Journal of Comparative Physiology A

, Volume 164, Issue 2, pp 277–287 | Cite as

Attractiveness of the maleAcheta domestica calling song to females

II. The relative importance of syllable period, intensity, and chirp rate
  • John F. Stout
  • Robert McGhee


FemaleAcheta domestica did not discriminate between pairs of model calling songs (CSs) which differed only in syllable period (SP; Fig. 1). The females selected the louder CS (Fig. 2) or the CS with a faster chirp rate (CR; Fig. 3) when presented with pairs of otherwise identical CSs. A CS with an SP of 50 ms (modal for the male's CS) was preferred when it was 5 dB louder than one with a 60-ms SP while a CS with a 60-ms SP was only consistently chosen when it was 10 dB louder than a CS with a 50-ms SP (Fig. 4). A more intense CS was preferred by the females regardless of whether its CR was faster or slower than that of the CS produced at a lower intensity (Fig. 6). When CSs with SPs of 50 or 60 ms had several different CRs, the females that made a significant choice preferred a CS with a 50-ms SP regardless of whether it was produced at a faster or slower CR (Figs. 7, 8). No significant selection between CSs with 40- and 50-ms SPs resulted when they were produced at different intensities (Fig. 5) or CRs (Fig. 9). Females only significantly chose a CS with a 50-ms SP over those with 40 ms SPs when the 50-ms-SP CS was louder and produced at a different CR (Fig. 10). From these results, it was apparent that SP, intensity, and CR all influenced a female's choice of a CS, and thus the male producing it. However, our results indicate that SP was the most important feature influencing the female's choice and that intensity was more effective than CR.


Lower Intensity Significant Selection Model Calling Chirp Rate Calling Song 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



chirp rate


calling song


polar orientation diagram


syllable period


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Atkins G, Atkins S, Schoun D, Stout JF (1987) Scototaxis and shape discrimination in the female cricketAcheta domesticus in an arena and on a compensatory treadmill. Physiol Entomol 12:125–133Google Scholar
  2. Doherty JA (1985a) Trade-off phenomena in calling song recognition and phonotaxis in the cricket,Gryllus bimaculatus (Orthoptera, Gryllidae). J Comp Physiol A 156:787–801Google Scholar
  3. Doherty JA (1985b) Phonotaxis in the cricket,Gryllus bimaculatus DeGeer: comparison of choice and no-choice paradigms. J Comp Physiol A 157:279–289Google Scholar
  4. Doolan JM, Pollack GS (1985) Phonotactic specificity of the cricketTeleogryllus oceanicus: intensity-dependent selectivity for temporal parameters of the stimulus. J Comp Physiol A 157:223–233Google Scholar
  5. Murphey RK, Zaretsky MD (1972) Orientation to calling song by female crickets,Scapsipedus marginatus (Gryllidae). J Exp Biol 56:335–352Google Scholar
  6. Pollack GS, Hoy RR (1979) Temporal pattern as a cue for species-specific calling song recognition in crickets. Science 204:429–432Google Scholar
  7. Popov AV, Shuvalov VF (1977) Phonotactic behavior of crickets. J Comp Physiol 119:111–126Google Scholar
  8. Popov AV, Shuvalov VF, Svetlogorskaya ID, Markovich AM (1975) Acoustic behavior and auditory systems in insects. In: Schwartzkopff J (ed) Mechanoreception (Symposium). Abh Rhein-Westf Akad Wiss 53:281–306Google Scholar
  9. Schildberger K (1984) Temporal selectivity of identified auditory neurons in the cricket brain. J Comp Physiol A 155:171–185Google Scholar
  10. Schmitz B (1985) Phonotaxis inGryllus campestris L. (Orthoptera, Gryllidae). III. Intensity dependence of the behavioural performance and relative importance of tympana and spiracles in directional hearing. J Comp Physiol A 156:165–180Google Scholar
  11. Stout JF, Gerard G, Hasso S (1976) Sexual responsiveness mediated by the corpora allata and its relationship to phonotaxis in the female cricket,Acheta domesticus L. J Comp Physiol 108:1–9Google Scholar
  12. Stout JF, DeHaan CH, McGhee RW (1983) Attractiveness of the maleAcheta domesticus calling song to females. I. Dependence on each of the calling song features. J Comp Physiol 153:509–521Google Scholar
  13. Stout JF, Atkins G, Weber T, Huber F (1987) The effect of visual input on calling song attractiveness for femaleAcheta domesticus L. Physiol Entomol 12:135–140Google Scholar
  14. Thorson J, Weber T, Huber F (1982) Auditory behavior of the cricket. II. Simplicity of calling-song recognition inGryllus, and anomalous phonotaxis at abnormal carrier frequencies. J Comp Physiol 146:361–378Google Scholar
  15. Weber T (1978) Vergleich der Lockgesänge von drei Grillenarten im Hinblick auf artspezifisches Erkennen in der Phonotaxis der Weibchen. Verh Dtsch Zool Ges 71:176Google Scholar
  16. Weber T, Thorson J, Huber F (1981) Auditory behavior of the cricket. I. Dynamics of compensated walking and discrimination paradigms on the Kramer treadmill. J Comp Physiol 141:215–232Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • John F. Stout
    • 1
  • Robert McGhee
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyAndrews UniversityBerrien SpringsUSA

Personalised recommendations