Search behaviour of two hemipteran species using vibrational communication

  • Maarten de Groot
  • Andrej Čokl
  • Meta Virant-Doberlet
Research Article
  • 99 Downloads

Abstract

The ability of conspecifics to recognize and locate each other in the environment depends on the efficiency of intraspecific communication. We compared the mate searching strategies of southern green stinkbug Nezara viridula (male searches for a continuously calling female) and the leafhopper Aphrodes makarovi (partners form a precisely coordinated duet). Males of both species were tested on plants in playback experiments. One leaf was vibrated with unaltered conspecific female signals or with various conspecific signals using modified temporal parameters. The results showed that the onset of searching was faster in A. makarovi than in N. viridula. Changes in temporal parameters of female replies had negative effect on the searching behaviour of A. makarovi. Males located the source of longer female replies faster than the short female call and they failed to locate the source of a female reply with temporal parameters outside the species-specific values. In contrast, in N. viridula, searching males successfully located also the source of a female song with parameters outside the species-specific values. The results are discussed with regard to male behavioural strategies in species with different vibrational communication systems and different male mating investment.

Keywords

Mating systems Mate location Recognition Mate choice 

References

  1. [1]
    Parker G.A., Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Blum M.S., Blum N.A. (Eds). Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects, Academic Press, New York, 1979Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Real L., Search theory and mate choice. I. Models of single-sex discrimination, Am. Nat., 1990, 136, 376–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Guevara-Fiore P., Stapley J., Krause J., Ramnarine I.W., Watt P.J., Male mate-searching strategies and female cues: how do male guppies find receptive females?, Anim. Behav., 2010, 79, 1191–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Shuster S.M., Wade M.J., Mating systems and strategies, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2000Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Andersson M., Sexual selection, Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1994Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Kokko H., Wong B.B.M, What determines sex roles in mate searching?, Evolution 2007, 61, 1162–1175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Byers J.A., Wiseman P.A., Jones L., Roffe T.J., A large cost of female mate sampling in pronghorn, Am. Nat., 2005, 166, 661–668.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Zuk M., Kolluru G.R., Exploitation of sexual signals by predators and parasitoids, Quaterly Rev. Biol., 1998, 73, 415–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Bradbury J.W., Vehrencamp S.L., Principles of animal communication, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland (MA), 1998Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Gerhardt H.C., Huber F., Acoustic communication in insects and anurans: common problems and diverse solutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2002Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Greenfield M.D., Signallers and receivers: mechanisms and evolution of arthropod communication, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Virant-Doberlet M., Čokl A., Vibrational communication in insects, Neotrop.Entomol., 2004, 33, 121–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Cocroft R.B., Rodríguez R.L., The behavioral ecology of insect vibrational communication, BioScience, 2005, 55, 323–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Dietrich C.H. Auchenorrhyncha (Cicadas, spittlebugs, leafhoppers, treehoppers, and planthoppers, In: Resh V.H., Cardé R.T. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of insects, 2nd ed., Academic Press, London, 2009Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Schaefer C.W., Prosorrhyncha (Heteroptera and Coleorrhyncha), In: Resh V.H., Cardé R.T. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of insects, 2nd ed., Academic Press, London, 2009Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Gullan P.J., Martin J.H. Sternorrhyncha (jumping plant-lice, whiteflies, aphids, and scale insects), In: Resh V.H., Cardé R.T. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of insects, 2nd ed., Academic Press, London, 2009Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Čokl A., Stink bug interaction with host plants during communication, J. Insect. Physiol., 2008, 54, 1113–1124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Čokl A., Virant-Doberlet M., Stritih N, The structure and function of songs emitted by southern green stink bugs from Brazil, Florida, Italy and Slovenia, Physiol. Entomol., 2000, 25, 196–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Čokl A., Virant-Doberlet M., McDowell A., Vibrational directionality in the southern green stink bug Nezaraviridula(L.) is mediated by female song, Anim. Behav., 1999, 58, 1277–1283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Miklas N., Stritih N., Čokl A., Virant-Doberlet M., Renou M., The influence of substrate on male responsiveness to the female calling song in Nezaraviridula, J Insect. Behav., 2001, 14, 313–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Miklas N., Čokl A., Renou M. and Virant-Doberlet M., Variability of vibratory signals and mate choice in the southern green stink bug, Behav.Process., 2003, 61, 131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Hrabar N., Virant-Doberlet M, Čokl A., Species specificity of male southern green stink bug Nezaraviridula(L.) reactions to female calling song, Acta Zool Sin., 2004, 50, 566–575Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Miklas N., Interactions and changes of acoustic and olfactory signals during the meeting of the sexes in Nezaraviridula(Heteroptera, Pentatomidae), [Interactions et variations des signau xacoustiques et olfactifs lors de la rencontre des sexes chez Nezaraviridula(Heteroptera, Pentatomidae)], PHD thesis, L’Universite Paris XIII, Paris, 2002, (in French)Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Polajnar J, Čokl A., The effect of vibratory disturbance on sexual behaviour of the southern green stink bug Nezaraviridula(Heteroptera, Pentatomidae), Centr. Eur. J. Biol., 2008, 3, 189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Claridge M.F., Acoustic signals in the Homoptera: behaviour, taxonomy, and evolution, Annu. Rev. Entomol., 1985, 30, 297–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Čokl A., Virant-Doberlet M., Communication with substrate-borne signals in small plant-dwelling insects, Annu. Rev. Entomol., 2003, 48, 29–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Bailey W.J. Insect duets: underlying mechanisms and their evolution, Physiol. Entomol., 2003, 28, 157–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Virant-Doberlet M., Čokl A., Zorović M., Use of substrate vibrations for orientation: from behaviour to physiology. In: Claridge M.F., Drosopoulos S., (eds) Insect sounds and communication: physiology, behaviour, ecology and evolution, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, 2006Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Mazzoni V., Prešern J., Lucchi A., Virant-Doberlet M., Reproductive strategy of the Nearctic leafhopper Scaphiodeustitanus Ball (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae), Bull. Entomol. Res., 2009, 99, 401–413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    De Vrijer P.W.F., Species distinctiveness and variability of acoustic calling signals in the planthopper genus Javesella (Homoptera: Delphacidae), Neth. J. Zool., 1986, 36, 388–406Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Gwynne D.T., Sex-baised predation and the risky mate-locating behaviour of male tick-tock cicadas (Homoptera, Cicadidae), Anim. Behav., 1987, 35, 571–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Hunt R.E., Nault L.R., Roles of interplant movement, acoustic communication, and phonotaxis in mate-location behavior of the leafhopper Graminellanigrifrons, Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 1991, 28, 315–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    Tishechkin D.Y., Acoustic signals and morphological characters of leafhoppers from Aphrodesbicinctus group from central European Russia, ZoologicheskyZhurnal, 1998, 77, 669–676Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Tishechkin D.Y., Vibrational communication in Aphrodinae leafhoppers (Deltocephalinae act., Homoptera: Cicadellidae) and related groups with notes on classification of higher taxa, Russian Entomol. J., 2000, 9, 1–66Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Panizzi R. A., Wild hosts of pentatomids: ecological significance and role of their pest status on crops, Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1997, 42, 99–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    Čokl A., Gogala M., Blaževič A., Principles of sound recognition in three pentatomidae bug species, Biol. Vestn., 1978, 26, 81–94Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Žunič A., Virant-Doberlet M., Čokl A., Species recognition during substrate-borne communication in Nezaraviridula (L.) (Pentatomidae: Heteroptera), J. Insect Behav., 2011, DOI: 10.1007/s10905-011-9272-xGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    de Groot M., Čokl A., Virant-Doberlet M., Effects of heterospecific and conspecific signal overlap and signal-to-noise ratio on male responsiveness in Nezaraviridula(L.), J. Exp. Biol., 2010, 213, 3213–3222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. [39]
    Quinn G. P., Keough M.J., Experimental design and data analysis for biologists., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    Ryan J.A., Significance test for multiple comparison of proportions, variances and other statistics, Physiol. Bull, 1960, 57, 318–328Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    Steel R.D.G., A multiple comparison rank test: treatments versus control, Biometrics, 1959, 15, 560–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. [42]
    Ota D., Čokl A., Mate location in the southern green stink bug Nezaraviridul (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) mediated through substrate-borne signals on ivy, J. Insect. Behav., 1991, 4, 441–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. [43]
    Heller K.G., von Helversen D. Acoustic communication in phaneropterid bush crickets: species-specific delay of female stridulatory response and matching male sensory time window, Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 1986, 18, 189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    Buck J., Case J., Physiological links in firefly flash code evolution, J. Insect Behav., 2002, 15, 51–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. [45]
    Lewis S.M., Cratsley C.K., Flash signal evolution, mate choice, and predation in fireflies, Annu. Rev. Entomol., 2008, 53, 293–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. [46]
    Rupprecht R., The communication of Sialis (Megaloptera) through vibrational signals, [Die Kommunikation von Sialis (Megaloptera) durch Vibrationssignale], J. Insect Physiol., 1975, 21, 305–320 (in German)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. [47]
    Johnstone R.A., Reynolds J.D., Deutsch J.C., Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness, Evolution, 1996, 50, 1382–1391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. [48]
    Bonduriansky R., 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence, Biol. Rev., 76, 305–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. [49]
    Wiley RH., Errors, exaggeration and deception in animal communication, In: Real L, (ed.) Behavioral mechanisms in ecology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    von Helversen D., Acoustic communication and orientation in grasshoppers, In: Lehrer M. (Ed.), Orientation and communication in arthropods, BirkhäuserVerlag, Berlin, 1997Google Scholar
  51. [51]
    von Helversen D., von Helversen O., Recognition of sex in the acoustic communication of the grasshopper Chorthippusbiguttulus (Orthoptera, Acrididae), J. Comp. Physiol. A, 1997, 180, 373–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. [52]
    Den Bieman C.F.M., Acoustic differentiation and variation in planthoppers of the genus Ribautodelphax (Homoptera, Delphacidae), Neth. J. Zool., 1986, 36, 461–480.Google Scholar
  53. [53]
    De Winter A. J., Rollenhagen T., The importance of male and female acoustic behaviour for reproductive isolation in Ribautodelphaxplanthoppers (Homoptera: Delphacidae), Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 1990, 40, 191–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. [55]
    Harris V.E., Todd J.W., Temporal and numerical patterns of reproductive behaviour in the southern green stink bug Nezaraviridula(Hemiptera: Pentatomidae), Entomol. Exp. Appl., 1980, 27, 105–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. [54]
    McLain D.K., Female choice and the adaptive significance of prolonged copulation in Nezaraviridula (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae), Psyche, 1980, 87, 325–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. [56]
    Burk T. Evolutionary significance of predation on sexually signalling males, Fl. Entomol., 1982, 65, 90–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. [57]
    Virant-Doberlet M., King R.A., Polajnar J., Symondson W.O.C., Molecular diagnostics reveal spiders that exploit prey vibrational signals used in sexual communication, Mol. Ecol., 2011, 20: 2204–2216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. [58]
    Borges M., Jepson P. C., Howes P. E., Longrange mate location and close-range courtship behaviour of the green stink bug Nezaraviridulaand its mediation by sex pheromones, Entomol. Exp. Appl., 1987, 44, 205–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. [59]
    Harris V.E., Todd J.W., Male-mediated aggregation of male, female and 5th instar southern stinkbugs, Nezaraviridula (L) (Hemiptera, Pentatomidae) and concomitant attraction of a tachanid parasite, TrichopodapennipesDiptera, Tachanidae, Entomol. Exp. Appl., 1980, 27, 117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. [60]
    Coombs M., Khan S., Fecundity and longevity of green vegetable bug, Nezaraviridula, following parasitism by Trichopodagiacomellii, Biol. Control, 1998, 12, 215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. [61]
    Ott, J.R. An ecological framework for the study of planthopper mating systems. In: Denno, R.F., Perfect, R.J. (Eds.), Planthoppers: their ecology and management, Champan & Hall, New York, 1994.Google Scholar
  62. [62]
    Donelson N.C., van Staaden M.J., Alternative tactics in male bladder grasshoppers Bullacrismembracioides (Orthoptera: Pneumoridae), Behaviour, 2005, 142, 761–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. [63]
    Gross, M.R., Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: diversity within sexes, Trends Ecol. Evol., 1996, 11, 92–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. [64]
    Bailey W.J., Field G. Acoustic satellite behaviour in the Australian bushcricketElephantodetanobilis (Phaneropterinae, Tettigoniidae, Orthoptera), Anim. Behav., 2000, 59, 361–369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. [65]
    Mazzoni V., Lucchi A., Čokl A., Prešern J., Virant-Doberlet M., 2009, Disruption of the reproductive behavior of Scaphoideustitanus by playback of vibrational signal, Entomol. Exp. Appl., 133, 174–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© © Versita Warsaw and Springer-Verlag Wien 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maarten de Groot
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andrej Čokl
    • 1
  • Meta Virant-Doberlet
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institute of BiologyLjubljanaSlovenia
  2. 2.Slovenian Forestry InstituteLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations