Variation and repeatability of female choice in a chorusing katydid, Ephippiger ephippiger: An experimental exploration of the precedence effect

Ethology

Volumn 110, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 287-299

  Greenfield, Michael D ^a   Siegfreid, Eric ^a   Snedden, W Andrew ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

^b NONE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CALLING BEHAVIOR; INSECT; MATE CHOICE;

ANURA; EPHIPPIGER EPHIPPIGER; HEXAPODA; INSECTA; ORTHOPTERA; TETTIGONIIDAE;

EID: 2442561457     PISSN: 01791613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2004.00969.x     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Andersson, M. 1994: Sexual Selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
2. Bakker, T. C. M. & Pomiankowski, A. 1995: The genetic basis of female mate preferences. J. Evol. Biol. 8, 129-171.
3. Becker, W. A. 1984: Manual of Quantitative Genetics, 3rd edn. Academic Enterprises, Pullman, WA.
4. Boake, C. R. B. 1989: Repeatability: its role in evolutionary studies of mating behavior. Evol. Ecol. 3, 173-182.
5. Brooks, R. 2002: Variation in female mate choice within guppy populations: population divergence, multiple ornaments and the maintenance of polymorphism. Genetica 116, 343-358.
6. Brooks, R. & Endler, J. A. 2001: Female guppies agree to differ: phenotypic and genetic variation in mate-choice behavior and the consequences for sexual selection. Evolution 55, 1644-1655.
7. Duijm, M. 1990: On some song characteristics in Ephippiger (Orthoptera, Tettigonioidea) and their geographic variation. Netherl. J. Tool. 40, 428-453.
8. Dyson, M. L. & Passmore, N. I. 1988: Two-choice phonotaxis in Hyperolius marmoratus (Anura: Hyperoliidae): the effect of temporal variation in presented stimuli. Anim. Behav. 36, 648-652.
9. Farris, H. E., Rand, A. S. & Ryan, M. J. 2002: The effects of spatially separated call components on phonotaxis in tungara frogs: evidence for auditory grouping. Brain Behav. Evol. 60, 181-188.
10. Gerhardt, H. C. & Huber, F. 2002: Acoustic Communication in Insects and Anurans: Common Problems and Diverse Solutions. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
11. Gray, D. A. & Cade, W. H. 1999: Quantitative genetics of sexual selection in the field cricket, Gryllus integer. Evolution 53, 848-854.
12. Greenfield, M. D. 1994a: Cooperation and conflict in the evolution of signal interactions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 25, 97-126.
13. Greenfield, M. D. 1994b: Synchronous and alternating choruses in insects and anurans: common mechanisms and diverse functions. Am. Zool. 34, 605-615.
14. Greenfield, M. D. 1997: Sexual selection and the evolution of advertisement signals. In: Perspectives in Ethology: Communication, vol. 12 (Owings, D. H., Beecher, M. D. & Thompson, N. S., eds). Plenum Press, New York, pp. 145-177.
15. Greenfield, M. D. 2002: Signalers and Receivers: Mechanisms and Evolution of Arthropod Communication. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
16. Greenfield, M. D. & Roizen, I. 1993: Katydid synchronous chorusing is an evolutionary stable outcome of female choice. Nature 364, 618-620.
17. Greenfield, M. D. & Snedden, W. A. 2003: Selective attention and the spatio-temporal structure of orthopteran choruses. Behaviour 140, 1-26.
18. Greenfield, M. D., Tourtellot, M. K. & Snedden, W. A. 1997: Precedence effects and the evolution of chorusing. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264, 1355-1361.
19. Heller, K.-G. 1988: Bioakustik der Europäischen Laubheuschrecken. Verlag Josef Margraf, Weikersheim.
20. Houde, A. E. 1997: Sex, Color, and Mate Choice in Guppies. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
21. Houle, D. 1992: Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130, 195-200.
22. Jang, Y. & Greenfield, M. D. 1996: Ultrasonic communication and sexual selection in wax moths: female choice based on energy and synchrony of male signals. Anim. Behav. 51, 1095-1106.
23. Jang, Y. & Greenfield, M. D. 2000: Quantitative genetics of female choice in an ultrasonic pyralid moth, Achroia grisella: variation and evolvability of preference along multiple dimensions of the male advertisement signal. Heredity 84, 73-80.
24. Jennions, M. D. & Petrie, M. 1997: Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. Camb. Phil. Soc. 72, 283-327.
25. Jennions, M. D. & Petrie, M. 2000: Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. Camb. Phil. Soc. 75, 21-64.
26. Minckley, R. L. & Greenfield, M. D. 1995: Psychoacoustics of female phonotaxis and the evolution of male signal interactions in Orthoptera. Ethol. Ecol. & Evol. 7, 235-243.
27. Pollock, G. S. 1998: Neural processing of acoustic signals. In: Handbook of Auditory Research. Comparative Hearing: Insects, vol. 10 (Hoy, R. R., Popper, A. N. & Fay, R. R., eds). Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 119-196.
28. Reinhold, Kl., Reinhold, Ka. & Jacoby, K. J. 2002: Dissecting the repeatability of female choice in the grasshopper Chorthippus biguttulus. Anim. Behav. 64, 245-250.
29. Ritchie, M. G. 1996: The shape of female mating preferences. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 14628-14631.
30. Rodriguez, R. L. & Greenfield, M. D. 2003: Genetic variance and phenotypic plasticity in a component of female mate choice in an ultrasonic moth. Evolution 57, 1304-1313.
31. Römer, H. & Krusch, M. 2000: A gain control mechanism for processing of chorus sounds in the afferent auditory pathway of the bushcricket Tettigonia viridissima (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). J. Comp. Physiol. A 186, 181-191.
32. Römer, H., Hedwig, B. & 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. Neuroscience. 15, 1655-1662.
33. Ryan, M. J., Fox, J., Wilczynski, W. & Rand, A. S. 1990: Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature 343, 66-67.
34. Shaw, K. L. & Herlihy, D. P. 2000: Acoustic preference functions and song variability in the Hawaiian cricket Laupala cerasina. Proc. Roy. Soc: Lond. B 267, 577-584.
35. Snedden, W. A. & Greenfield, M. D. 1998: Females prefer leading males: relative call timing and sexual selection in katydid choruses. Anim. Behav. 56, 1091-1098.
36. Weigensberg, I. & Roff, D. A. 1996: Natural heritabilities: can they be reliably estimated in the laboratory? Evolution 50, 2149-2157.
37. Zurek, P. 1987: The precedence effect. In: Directional Hearing (Yost, W. A. & Gourevitch, G., eds). Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 85-105.