Advertisement

Copulatory Courtship with Vibrational Signals

  • Rafael L. RodríguezEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Animal Signals and Communication book series (ANISIGCOM, volume 6)

Abstract

Most research on sexual communication with substrate-borne vibrational signals has focused on the early stages of the reproductive process—mate localization and pair formation. Here, I report the results of a literature review that suggests that vibrational signals are commonly used in male–female interactions during and after copulation, either by themselves or in conjunction with tactile courtship. This observation suggests that vibrational signals may function not only in precopulatory mate choice but also in cryptic mate choice. Thus, there is reason for the surreal world of communication with substrate vibrations to join the baroque realm of postcopulatory sexual selection.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Damian Elias, Eileen Hebets, and George Uetz for advice on the literature on spider vibrational communication touching on copulation behavior. I also thank Camille Desjonquères and Gerlinde Höbel for constructive comments on the manuscript. Financial support was provided by a Research Growth Initiative grant from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

References

  1. Bagwell GJ, Čokl A, Millar JG (2008) Characterization and comparison of substrate-borne vibrational signals of Chlorochroa uhleri, Chlorochroa ligata, and Chlorochroa sayi (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 101:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Briceño RD (2014) Caracterización del comportamiento y las señales vibratorias en Euthyrhynchus floridanus (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) durante el cortejo y la cópula. Rev Biol Trop 62:95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brinck P (1949) Studies on Swedish stoneflies (Plecoptera). Opusc Entomol (Suppl XI):1–250Google Scholar
  4. Claridge MF, de Vrijer PWF (1994) Reproductive behavior: the role of acoustic signals in species recognition and speciation. In: Denno RF, Perfect TJ (eds) Planthoppers. Their ecology and management. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp 216–233Google Scholar
  5. Cocroft RB (2003) The social environment of an aggregating ant-tended treehopper (Hemiptera: Membracidae: Vanduzea arquata). J Insect Behav 16:79–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cocroft RB, Rodríguez RL (2005) The behavioral ecology of insect vibrational communication. BioScience 55:323–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cocroft RB, Tieu TD, Hoy RR, Miles RN (2000) Directionality in the mechanical response to substrate vibration in a treehopper (Hemiptera: Membracidae: Umbonia crassicornis). J Comp Physiol A 186:695–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cocroft RB, Rodríguez RL, Hunt RE (2008) Host shifts, the evolution of communication and speciation in the Enchenopa binotata complex of treehoppers. In: Tilmon K (ed) Specialization, speciation, and radiation: the evolutionary biology of herbivorous insects. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 88–100Google Scholar
  9. Cocroft RB, Gogala M, Hill PSM, Wessel A (eds) (2014) Studying vibrational communication. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. Čokl A, McBrien HL, Millar JG (2001) Comparison of substrate-borne vibrational signals of two stink bug species, Acrosternum hilare and Nezara viridula (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 94:471–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Čokl A, Prešern J, Virant-Doberlet M, Bagwell GJ, Millar JG (2004) Vibratory signals of the harlequin bug and their transmission through plants. Physiol Entomol 29:372–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drosopoulos S, Claridge MF (eds) (2006) Insects sounds and communication. Taylor & Francis, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  13. Eberhard WG (1991) Copulatory courtship and cryptic female choice in insects. Biol Rev 66:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eberhard WG (1994) Evidence for widespread courtship during copulation in 131 species of insects and spiders, and implications for cryptic female choice. Evolution 48:711–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  16. Eberhard WG (2009) Postcopulatory sexual selection: Darwin’s omission and its consequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:10025–10032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eberhard WG (2011) Experiments with genitalia: a commentary. Trends Ecol Evol 26:17–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hill PSM (2008) Vibrational communication in animals. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Huber BA (1995) Copulatory mechanism in Holocnemus pluchei and Pholcus opilionoides, with notes on male cheliceral apophyses and stridulatory organs in Pholcidae (Araneae). Acta Zool 76:291–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huber BA, Eberhard WG (1997) Courtship, copulation, and genital mechanics in Physocyclus globosus (Araneae, Pholcidae). Can J Zool 74:905–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Losinger MJ (2016) Form, function and social context of substrate-borne vibrational signals in the treehopper, Umbonia crassicornis. PhD Dissertation, Binghamton University, State University of New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Mazzoni V, Prešern J, Lucchi A, Virant-Doberlet M (2009) Reproductive strategy of the Nearctic leafhopper Scaphoideus titanus Ball (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae). Bull Entomol Res 99:401–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McBrien HL, Millar JG (2003) Substrate-borne vibrational signals of the Consperse stink bug (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Can Entomol 135:555–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miles RN, Cocroft RB, Gibbons C, Batt D (2001) A bending wave simulator for investigating directional vibration sensing in insects. J Acoust Soc Am 110:579–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morris GK (1980) Calling display and mating behaviour of Copiphora rhinoceros Pictet (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Anim Behav 28:42–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pavlovčic P, Čokl A (2001) Songs of Holcostethus strictus (Fabricius): a different repertoire among landbugs (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Behav Process 53:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Percy DM, Day MF (2005) Observations of unusual acoustic behaviour in two Australian leafhoppers (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae). J Nat Hist 39:3407–3417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Percy DM, Taylor GS, Kennedy M (2006) Psyllid communicatin: acoustic diversity, mate recognition and phylogenetic signal. Invertebr Syst 20:431–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peretti A, Aisenberg A (eds) (2015) Cryptic female choice in arthropods—patterns, mechanisms and prospects. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  30. Peretti A, Eberhard WG, Briceño RD (2006) Copulatory dialogue: female spiders sing during copulation to influence male genitalic movements. Anim Behav 72:413–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rodríguez RL (2000) Male and female mating behavior in two Ozophora bugs (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae). J Kansas Entomol Soc 72:137–148Google Scholar
  32. Rodríguez RL (2015) Mating is a given–and–take of influence and communication between the sexes. In: Peretti A, Aisenberg A (eds) Cryptic female choice in arthropods—patterns, mechanisms and prospects. Springer, Berlin, pp 479–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rodríguez RL, Desjonquères C (2019) Vibrational signals: sounds transmitted through solids. In: Choe J (ed) Encyclopedia of animal behavior (2nd ed). Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 508--517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rodríguez RL, Sullivan LE, Cocroft RB (2004) Vibrational communication and reproductive isolation in the Enchenopa binotata species complex of treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae). Evolution 58:571–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rodríguez RL, Ramaswamy K, Cocroft RB (2006) Evidence that female preferences have shaped male signal evolution in a clade of specialized plant–feeding insects. Proc R Soc B 273:2585–2593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rodríguez RL, Burger MG, Wojcinski JE, Kilmer JT (2015) Vibrational signals and mating behavior of Japanese beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 108:986–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schilthuitzen M (2014) Nature’s nether regions. Penguin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Sullivan-Beckers L, Cocroft RB (2010) The importance of female choice, male-male competition, and signal transmission as causes of selection on male mating signals. Evolution 64:3158–3171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wenninger EJ, Hall DG, Mankin RW (2009) Vibrational communication between the sexes in Diaphorina citri (Hemiptera: Psyllidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 102:547–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wood TK (1993) Speciation in the Enchenopa binotata complex (Insecta: Homoptera: Membracidae). In: Lees DR, Edwards D (eds) Evolutionary patterns and processes. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Wood RM, Peters RA, Taylor GS, Steinbauer MJ (2016) Characteristics of the signals of male Anoeconeossa bundoorensis Taylor and Burckhardt (Hemiptera: Aphalaridae) associated with female responsiveness. J Insect Behav 29:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Xiao Y-H, Zunic-Kosi A, Zhang L-W, Prentice TR, McElfresh JS, Chinta SP, Zou Y-F, Millar JG (2015) Male adaptations to minimize sexual cannibalism during reproduction in the funnel-web spider Hololena curta. Insect Sci 22:840–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Behavioral and Molecular Ecology Group, Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Wisconsin–MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations