Variance in female responses to the fine structure of male song in the field cricket, Gryllus integer

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 9, Issue 6, 1998, Pages 582-591

  Hedrick, Ann ^a   Weber, Theo ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Max Plank Inst F V   (Germany)

Author keywords

Crickets; Female mating preferences; Gryllus integer; Mate recognition; Phonotaxis; Song

Indexed keywords

CRICKET; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; MATE CHOICE;

GRYLLIDAE; GRYLLINAE; GRYLLUS INTEGER; ORTHOPTERA;

EID: 0031761439     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/9.6.582     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Andersson M, 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
2. Bakker TCM, Pomiankowski A, 1995. The genetic basis of female mate preferences. J Evol Biol 8:129-171.
3. Butlin RK, Hewitt GM, Webb SF, 1985. Sexual selection for intermediate optimum in Chorthippus brunneus (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Anim Behav 33:1281-1292.
4. Charalambous M, Butlin RK, Hewitt GM, 1994. Genetic variation in male song and female song preference in the grasshopper Chorthippus brunneus (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Anim Behav 47:399-411.
5. Cronin H, 1992. The ant and the peacock. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Doherty J, 1985. Trade-off phenomena in calling song recognition and phonotaxis in the cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (Orthoptera, Gryllidae). J Comp Physiol A 156:787-801.
7. Doolan JM, Pollack GS, 1985. Phonotactic specificity of the cricket Teteogryllus oceanicus: intensity-dependent selectivity for temporal parameters of the stimulus. J Comp Physiol 157:223-233.
8. Endler JA, 1989. Conceptual and other problems in speciation. In: Speciation and its consequences (Otte D, Endler JA, eds). Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates; 625-648.
9. Futuyma DJ, 1986. Evolutionary biology. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.
10. Gerhardt HC, 1991. Female mate choice in treefrogs: static and dynamic criteria. Anim Behav 42:615-635.
11. Gerhardt HC, 1994. Selective responsiveness to long-range acoustic signals in insects and anurans. Am Zool 34:706-714.
12. Hedrick AV, 1986. Female preferences for male calling bout duration in a field cricket. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:73-77.
13. Hedrick AV, 1988. Female choice and the heritability of attractive male traits: an empirical study. Am Nat 132:267-276.
14. Hennig RM, Weber T, 1997. Filtering of temporal parameters of the calling song by cricket females of two closely related species: a behavioral analysis. J Comp Physiol A 180:621-630.
15. Houde AE, 1988. Genetic difference in female choice between two guppy populations. Anim Behav 36:510-516.
16. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ, 1991. The paradox of the lek and the evolution of mating preferences. Nature 350:33-38.
17. Kramer E, 1976. The orientation of walking honeybees in odour fields with small concentration gradients. Physiol Entomol 1:27-37.
18. Lande R, 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78:3721-3725.
19. Moore AJ, 1990. The inheritance of social dominance, mating behavior and attractiveness to mates in male Nauphoeta cinerea. Anim Behav 39:388-397.
20. Otte D, Endler JA, 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.
21. Pollack GS, Hoy RR, 1981. Phonotaxis to individual rhythmic components of a complex cricket calling song. J Comp Physiol 144:367-373.
22. Ritchie MG, 1996. The shape of female mating preferences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:14628-14631.
23. Ritchie MG, Kyriacou CP, 1994. Genetic variability of courtship song in a population of Drosophila melanogaster. Anim Behav 48:425-434.
24. Ryan MJ, 1988. Energy, calling, and selection. Am Zool 28:885-898.
25. Ryan MJ, 1990. Signals, species, and sexual selection. Am Sci 78:46-52.
26. Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A, 1992. Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am Nat 139:S4-S35.
27. Ryan MJ, Rand AS, 1993. Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution 47:647-657.
28. Smith CJ, Cade WH, 1987. Relative fertility in hybridization experiments using three song types of the field crickets Gryllus integer and Gryllus rubens. Can J Zool 65:2390-2394.
29. Souroukis K, Cade WH, Rowell G, 1992. Factors that possibly influence variation in the calling song of field crickets: temperature, time and male size, age, and wing morphology. Can J Zool 70:950-955.
30. Thorson J, Weber T, Huber F, 1982. Auditory behavior of the cricket. II. Simplicity of calling-song recognition in Gryllus and anomalous phonotaxis at abnormal carrier frequencies. J Comp Physiol 146: 361-378.
31. Wagner WE, Murray AM, Cade WH, 1995. Phenotypic variation in the mating preferences of female field crickets, Gryllus integer. Anim Behav 49:1269-1281.
32. Weber T, Thorson J, 1989. Phonotactic behavior of walking crickets. In: Cricket behavior and neurobiology (Huber F, Moore TE, Loher W, eds). Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press; 310-339.
33. Weber T, Thorson J, Huber F, 1981. Auditory behavior of the cricket. I. Dynamics of compensated walking and discrimination paradigms on the Kramer treadmill. J Comp Physiol 141:215-232.
34. Weissman DB, Rentz DCF, Alexander RD, Loher W, 1980. Field crickets (Gryllus and Acheta) of California and Baja California, Mexico (Orthoptera: Gryllidae: Gryllinae). Trans Am Entomol Soc 106: 327-356.
35. Zar JH, 1984. Biostatistical analysis, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.