Sexual selection in insect choruses: Influences of call power and relative timing

Journal of Insect Behavior

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 59-75

  Berg, Alvaro ^a   Greenfield, Michael D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

Acoustic communication; Ephippiger ephippiger; Female choice; Precedence effect; Preference function; Tettigoniidae

Indexed keywords

EPHIPPIGER EPHIPPIGER; HEXAPODA; INSECTA; TETTIGONIIDAE;

EID: 13844254724     PISSN: 08927553     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10905-005-9347-7     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Bosch, J., and Marquez, R. (2002). Female preference function related to precedence effect in an amphibian anuran (Alytes cisternasii): Tests with non-overlapping calls. Behav. Ecol. 13: 149-153.
2. Busnel, M.-C. (1967). Rivalite acoustique et hierarchie chez Y Ephippiger. Z. vergl. Physiol. 54: 232-245.
3. Duijm, M. (1990). On some song characteristics in Ephippiger (Orthoptera, Tettigonioidea) and their geographic variation. Nethl. J. Zool. 40: 428-453.
4. Galliart, P. L., and Shaw, K. C. (1996). The effect of variation in parameters of the male calling song of the katydid, Amblycorypha parvipennis (Orthoptera: Tettigonndae), on female phonotaxis and phonoresponse. J. Insect Behav. 9: 841-855.
5. Gerhardt, H. C., and Huber, F. (2002). Acoustic Communication in Insects and Anurans, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
6. Gilburn, A. S., and Day, T. H. (1994). Evolution of female choice in seaweed flies: Fisherian and good genes mechanisms operate in different populations. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 255: 159-165.
7. Gray, D. A. (1997). Female house crickets, Acheta domesticus, prefer the chirps of large males. Anim. Behav. 54: 1553-1562.
8. Greenfield, M. D. (1994a). Cooperation and conflict in the evolution of signal interactions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 25: 97-126.
9. Greenfield, M. D. (1994b). Synchronous and alternating choruses in insects and anurans: Common mechanisms and diverse functions. Am. Zool. 34: 605-615.
10. Greenfield, M. D. (1997). Sexual selection and the evolution of advertisement signals. In Owings, D. H., Beecher, M. D., and Thompson, N. S. (eds.), Perspectives in Ethology, Vol. 12, Communication, Plenum, New York, pp. 145-177.
11. Greenfield, M. D. (2002). Signalers and Receivers: Mechanisms and Evolution of Arthropod Communication, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
12. Greenfield, M. D., and Roizen, I. (1993). Katydid synchronous chorusing is an evolutionarily stable outcome of female choice. Nature 364: 618-620.
13. Greenfield, M. D., Siegfreid, E., and Snedden, W. A. (2004). Variation and repeatability of female choice in a chorusing katydid, Ephippiger ephippiger. An experimental exploration of the precedence effect. Ethology 110: 287-299.
14. Greenfield, M. D., and Snedden, W. A. (2003). Selective attention and the spatio-temporal structure of orthopteran choruses. Behaviour 140: 1-26.
15. Greenfield, M. D., Tourtellot, M. K., and Snedden, W. A. (1997). Precedence effects and the evolution of chorusing. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264: 1355-1361.
16. Gwynne, D. T. (1984). Courtship feeding increases female reproductive success in bush crickets. Nature 307: 361-363.
17. Gwynne, D. T. (2001). Katydids and Bush-Crickets: Reproductive Behavior and Evolution of the Tetiigoniidae, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
18. Hartley, J. C., and Warne, A. C. (1984). Taxonomy of the Ephippiger ephippiger complex (ephippiger, cruciger, and cunii), with special reference to the mechanics of copulation. Eos 60: 43-54.
19. Jang, Y., and Greenfield, M. D. (1996). Ultrasonic communication and sexual selection in wax moths: Female choice based on energy and asynchrony of male signals. Anim. Behav. 51: 1095-1106.
20. Jia, F.-Y., Greenfield, M. D., and Collins, R. D. (2001). Ultrasonic signal competition among wax moths. J. Insect Behav. 14: 19-34.
21. Kirkpatrick, M., and Ryan, M. J. (1991). The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350: 33-38.
22. Kotiaho, J., Alatalo, R. V., Mappes, J., and Parri, S. (1996). Sexual selection in a wolf spider: Male drumming activity, body size, and viability. Evolution 50: 1977-1981.
23. Minckley, R. L., and Greenfield, M. D. (1995). Psychoacoustics of female phonotaxis and the evolution of male signal interactions in Orthoptera. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 7: 235-243.
24. Minckley, R. L., Greenfield, M. D., and Tourtellot, M. K. (1995). Chorus structure in tarbush grasshoppers: Inhibition, selective phonoresponse, and signal competition. Anim. Behav. 50: 579-594.
25. Pollack, G. S. (1998). Neural processing of acoustic signals. In Hoy, R. R., Popper, A. N., and Fay, R. R. (eds.), Handbook of Auditory Research, Vol. 10, Comparative Hearing: Insects, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 139-196.
26. Pomiankowski, A. (1988). The evolution of female mate preferences for male genetic quality. Oxford Surv. Evol. Biol. 5: 136-184.
27. Ritchie, M. G. (1991). Female preference for song races of Ephippiger ephippiger (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae). Anim. Behav. 42: 518-520.
28. Ritchie, M. G. (1996). The shape of female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., U.S.A. 93: 14628-14631.
29. Romer, H., Hedwig, B., and Ott, S. R. (2002). Contralateral inhibition as a sensory bias: The neural basis for a female preference in a synchronously calling bushcricket, Mecopoda elongata. Eur. J. Neurosci. 15: 1655-1662.
30. Ryan, M. J., Fox, J., Wilczynski, W., and Rand, A. S. (1990). Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature 343: 66-67.
31. Schildberger, K. (1994). The auditory pathway for crickets: Adaptations for intraspecific communication. Fortschr. Zool. 39: 209-225.
32. Snedden, W. A., and Greenfield, M. D. (1998). Females prefer leading males: Relative call timing and sexual selection in katydid choruses. Anim. Behav. 56: 1091-1098.
33. Snedden, W. A., Greenfield, M. D., and Jang, Y. (1998). Mechanisms of selective attention in grasshopper choruses: Who listens to whom? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 43: 59-66.
34. 2+ dynamics in a cricket auditory neuron: An example of chemical computation. Science 263: 823-826.
35. Stiedl, O., and Bickmeyer, U. (1991). Acoustic behavior of Ephippiger ephippiger Fiebig (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae) within a habitat of southern France. Behav. Proc. 23: 125-135.
36. Tauber, E. (2001). Bidirectional communication system in katydids: The effect on chorus structure. Behav. Ecol. 12: 308-312.
37. Tauber, E., Cohen, D., Greenfield, M. D., and Pener, M. P. (2001). Duet singing and female choice in the bushcricket Phaneroptera nana. Behaviour 138: 411-430.
38. Tuckerman, J. F., Gwynne, D. T., and Morris, G. K. (1993). Reliable acoustic cues for female mate preference in a katydid (Scudderia curvicauda, Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Behav. Ecol. 4: 106-113.
39. Wagner, W. E., Jr. (1996). Convergent song preferences between female field crickets and acoustically orienting parasitoid flies. Behav. Ecol. 7: 279-285.
40. Walker, T. J., and Forrest, T. G. (1989). Mole cricket phonotaxis: Effects of intensity of synthetic calling song (Orthoptera: Gryllotalpidae, Scapteriscus acletus). Fla. Entomol. 72: 655-659.
41. Wallach, H., Newman, E. B., and Rosenzweig, M. R. (1949). The precedence effect in sound localization. Am. J. Psychol. 62: 315-336.
42. White, P. R., Birch, M. C., Church, S., Jay, C., Rowe, E., and Keenlyside, J. J. (1993). Intraspecific variability in the tapping behavior of the death watch beetle. Xestobium rufovillosum (Coleoptera: Anobiidae). J. Insect Behav. 6: 549-562.
43. Wyttenbach, R. A., and Hoy, R. R. (1993). Demonstration of the precedence effect in an insect. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 94: 777-784.
44. Zurek, P. M. (1987). The precedence effect. In Yost, W. A., and Gourevitch, G. (eds.), Directional Hearing, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 85-105.