Females prefer leading males: Relative call timing and sexual selection in katydid choruses

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 56, Issue 5, 1998, Pages 1091-1098

  Snedden, W Andy ^a   Greenfield, Michael D ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CALLING BEHAVIOR; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; GRASSHOPPER; MATE CHOICE;

ANURA; HEXAPODA; INSECTA; NEOCONOCEPHALUS; NEOCONOCEPHALUS SPIZA; ORTHOPTERA; SPIZA; TETTIGONIIDAE;

EID: 0031760646     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/anbe.1998.0871     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Andersson M. Sexual Selection. 1994;Princeton University Press, Princeton.
2. Brown W. D., Wideman J., Andrade M. C. B., Mason A. C., Gwynne D. T. Female choice for an indicator of male size in the song of the black-horned tree cricket,Oecanthus nigricornis. Evolution. 50:1996;2400-2411.
3. Dyson M. L., Passmore N. I. The combined effect of intensity and the temporal relationship of stimuli on phonotaxis in female painted reed frogsHyperolius marmoratus. Animal Behaviour. 36:1988a;1555-1556.
4. Dyson M. L., Passmore N. I. Two-choice phonotaxis inHyperolius mamoratus. Animal Behaviour. 36:1988b;648-652.
5. Forsgren E. Predation risk affects mate choice in a gobiid fish. American Naturalist. 140:1992;1041-1049.
6. Galliart P. L., Shaw K. C. The effects of variation in parameters of the male calling song of the katydid,Amblycorpha parvipennis. Journal of Insect Behavior. 9:1996;841-856.
7. Grafe T. U. The function of call alternation in the African reed frogHyperolius marmoratus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 38:1996;149-158.
8. Grafe T. U. Costs and benefits of mate choice in the lek-breeding reed frog,Hyperolius marmoratus. Animal Behaviour. 53:1997;1103-1117.
9. Greenfield M. D. Interspecific acoustic interactions among katydidsNeoconocephalus. Animal Behaviour. 36:1988;684-695.
10. Greenfield M. D. Cooperation and conflict in the evolution of signal interactions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25:1994a;97-126.
11. Greenfield M. D. Synchronous and alternating choruses in insects and anurans: common mechanisms and diverse functions. American Zoologist. 34:1994b;605-615.
12. Greenfield M. D., Roizen I. Katydid synchronous chorusing is an evolutionary stable outcome of female choice. Nature. 364:1993;618-620.
13. Greenfield M. D., Tourtellot M. K., Snedden W. A. Precedence effects and the evolution of chorusing. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 264:1997;1355-1361.
14. Hedrick A. V. Female preferences for male calling bout duration in a field cricket. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 19:1986;73-77.
15. Hedrick A. V., Dill L. Mate choice by female crickets is influenced by predation risk. Animal Behaviour. 46:1993;193-196.
16. Howard R. D., Palmer J. G. Female choice inBufo americanus. Copeia. 1995:1995;212-217.
17. Johnstone R. A. Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence. Biological Review. 70:1995;1-65.
18. Kirkpatrick M., Ryan M. J. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature. 350:1991;33-38.
19. Minckley R. L., Greenfield M. D., Tourtellot M. K. Chorus structure in tarbush grasshoppers: inhibition, selective phonoresponse, and signal competition. Animal Behaviour. 50:1995;579-594.
20. Ritchie M. G., Couzin I. D., Snedden W. A. What's in a song? Female bushcrickets discriminate against the song of older males. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 262:1995;21-27.
21. Römer H., Hedwig B., Ott S. Proximate mechanism of female preference for the leader male in synchronizing bushcrickets (Mecopoda elongata. Proceedings of the 25th Goettingen Neurobiology Conference. 1997;. p. 322.
22. Ryan M. J. The Túngara Frog: a Study in Sexual Selection and Communication. 1985;University of Chicago Press. Chicago.
23. Ryan M. J., Keddey-Hector A. Directional patterns in female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. American Naturalist Supplement. 139:1992;5-35.
24. Ryan M. J., Rand A. S. Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution. 47:1993;647-657.
25. Searcy W. A., Andersson M. Sexual selection and the evolution of song. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 17:1986;507-533.
26. Snedden W. A., Greenfield M. D., Jang, Y. Mechanisms of selective attention in grasshopper choruses: who listens to whom? 1998;Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology, p. 59-66.
27. Sokal, R. R. Rohlf, F. J. 1981, Biometry, San Francisco, W. H. Freeman.
28. Stiedl, O. 1991, Akusto-vibratorische Verhaltensuntersuchungen an Ephippigerinen im Labor und im Biotop. University of Marburg.
29. Sullivan B. K., Hinshaw S. H. Female choice and selection on male calling behaviour in the grey treefrog,Hyla versicolor. Animal Behaviour. 44:1992;733-744.
30. Walker T. J., Greenfield M. D. Songs and systematics of CaribbeanNeoconocephalus. Trans-actions of the American Entomological Society. 109:1983;357-389.
31. Wallach H., Newman E. B., Rosenzweig M. R. The precedence effect in sound localization. American Journal of Psychology. 62:1949;315-336.
32. Wyttenbach R. A., Hoy R. R. Demonstration of the precedence effect in an insect. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 94:1993;777-784.
33. Zuk M. Variability in attractiveness of male field crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) to females. Animal Behaviour. 35:1987;1240-1248.
34. Zurek P. M. The precedence effect and its possible role in the avoidance of iteraural ambiguities. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 67:1980;952-964.