The relative importance of different direct benefits in the mate choices of a field cricket

Evolution

Volumn 61, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 617-622

  Wagner Jr , William E ^a   Basolo, Alexandra L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA   (United States)

Author keywords

Calling song; Direct benefits; Female mate choice; Field cricket; Gryllus lineaticeps; Mating preference

Indexed keywords

CALLING BEHAVIOR; CRICKET; EVOLUTION; FECUNDITY; MATE CHOICE;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; FEMALE; GRYLLIDAE; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEXUAL SELECTION; VOCALIZATION;

ANIMALS; FEMALE; GRYLLIDAE; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; VOCALIZATION, ANIMAL;

GRYLLINAE; GRYLLUS LINEATICEPS;

EID: 34247516951     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00062.x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Bakker, T. C. M., R. Künzler, and D. Mazzi. 1999. Condition-related mate choice in sticklebacks. Nature 401:234.
2. Basolo, A. L. 1990. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 250:808-810.
3. -. 1998. Evolutionary change in a receiver bias: a comparison of female preference functions. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265:2223-2228.
4. Basolo, A. L., and B. C. Trainor. 2002. The conformation of a female preference for a composite male trait in green swordtails. Anim. Behav. 63:469-474.
5. Bentsen, C. L., J. Hunt, M. D. Jennions, and R. Brooks. 2006. Complex multivariate sexual selection on male acoustic signaling in a wild population of Teleogryllus commodus. Am. Nat. 167:E102-E116.
6. Blows, M. W., and R. Brooks. 2003. Measuring non-linear selection. Am. Nat. 162:815-820.
7. Borgia, G. 1995. Complex male display and female choice in the spotted bowerbird: specialised functions for different bower decorations. Anim. Behav. 49:1291-1301.
8. Brooks, R., J. Hunt, M. W. Blows, M. J. Smith, L. F. Bussière, and M. D. Jennions. 2005. Experimental evidence for multivariate stabilizing sexual selection. Evolution 59:871-880.
9. Cade, W. H. 1975. Acoustically orienting parasitoids: fly phonotaxis to cricket song. Science 190:1312-1313.
10. Candolin, U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol. Rev. 78:575-595.
11. Endler, J. A., and A. L. Basolo. 1998. Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:415-420.
12. Gerhardt, H. C. 1991. Female mate choice in treefrogs-static and dynamic acoustic criteria. Anim. Behav. 42:615-635.
13. Hebets, E. A., and D. R. Papaj. 2005. Complex signal function: developing a framework of testable hypotheses. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 57:197-214.
14. Hingle, A., K. Fowler, and A. Pomiankowski. 2001. The effect of transient food stress on female mate preference in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanii. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268:1239-1244.
15. Hunt, J., R. Brooks, and M. D. Jennions. 2005. Female mate choice as a condition-dependent life-history trait. Am. Nat. 166:79-92.
16. Iwasa, Y., and A. Pomiankowski. 1994. The evolution of mate preferences for multiple sexual ornaments. Evolution 48:853-867.
17. Jang, Y., and M. D. Greenfield. 1998. Absolute versus relative measurements of sexual selection: assessing the contributions of ultrasonic signal characters to mate attraction in lesserwax moths, Achroia grisella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Evolution 52:1383-1393.
18. Jennions, M. D., and M. Petrie. 1997. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. 72:283-327.
19. Johnstone, R. A. 1996. Multiple displays in animal communication: 'backup signals' and 'multiple messages'. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 351:329-338.
20. Lande, R., and S. J. Arnold. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37:1210-1226.
21. Lindström, K., and J. Lundström. 2000. Male greenfinches (Carduelis chloris) with brighter ornamentation have higher virus infection clearance rate. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 48:44-51.
22. Møller, A. P., and A. Pomiankowsi. 1993. Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 32:167-176.
23. Murray, A.-M., and W. H. Cade. 1995. Differences in age structure among field cricket populations (Orthoptera, Gryllidae)-possible influence of a sex-biased parasitoid. Can. J. Zool. 73:1207-1213.
24. Olvido, A. E., and W. E. Wagner, Jr. 2004. Signal components, acoustic preference functions, and sexual selection in a cricket. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 83:461-472.
25. Parri, S., R. V. Alatalo, J. Kotiaho, and J. Mappes. 1997. Female choice for male drumming in the wolf spider Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata. Anim. Behav. 53:305-312.
26. Reinhold, K., K. Reinhold, and K. J. Jacoby. 2002. Dissecting the repeatability of female choice in the grasshopper Chorthippus biguttulus. Anim. Behav. 64:245-250.
27. Rowe, C. 1999. Receiver psychology and the evolution of multi-component signals. Anim. Behav. 58:921-931.
28. Ryan, M. J., and A. S. Rand. 1993. Sexual selection and signal evolution: the ghosts of biases past. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 340:187-195.
29. -. 2003. Sexual selection in female perceptual space: how female Túngara frogs perceive and respond to complex population variation in acoustic mating signals. Evolution 57:2608-2618.
30. Scheuber, H., A. Jacot, and M. W. G. Brinkhof. 2003. Condition-dependence of a multicomponent sexual signal in the field cricket Gryllus campestris. Anim. Behav. 65:721-727.
31. Schluter, D., and T. Price. 1993. Honesty, perception and population divergence in sexually selected traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 253:117-122.
32. Simmons, L. W., and M. Zuk. 1994. Age structure of parasitized and unparasitized populations of the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. Ethology 98:333-340.
33. Syriatowicz, A., and R. Brooks. 2004. Sexual responsiveness is condition-dependent in female guppies, but preference functions are not. BMC Ecol. 4:5.
34. Wagner, W. E., Jr. 1996. Convergent song preferences between female field crickets and acoustically orienting parasitoid flies. Behav. Ecol. 7:279-285.
35. -. 1998. Measuring female mating preferences. Anim. Behav. 55:1029-1042.
36. Wagner, W. E., Jr., and C. J. Harper. 2003. Female life span and fertility are increased by the ejaculates of preferred males. Evolution 57:2054-2066.
37. Wagner, W. E., Jr., R. J. Kelley, K. R. Tucker, and C. J. Harper. 2001a. Females receive a life-span benefit from male ejaculates in a field cricket. Evolution 55:994-1001.
38. Wagner, W. E., Jr., and M. G. Reiser. 2000. The importance of calling song and courtship song in female mate choice in the variable field cricket. Anim. Behav. 59:1219-1226.
39. Wagner, W. E., Jr., M. R. Smeds, and D. D. Wiegmann. 2001b. Experience affects female responses to male song in the variable field cricket Gryllus lineaticeps (Orthoptera, Gryllidae). Ethology 107:769-776.
40. Walker, T. J. 1986. Monitoring the flights of field crickets (Gryllus spp.) and a tachinid fly (Euphasiopteryx ochracea) in north Florida. Fla. Entornol. 69:678-685.
41. Weissman, D. B., D. C. F. Rentz, R. D. Alexander, andW. Loher. 1980. Field crickets (Gryllus and Acheta) of California and Baja California, Mexico (Orthoptera: Gryllidae: Gryllinae). Trans. Am. Entomol. Soc. 106:327-356.