Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 55, Issue 6, pp 569–573 | Cite as

Latency to resume calling after disturbance in the field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus, corresponds to population-level differences in parasitism risk

Original Article


A possible parasitoid-evasion behavioral adaptation is examined in male field crickets, Teleogryllus oceanicus, from three Hawaiian islands where parasitoid prevalence varies naturally among islands. Ormia ochracea, the parasitoid fly that parasitizes T. oceanicus on these islands, uses male calling song to locate its hosts. We used laboratory-reared males from three Hawaiian islands to determine if there are population differences in the time it takes for calling males to resume calling after a standardized disturbance. Males follow the expected pattern; males from the island with the greatest risk of parasitism have the longest latency to resume calling, and males from the island with the least risk of parasitism have the shortest latency to resume calling. Results are discussed in the context of behavioral adaptations to differing parasitism levels, and trade-offs between natural and sexual selection.


Parasitoid Teleogryllus oceanicus Ormia ochracea Risk aversion Calling song 


  1. Adamo SA, Robert D, Hoy RR (1995) Effects of a tachinid parasitoid, Ormia ochracea, on the behaviour and reproduction of its male and female field cricket hosts (Gryllus spp.). J Insect Physiol 41:269–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banks PB (2001) Predation-sensitive grouping and habitat use by eastern grey kangaroos: a field experiment. Anim Behav 61:1013–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell PD (1979) Acoustic attraction of herons by crickets. J N Y Entomol Soc 87:126–127Google Scholar
  4. Bentley D (1975) Single gene cricket mutations: effects on behaviour, sensilla, sensory neurons, and identified interneurons. Science 187:760–764PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bullock TH (1984) Comparative neuroethology of startle, rapid escape, and giant fiber-mediated responses. In: Eaton RC (ed) Neural mechanisms of startle behavior. Plenum, New York, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  6. Cade W (1975) Acoustically orienting parasitoids: fly phonotaxis to cricket song. Science 190:1312–1313Google Scholar
  7. Ciceran M, Murray A-M, Rowell G (1994) Natural variation in the temporal patterning of calling song structure in the field cricket Gryllus pennsylvanicus: effects of temperature, age, mass, time of day, and nearest neighbour. Can J Zool 72:38–42Google Scholar
  8. Endler JA (1987) Predation, light intensity and courtship behaviour in Poecilia reticulata (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Anim Behav 35:1376–1385Google Scholar
  9. Faure PA, Hoy RR (2000) The sounds of silence: cessation of singing and song pausing are ultrasound-induced acoustic startle behaviors in the katydid Neoconocephalus ensiger (Orthoptera; Tettigoniidae). J Comp Physiol A 186:129–142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Forsgren E, Magnhagen C (1993) Conflicting demands in sand gobies: predators influence reproductive behaviour. Behaviour 126:125–135Google Scholar
  11. Gnatzy W, Kämper G (1990) Digger wasp against crickets. II. An airborne signal produced by a running predator. J Comp Physiol A 167:551–556Google Scholar
  12. Gnatzy W, Heußlein R (1986) Digger wasp against crickets. I. Receptors involved in the antipredator strategies of the prey. Naturwissenschaften 73:212–215Google Scholar
  13. Gras H, Hörner M (1992) Wind-evoked escape running of the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. J Exp Biol 171:189–214Google Scholar
  14. Gray DA, Cade WH (1999) Sex, death, and genetic variation: natural and sexual selection on cricket song. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 266:707–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hedrick AV (1986) Female preferences for male calling bout duration in a field cricket. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:73–77Google Scholar
  16. Hedrick AV (2000) Crickets with extravagant mating songs compensate for predation risk with extra caution. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 267:671–675CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Jennions MD, Backwell PRY (1992) Chorus size influences on the anti-predator response of a Neotropical frog. Anim Behav 44:990–992Google Scholar
  18. Kanou M, Ohshima M, Inoue J (1999) The air-puff evoked escape behaviour of the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus and its compensational recovery after cercal ablations. Zool Sci 16:71–79Google Scholar
  19. Kevan DKM (1990) Introduced grasshoppers and crickets in Micronesia. Bol San Veg 20:105–123Google Scholar
  20. Kolluru GR (1999) The effects of an acoustically-orienting parasitoid fly (Ormia ochracea) on reproduction in the field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus: a trade-off between natural and sexual selection. PhD dissertation, University of California, Riverside, Calif.Google Scholar
  21. Kumagai T, Shimozawa T, Baba Y (1998) Mobilities of the cercal wind-receptor hairs of the cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus. J Comp Physiol A 183:7–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lehmann GUC, Heller K-G, Lehmann AW (2001) Male bushcrickets favoured by parasitoid flies when acoustically more attractive for conspecific females (Orthoptera: Phanopteridae/Diptera: Tachinidae). Entomol Gen 25:135–140Google Scholar
  23. Magnhagen C (1991) Predation risk as a cost of reproduction. Trends Ecol Evol 6:183–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martin SD, Gray DA, Cade WH (2000) Fine-scale temperature effects on cricket calling song. Can J Zool 78:706–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mason AC, Oshinsky ML, Hoy RR (2001) Hyperacute directional hearing in a microscale auditory system. Nature 410:686–690PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller LA, Surlykke A (2001) How some insects detect and avoid being eaten by bats: tactics and countertactics of prey and predator. Bioscience 51:570–581Google Scholar
  27. Müller P, Robert R (2001) A shot in the dark: the silent quest of a free-flying phonotactic fly. J Exp Biol 204:1039–1052PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Müller P, Robert R (2002) Death comes suddenly to the unprepared: singing crickets, call fragmentation, and parasitoid flies. Behav Ecol 13:598-606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pires A, Hoy RR (1992) Temperature coupling in cricket acoustic communication. J Comp Physiol A 171:69–78PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Prestwich KN, Walker TJ (1981) Energetics of singing in crickets: effect of temperature in three trilling species (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). J Comp Physiol A 143:199–212Google Scholar
  31. Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL (1991) Essentials of behavioural research: methods and data analysis, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Rotenberry JT, Zuk M, Simmons LW, Hayes C (1996) Phonotactic parasitoids and cricket song structure: an evaluation of alternative hypotheses. Evol Ecol 10:233–243Google Scholar
  33. Sales G, Pye D (1974) Ultrasonic communication by animals. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Siegel S, Castellan NJ Jr (1988) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Simmons LW, Zuk M (1994) Age structure of parasitized and unparasitized populations of the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. Ethology 98:333–340Google Scholar
  36. Spangler HG (1984) Silence as a defence against predatory bats in two species of calling insects. Southwest Nat 29:481–488Google Scholar
  37. Wagner WE (1996) Convergent song preferences between female field crickets and acoustically orienting parasitoid flies. Behav Ecol 7:279–285Google Scholar
  38. Walker TJ (1993) Phonotaxis in female Ormia ochracea (Diptera: Tachinidae), a parasitoid of field crickets. J Insect Behav 6:389–410Google Scholar
  39. Zuk M, Kolluru GR (1998) Exploitation of sexual signals by predators and parasitoids. Q Rev Biol 73:415–438Google Scholar
  40. Zuk M, Simmons LW, Cupp L (1993) Calling characteristics of parasitized and unparasitized populations of the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 33:339–343Google Scholar
  41. Zuk M, Simmons LW, Rotenberry JT (1995) Acoustically-orienting parasitoids in calling and silent males of the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. Ecol Entomol 20:380–383Google Scholar
  42. Zuk M, Rotenberry JT, Simmons LW (1998) Calling songs of field crickets (Teoleogryllus oceanicus) with and without phonotactic parasitoid infection. Evolution 52:166–171Google Scholar
  43. Zuk M, Rotenberry JT, Simmons LW (2001) Geographical variation in calling song of the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus: the importance of spatial scale. J Evol Biol 14:731–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations