Temporally Patterned Chemical Communication: Is it Feasible?
The temporal characteristics of chemical signals are usually ignored in analyses of animal communication. At best the durability of chemical signals is mentioned and emphasized. It is possible that the communicative role of the temporal characteristics of chemical signals has been underestimated. Using examples from pheromonal communication in moths, evidence is presented that (1) some animals produce pulsed chemical signals, (2) the transmitting medium adequately preserves the temporal pattern of these signals over biologically relevant distances, and (3) the sensory receptors of the receiving animals are capable of detecting the temporal characteristics of these signals. These findings indicate that the temporal pattern of chemical signals merits closer scrutiny, and that pulsed chemical communication is feasible.
KeywordsWind Speed Chemical Signal Male Moth Smoke Plume Pheromone Signal
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Baker, T. C., and Cardé, R. T. (1979a). Courtship behavior of the oriental fruit moth (Gra-pholitha molesta): Experimental analysis and consideration of the role of sexual selection in the evolution of courtship pheromones in Lepidoptera. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 72:173–187.Google Scholar
- Baker, T. C., and Cardé, R. T. (1979b). Analysis of pheromone-mediated behaviors in male Grapholitha molesta, the oriental fruit moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Environ. Entomol 8:956–968.Google Scholar
- Birch, M. C. (1974). Aphrodisiac pheromones in insects. In Birch, M. C. (ed.), Pheromones, American Elsevier, New York, pp. 115–134.Google Scholar
- Brown, J. L. (1975). The Evolution of Behavior. Norton, New York.Google Scholar
- Cardé, R. T., and Webster, R. P. (1981). Endogenous and exogenous factors controlling insect sex pheromone production and responsiveness, particularly among the Lepidoptera.In Kloza, M. (ed.), International Conference on Regulation of Insect Development and Behavior. Darpacz, Poland. June 1980, Wroclaw Technical University Press, Wroclaw, Poland.Google Scholar
- Hidaka, T. (1972). Biology of Hyphantria cunea Drury (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae) in Japan. XIV. Mating behavior. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 7:116–132.Google Scholar
- Kettlewell, J. E. (1946). Female assembling scents with reference to an important paper on the subject. Entomologist 79:8–14.Google Scholar
- Lloyd, J. E. (1966). Studies on the flash communication system in Photinus fireflies. Misc. Pub. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. 130:1–95.Google Scholar
- MacFarland, J. H., and Earle, N. W. (1970). Morphology and histology of the female sex pheromone gland of the salt-marsh caterpillar, Estigmene acrea. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 63:1327–1332.Google Scholar
- Michelsen, A. (1979). Insect ears as mechanical systems. Am. Sci. 67:696–706.Google Scholar
- Okubo, A. (1980). Diffusion and Ecological Problems: Mathematical Models, Springer, New York.Google Scholar
- Pasquill, F. (1974). Atmospheric Diffusion, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
- Roelofs, W. L. (1977). The scope and limitations of the electroantennogram technique in identifying pheromone components. In McFarlane, N. R. (ed.), Crop Protection Agents: Their Biological Evolution, Academic Press, New York, pp. 147–165.Google Scholar
- Shorey, H. H. (1976). Animal Communication by Pheromones, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Sower, L., Kaae, R. S., and Shorey, H. H. (1973). Sex pheromones of Lepidoptera XLI. Factors limiting potential distance of sex pheromone communication in Trichoplusia ni. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 66:1121–1122.Google Scholar
- Sutton, O. G. (1953). Micrometerology, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
- Walker, T. J., Jr. (1957). Specificity in the response of female tree crickets (Orthoptera, Gryllidae, Oecanthinae) to calling songs of the males. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 50:626–636.Google Scholar
- Werner, R. A. (1977). Morphology and histology of the sex pheromone gland of a geometrid, Rheumaptera hastata. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 70:264–266.Google Scholar
- Wright, R. H. (1964). The Science of Smell, Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar