272–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00297730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F. G., Friendly, M., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., McGlinn, D., et al. (2016). vegan: Community Ecology Package.Google Scholar
  38. Otte, D. (1992). Evolution of cricket songs. Journal of Orthoptera Research, 1, 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ower, G. D., Hunt, J., & Sakaluk, S. K. (2017). Multivariate sexual selection on male tegmina in wild populations of sagebrush crickets, Cyphoderris strepitans (Orthoptera: Haglidae). Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 30(2), 338–351.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Pitchers, W. R., Klingenberg, C. P., Tregenza, T., Hunt, J., & Dworkin, I. (2014). The potential influence of morphology on the evolutionary divergence of an acoustic signal. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 27, 2163–2176. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12471.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. R Development Core Team, R. (2016). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. In R. D. C. Team (Ed.) R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74686-7.
  42. Rohlf, F. J. (2006). TpsDig Ver. 2.10, digitalized landmarks and outlines. Stony Brook: Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook.Google Scholar
  43. Sakaguchi, K. M., & Gray, D. A. (2011). Host song selection by an acoustically orienting parasitoid fly exploiting a multispecies assemblage of cricket hosts. Animal Behaviour, 81(4), 851–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.01.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schöneich, S., & Hedwig, B. (2011). Neural basis of singing in crickets: Central pattern generation in abdominal ganglia. Die Naturwissenschaften, 98, 1069–1073. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-011-0857-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Schulte, J. A., Losos, J. B., Cruz, F. B., & Núñez, H. (2004). The relationship between morphology, escape behaviour and microhabitat occupation in the lizard clade Liolaemus (Iguanidae: Tropidurinae: Liolaemini). Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 17(2), 408–420.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Simmons, L. W., & Ritchie, M. G. (1996). Symmetry in the songs of crickets. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 263(1375), 1305–1311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stephen, R., & Hartley, J. (1995). Sound production in crickets. Journal of Experimental Biology, 198(10), 2139–2152.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Symes, L. B., Ayres, M. P., Cowdery, C. P., & Costello, R. A. (2015). Signal diversification in Oecanthus tree crickets is shaped by energetic, morphometric, and acoustic trade-offs. Evolution, 69(6), 1518–1527. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12668.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Templeton, A. R. (1981). Mechanisms of speciation—A popularion genetic approach. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 12, 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Verburgt, L., & Ferguson, J. W. H. (2010). Mate choice in field crickets: Can females acoustically detect male body size? Journal of Ethology, 28(1), 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wagner, W. E. Jr., & Reiser, M. G. (2000). The importance of calling song and courtship song in female mate choice in the variable field cricket. Animal Behaviour, 59, 1219–1226.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Walker, T. J. (2017). Singing Insects of North America. http://entnemdept.ifas.ufl.edu/walker/Buzz/crickets.htm. Accessed Jan 2017.
  53. Webb, K. L., & Roff, D. A. (1992). The quantitative genetics of sound production in Gryllus firmus. Animal Behaviour, 44, 823–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wilkinson, G. S., & Reillo, P. R. (1994). Female choice response to artificial selection on an exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 255(1342), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zuk, M., & Simmons, L. W. (1997). Reproductive strategies of the crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Behavioural Physiology, Department of BiologyHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Museum für Naturkunde BerlinLeibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity ScienceBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Department of Neurobiology and BehaviorCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations