Summary
Negative phonotaxis is elicited in flying Australian field crickets,Teleogryllus oceanicus, by ultrasonic stimuli. Using upright tethered flying crickets, we quantitatively examined several kinematic and aerodynamic factors which accompany ultrasound-induced negative phonotactic behavior. These factors included three kinematic effects (hindwing wingbeat frequency, hindwing elevation and depression, and forewing tilt) and two aerodynamic effects (pitch and roll).
-
1.
Within two cycles following a 20 dB suprathreshold ultrasonic stimulus, the hindwing wingbeat frequency increases by 3–4 Hz and outlasts the duration of the stimulus. Moreover, the relationship between the maximum increase in wingbeat frequency and stimulus intensity is a twostage response. At lower suprathreshold intensities the maximum wingbeat frequency increases by approximately 1 Hz; but, at higher intensities, the maximum increase is 3–4 Hz.
-
2.
The maximum hindwing elevation angle increases on the side ipsilateral to the stimulus, while there was no change in upstroke elevation on the side contralateral to the stimulus.
-
3.
An ultrasonic stimulus affects forewing tilt such that the forewings bank into the turn. The forewing ipsilateral to the stimulus tilts upward while the contralateral forewing tilts downward. Both the ipsilateral and contralateral forewing tilt change linearly with stimulus intensity.
-
4.
Flying crickets pitch downward when presented with a laterally located ultrasonic stimulus. Amputation experiments indicate that both the fore and hindwings contribute to changes in pitch but the pitch response in an intact cricket exceeds the simple addition of fore and hindwing contributions. With the speaker placed above or below the flying cricket, the change is downward or upward, respectively. For all cases, the magnitude of the pitch change is linearly related to stimulus intensity.
-
5.
Ultrasound induces flying crickets to roll away from the stimulus source location. The dynamics of the changes in roll are similar to the changes in pitch. That is, the change in roll is a function of both wing pairs and the magnitude is stimulus intensity dependent.
-
6.
Thus ultrasound-induced negative phonotaxis in flying crickets is a complex behavior involving several kinematic and aerodynamic changes. This behavioral complexity lends further credence to the hypothesis that cricket negative phonotaxis provides a valuable function, perhaps as a bat avoidance response.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baker PS (1979) The wing movements of flying locusts during steering behavior. J Comp Physiol 131:49–58
Dugard JJ (1967) Directional change in flying locusts. J Insect Physiol 13:1055–1063
Madsen BM, Miller LA (1987) Auditory input to motor neurons of the dorsal longitudinal muscles in a noctuid moth (Barathra brassicae L.) J Comp Physiol A 160:23–31
Miller LA, Olsen J (1979) Avoidance behavior in green lacewings: I. Behavior of free flying green lacewings to hunting bats and ultrasound. J Comp Physiol 131:113–120
Moiseff A, Hoy R (1983) Sensitivity to ultrasound in an identified auditory interneuron in the cricket: A possible neural link to phonotactic behavior. J Comp Physiol 152:155–167
Moiseff A, Pollack GS, Hoy RR (1978) Steering responses of flying crickets to sound and ultrasound: mate attraction and predator avoidance. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 75:4052–4056
Nolen TG, Hoy RR (1984) Initiation of behavior by single neurons: The role of behavioral context. Science 226:992–994
Nolen T, Hoy RR (1987) Postsynaptic inhibition mediates highfrequency selectivity in the cricketTeleogryllus oceanicus: Implications for flight phonotaxis behavior. J Neurosci 7:2081–2091
Pollack GS, Hoy R (1981) Phonotaxis in flying crickets: neural correlates. J Insect Physiol 27:41–45
Roeder KD (1962) The behavior of free flying moths in the presence of artificial ultrasonic pulses. Behav 10:300–304
Roeder KD (1967) Turning tendency of moths exposed to ultrasound while in stationary flight. J Insect Physiol 13:873–888
Stevenson P, Kutsch W (1987) A reconsideration of the central pattern generator concept for locust flight. J Comp Physiol A 161:115–129
Thüring DA (1986) Variability of motor output during flight steering in locusts. J Comp Physiol A 158:653–664
Wagner H (1986) Flight performance and visual control of flight in the free-flying housefly (Musca domestica L.) I. Organization of the flight motor. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 312:527–551
Wang R, Robertson RM (1987) Changes of the flight motor pattern during phonotactic steering of the cricket,Teleogryllus oceanicus. Soc Neurosci Abstr 13:1059
Weis-Fogh T (1956) Biology and physics of locust flight. II. Flight performance of the desert locust (Schistocerca gregaria). Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 239:459–510
Yager DD, Hoy RR (1986) The cyclopean ear: a new sense for the preying mantis. Science 231:727–729
Yager DD, Hoy RR (1986) Neuroethology of audition in the praying mantis,Creobroter gemmatus. Soc Neurosci Abstr 12:202
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
May, M.L., Brodfuehrer, P.D. & Hoy, R.R. Kinematic and aerodynamic aspects of ultrasound-induced negative phonotaxis in flying Australian field crickets (Teleogryllus oceanicus). J. Comp. Physiol. 164, 243–249 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00603954
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00603954