Advertisement

Journal of Comparative Physiology A

, Volume 195, Issue 5, pp 453–462 | Cite as

Mechanical response of the tympanal membranes of the tree cricket Oecanthus henryi

  • Natasha Mhatre
  • Fernando Montealegre-Z
  • Rohini Balakrishnan
  • Daniel Robert
Original Paper

Abstract

Crickets have two tympanal membranes on the tibiae of each foreleg. Among several field cricket species of the genus Gryllus (Gryllinae), the posterior tympanal membrane (PTM) is significantly larger than the anterior membrane (ATM). Laser Doppler vibrometric measurements have shown that the smaller ATM does not respond as much as the PTM to sound. Hence the PTM has been suggested to be the principal tympanal acoustic input to the auditory organ. In tree crickets (Oecanthinae), the ATM is slightly larger than the PTM. Both membranes are structurally complex, presenting a series of transverse folds on their surface, which are more pronounced on the ATM than on the PTM. The mechanical response of both membranes to acoustic stimulation was investigated using microscanning laser Doppler vibrometry. Only a small portion of the membrane surface deflects in response to sound. Both membranes exhibit similar frequency responses, and move out of phase with each other, producing compressions and rarefactions of the tracheal volume backing the tympanum. Therefore, unlike field crickets, tree crickets may have four instead of two functional tympanal membranes. This is interesting in the context of the outstanding question of the role of spiracular inputs in the auditory system of tree crickets.

Keywords

Auditory organ Cricket Orthoptera Eardrum Tree cricket 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the UK India Education and Research Initiative for funding this collaborative research. We would like to thank the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests for supporting N.M. F.M-Z is sponsored by the Human Frontier Science Program (Cross Disciplinary Fellowship LT00024/2008-C). All experiments carried out in the present work comply with the “Principles of animal care” publication No. 86-23, revised 1985 of the National Institute of Health, and also with the current laws of the United Kingdom.

References

  1. Bailey W, Thomson P (1977) Acoustic orientation in the cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus (Le Guillou). J Exp Biol 67:61–75Google Scholar
  2. Chopard L (1969) The fauna of India and adjacent countries: Orthoptera. Baptist Mission Press, CalcuttaGoogle Scholar
  3. Di Sant’Agnese PA, De Mesy Jensen KL (1984) Dibasic staining of large epoxy tissue sections and applications to surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol 81:25–29Google Scholar
  4. Huber F, Kleindienst H-U, Weber T, Thorson J (1984) Auditory behavior of the cricket. J Comp Physiol A 155:725–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kleindienst H-U, Wohlers DW, Larsen ON (1983) Tympanal membrane motion is necessary for hearing in crickets. J Comp Physiol A 151:397–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Larsen ON (1987) The cricket’s anterior tympanum revisited. Naturwissenschaften 74:92–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Larsen ON, Michelsen A (1978) Biophysics of the ensiferan ear. III. The cricket ear as a four input system. J Comp Physiol A 123:217–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Larsen ON, Kleindienst H-U, Michelsen A (1989) Biophysical aspects of sound reception. In: Huber F, Moore T, Loher W (eds) Cricket behavior and neurobiology. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 365–390Google Scholar
  9. Metrani S, Balakrishnan R (2005) The utility of song and morphological characters in delineating species boundaries among sympatric tree crickets of the genus Oecanthus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae: Oecanthinae): a numerical taxonomic approach. J Orth Res 14:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Michelsen A (1998) The tuned cricket. New Physiol Sci 13:32–38Google Scholar
  11. Michelsen A, Popov AV, Lewis B (1994) Physics of directional hearing in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. J Comp Physiol A 175:153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Miles RN, Hoy RR (2006) The development of a biologically-inspired directional microphone for hearing aids. Audiol Neurootol 11:86–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Otte D (1992) Evolution of cricket songs. J Orth Res 1:25–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Paton JA, Capranica RR, Dragsten PR, Webb WW (1977) Physical basis for auditory frequency analysis in field crickets (Gryllidae). J Comp Physiol A 119:221–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Robert D (2005) Directional hearing in insects. In: Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) Sound source localization. Springer, NY, pp 6–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Robert D, Göpfert M (2002) Novel schemes for hearing and orientation in insects. Curr Opin Neurobiol 12(6):715–720PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Robert D, Miles RN, Hoy RR (1996) Directional hearing by mechanical coupling in the parasitoid fly Ormia ochracea. J Comp Physiol A 179:29–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Robert D, Miles R, Hoy R (1999) Tympanal hearing in the sarcophagid parasitoid fly Emblemasoma sp.: the biomechanics of directional hearing. J Exp Biol 202:1865–1876PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Schmitz B (1985) Phonotaxis in Gryllus 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 156:165–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Walker TJ (1962a) Factors responsible for intraspecific variation in the calling songs of crickets. Evolution 16:407–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Walker TJ (1962b) The taxonomy and calling songs of United States tree crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae: Oecanthinae). I. The genus Neoxabea and the niveus and varicornis groups of the genus Oecanthus. Ann Entomol Soc Am 55:303–322Google Scholar
  22. Windmill J, Göpfert M, Robert D (2005) Tympanal travelling waves in migratory locusts. J Exp Biol 208:157–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zuk M, Simmons LW (1997) Reproductive strategies of the crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). In: Choe JC, Crespi BJ (eds) The Evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 89–109Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natasha Mhatre
    • 1
  • Fernando Montealegre-Z
    • 2
  • Rohini Balakrishnan
    • 1
  • Daniel Robert
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Ecological SciencesIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations