Sexual selection in the wolf spider Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata: Female preference for drum duration and pulse rate

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 13, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 615-621

  Parri, Silja ^a   Alatalo, Rauno V ^a   Kotiaho, Janne S ^a   Mappes, Johanna ^a   Rivero, Ana ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Acoustic signaling; Drum duration; Female choice; Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata; Pulse rate; Sexual selection; Wolf spiders

Indexed keywords

MATE CHOICE; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNAL; SPIDER;

ARANEAE; CANIS; HYGROLYCOSA RUBROFASCIATA; LYCOSIDAE;

EID: 0036747492     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/13.5.615     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Alatalo RV, Kotiaho J, Mappes J, Parri S, 1998. Mate choice for offspring performance: major benefits or minor costs? Proc R Soc Lond B 265:2297-2301.
2. Andersson M, 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
3. Arak A, 1988. Female mate selection in the natterjack toad: active choice or passive attraction? Anim Behav 22:317-327.
4. Baker MC, Bjerke TK, Lampe H, Espmark Y, 1986. Sexual response of female great tits to variation in size of male's song repertoires. Am Nat 128:491-498.
5. Barth FG, 1982. Spiders and vibratory, signals: sensory reception and behavioral significance. In: Spider communication: mechanisms and ecological significance (Witt PN, Rovner JS, eds). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 67-122.
6. Baurect D, Barth FG, 1992. Vibratory communication in spiders I. Representation of male courtship signals by female vibration receptor. J Comp Physiol A 171:231-243.
7. Brown WD, Wideman J, Andrade MCB, Mason AC, Gwynne DT, 1996. Female choice for an indicator of male size in the song of the black-horned tree cricket, Oeanthus nigricornis (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Evolution 50:2400-2411.
8. Butlin RK, Hewitt GM, Webb SF, 1985. Sexual selection for intermediate optimum in Chorthippus brunneus (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Anim Behav 33:1281-1292.
9. Catchpole CK, 1987. Bird song, sexual selection and female choice. Trends Evol Ecol 2:94-97.
10. Catchpole CK, 1996. Song and female choice: good genes and big brains? Trends Evol Ecol 11:358-360.
11. Cherry MI, 1993. Sexual selection in the raucous toad, Bufo rangeri. Anim Behav 45:359-373.
12. Eiríksson T, 1993. Female preference for specific pulse duration of male songs in the grasshopper, Omocestus viridulus. Anim Behav 45:471-477.
13. Eiríksson T, 1994. Song duration and female response behaviour in the grasshopper Omocestus virudulus. Anim Behav 47:707-712.
14. Foelix RF, 1996. Biology of spiders. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Forster L, 1982. Visual communication in jumping spiders (Salticidae). In: Spider communication. mechanisms and ecological significance (Witt PN, Rovner JS, eds). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 15-66.
16. Gerhardt HC, 1991. Female mate choice in treefrogs: static and dynamic criteria. Anim Behav 42:615-635.
17. Grafen, A. 1990. Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol 144:517-546.
18. Gray DA, 1997. Female house crickets, Acheta domesticus, prefer the chirps of large males. Anim Behav 54:1553-1562.
19. Gray DA, Cade WH, 1999. Sex, death and genetic variation: natural and sexual selection on cricket song. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:707-709.
20. Harrison JB, 1969. Acoustic behavior of a wolf spider, Lycosa gulosa. Anim Behav 17:14-16.
21. Hasselquist D, Bensch S, von Schantz T, 1996. Correlation between male song repertoire, extra-pair paternity and offspring survival in the great reed warbler. Nature 381:229-232.
22. Hedrick AV, 1986. Female preferences for male calling bout duration in a field cricket. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:73-77.
23. Hergenröder R, Barth FG, 1983. The release of attack and escape behavior by vibratory stimuli in a wandering spider (Supiennus salei Keys.). J Comp Physiol 152:347-358.
24. Hoikkala A, Aspi J, Suvanto L, 1998. Male courtship song frequency as an indicator of male genetic quality, in an insect species, Drosophila montana. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:503-508.
25. Jang Y, Greenfield MD, 1996. Ultrasonic communication and sexual selection in wax moths: female choice based on energy and asynchrony of male signals. Anim Behav 51:1095-1106.
26. Johnstone RA, 1995. Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence. Biol Rev 70:1-56.
27. Kotiaho JS, 2000. Testing the assumptions of conditional handicap theory: costs and condition dependence of a sexually selected trait. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48:188-194.
28. Kotiaho JS, 2001. Costs of sexual traits: a mismatch between theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Biol Rev 76:365-376.
29. Kotiaho JS, Alatalo RV, Mappes J, Nielsen MG, Parri S, Rivero A, 1998. Energetic costs of size and sexual signaling in a wolf spider. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:2203-2209.
30. Kotiaho J, Alatalo RV, Mappes J, Parri S, 1996. Sexual selection in a wolf spider: male drumming activity, body size, and viability. Evolution 50:1977-1981.
31. Kotiaho JS, Alatalo RV, Mappes J, Parri S, 1999. Sexual signalling and viability in a wolf spider (Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata): measurements under laboratory and field conditions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:123-128.
32. Kotiaho JS, Alatalo RV, Mappes J, Parri S, 2000. Microhabitat selection and audible sexual signaling in the wolf spider Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata (Araneae, Lycosidae). Acta Ethol 2:123-128.
33. Kronestedt T, 1984. Ljudalstring hos vargspindeln Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata. Fauna Flora 79:97-107.
34. Kronestedt T, 1996. Vibratory communication in the wolf spider Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata (Araneae, Lycosidae). Rev Suisse Zool (hórs serie) 341-354.
35. Lande R, 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic characters. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78:3721-3725.
36. Mappes J, Alatalo RV, Kotiaho J, Parri S, 1996. Viability costs of condition-dependent sexual male display in a drumming wolf spider. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:785-789.
37. Møller AP, Alatalo RV, 1999. Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:85-91.
38. Parri S, Alatalo RV, Kotiaho J, Mappes J, 1997. Female choice for male drumming in the wolf spider Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata. Anim Behav 53:305-312.
39. Pomiankowski A, Møller AP, 1995. A resolution to the lek paradox. Proc R Soc Lond B:260:21-29.
40. Prestwich KN, 1994. The energetics of acoustic signaling in anurans and insects. Am Zool 34:625-643.
41. Reinhold K, Greenfield MD, Jang Y, Broce A, 1998. Energetic costs of sexual attractiveness: ultrasonic advertisement in wax moths. Anim Behav 55:905-913.
42. Rice WR, 1989. Analysing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223-225.
43. Ritchie M, Townhill RM, Hoikkala A, 1998. Female preference for fly song: playback experiments confirm the targets of sexual selection. Anim Behav 56:713-717.
44. Rivero A, Alatalo RV, Kotiaho JS, Mappes J, Parri S, 2000. Acoustic signalling in a wolf spider: can signal characteristics predict male quality? Anim Behav 60:187-194.
45. Rovner JS, 1967. Acoustic communication in a Lycosid spider (Lycosarabida Walckenaer). Anim Behav 15:273-281.
46. Rovner JS, Barth FG, 1981. Vibratory communication through living plants by a tropical wandering spider. Science 214:464-466.
47. Ryan MJ, 1988. Energy, calling, and selection. Am Zool 28:885-898.
48. Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A, 1992. Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am Nat 139:S4-S35.
49. Schmitt A, Friedel T, Barth FG, 1993. Importance of pause between spider courtship vibrations and general problems using synthetic stimuli in behavioral studies. J Comp Physiol 172:707-714.
50. Schmitt A, Schuster M, Barth FG, 1994. Vibratory communication in a wandering spider, Cupiennus getazi: female and male preferences for features of the conspecific male's releaser. Anim Behav 48:1155-1171.
51. Schüch W, Barth FG, 1990. Vibratory communication in a spider: female responses to synthetic male vibrations. J Comp Physiol A 166:817-826.
52. Searcy WA, Andersson M, 1986. Sexual selection and the evolution of song. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:507-533.
53. Simmons LW, 1988. The calling song of the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (De Geer): constraints on transmission and its role in intermale competition and females choice. Anim Behav 36:380-394.
54. Stratton GE, Uetz GW, 1981. Acoustic communication and reproductive isolation in two species of wolf spiders. Science 214:575-577.
55. Sullivan BK, Hinshaw SH, 1992. Female choice and selection on male calling behavior in the grey treefrog Hyla versicolor. Anim Behav 44:733-744.
56. Uetz GW, Stratton GE, 1982. Acoustic communication and reproductive isolation in spiders. In: Spider communication: mechanisms and ecological significance (Witt P, Rovner JS, eds). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 123-159.
57. Vehrencamp SL, Bradbury JW, Gibson RM, 1989. The energetic cost of display in male sage grouse. Anim Behav 38:885-896.
58. Welch AM, Semlitsch RD, Gerhardt HC, 1998. Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280:1928-1930.