Male and female crickets use different decision rules in response to mating signals

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 1175-1184

  Leonard, Anne S ^a   Hedrick, Ann V ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Contests; Decision rules; Gryllus integer; Male phonotaxis; Mate choice; Satellite males; Sexual dimorphism; Thresholds

Indexed keywords

CONSPECIFIC; CRICKET; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; MATE CHOICE; MATING BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SIGNALING;

GRYLLIDAE; GRYLLINAE; GRYLLUS INTEGER;

EID: 70450247088     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arp115     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Alexander RD. 1961. Aggressiveness, territoriality and sexual behavior in field crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Behaviour. 17:130-223.
2. Alexander RD, Marshall DC, Cooley JR. 1997. Evolutionary perspectives on insect mating. In: Choe JC, Crespi BJ, editors. Mating systems in insects and arachnids. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. p. 4-31.
3. Arak A. 1983a. Male-male competition and mate choice in anuran amphibians. In: Bateson P, editor. Mate choice. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. p. 181-210.
4. Arak A. 1983b. Sexual selection by male-male competition in natterjack toad choruses. Nature. 306:261-262.
5. Arak A. 1988. Callers and satellites in the natterjack toad: evolution-arily stable decision rules. Anim Behav. 36:416-432.
6. Bailey WJ, Simmons LW. 1991. Male-male behavior and sexual dimorphism of the ear of a zaprochiline tettigoniid (Orthoptera: Tettigo-niidae). J Insect Behav. 4:51-55.
7. Bateson M, Healy SD. 2005. Comparative evaluation and its implications for mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol. 20:659-664.
8. Bee MA. 2007. Selective phonotaxis by male wood frogs (Rana sylva-tica) to the sound of a chorus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 61:955-966.
9. Beehler BM, Foster MS. 1988. Hotshots, hotspots, and female preference in the organization of lek mating systems. Am Nat. 131: 203-219.
10. Bernal XE, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2007. Sex differences in response to nonconspecific advertisement calls: receiver permissiveness in male and female túngara frogs. Anim Behav. 73:955-964.
11. Bosch J, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2000. Acoustic competition in Physalaemus pustulosus, a differential response to calls of relative frequency. Ethology. 106:865-871.
12. Brown WD, Smith AT, Moskalik B, Gabriel J. 2006. Aggressive contests in house crickets: size, motivation and the information content of aggressive songs. Anim Behav. 72:225-233.
13. Cade WH. 1979. The evolution of alternative male reproductive strategies in field crickets. In: Blum MS, Blum NA, editors. Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. New York: Academic Press. p. 343-379.
14. Cade WH. 1980. Alternative male reproductive behaviors. Fla Entomol. 63:30-45.
15. Cade WH. 1981a. Alternative male strategies: genetic differences in crickets. Science. 212:563-564.
16. Cade WH. 1981b. Field cricket spacing, and the phonotaxis of crickets and parasitoid flies to clumped and isolated cricket songs. Z Tierp-sychol. 55:365-375.
17. Crowley PH, Travers SE, Linton MC, Cohn SL, Sih A, Sargent RC. 1991. Mate density, predation risk and the seasonal sequence of mate choice: a dynamic game. Am Nat. 137:567-596.
18. Dixon KA, Cade WH. 1986. Some factors influencing male-male aggression in the field cricket Gryllus integer (time of day, age, weight and sexual maturity). Anim Behav. 34:340-346.
19. Doherty JA. 1985. Phonotaxis in the cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (DeG-eer): comparisons of choice and no-choice paradigms. J Comp Physiol A. 157:279-289.
20. Dominey WJ. 1984. Alternative mating tactics and evolutionarily stable strategies. Am Zool. 24:385-396.
21. Engeler B, Reyer H. 2000. Choosy females and indiscriminate males: mate choice in mixed populations of sexual and hybridogenetic water frogs (Rana lessonae, Rana esculenta). Behav Ecol. 12:600-606.
22. Evans AR. 1983. A study of the behaviour of the Australian field cricket Teleogryllus commodus (Walker) (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) in the field and in habitat simulations. Z Tierpsychol. 62:269-290.
23. Gerhardt HC, Huber F. 2002. Acoustic communication in insects and anurans. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
24. Gibson RM, Langen TA. 1996. How do animals choose their mates? Trends Ecol Evol. 11:468-470.
25. Gray DA, Cade WH. 1999. Sex, death and genetic variation: natural and sexual selection on cricket song. Proc Biol Sci. 266:707-709.
26. Greenfield MD. 2002. Signalers and receivers: mechanisms and evolution of arthropod communication. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press.
27. Guerra PA, Mason AC. 2005. Male competition and aggregative behaviour are mediated by acoustic cues within a temporally unstructured aggregation. Behaviour. 142:71-90.
28. Gumm JM, Gonzalez R, Aspbury AS, Gabor CR. 2006. Do I know you? Species recognition operates within and between the sexes in a unisexual-bisexual species complex of mollies. Ethology. 112:448-457.
29. Hack MA. 1997. Assessment strategies in the contests of male crickets, Acheta domesticus (L). Anim Behav. 53:733-747.
30. Hauber ME, Sherman PW. 2001. Self-referent phenotype matching: theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Trends Neuro-sci. 24:609-616.
31. Hebets EA. 2003. Subadult experience influences adult mate choice in an arthropod: exposed female wolf spiders prefer males of a familiar phenotype. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 100:13390-13395.
32. Hedrick A, Weber T. 1998. Variance in female responses to the fine structure of male song in the field cricket, Gryllus integer. Behav Ecol. 9:582-591.
33. Hedrick AV. 1986. Female preferences for male calling bout duration in a field cricket. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 19:73-77.
34. Hedrick AV. 1988. Female choice and the heritability of attractive male traits: an empirical study. Am Nat. 132:267-276.
35. Hissmann K. 1991. Phonotaxis of male crickets (Gryllus campestris) in a field population as an indication of territoriality (Orthoptera, Gryllidae). J Insect Behav. 4:675-681.
36. Hofmann HA, Schildberger K. 2001. Assessment of strength and willingness to fight during aggressive encounters in crickets. Anim Behav. 62:337-348.
37. Hoglund J, Robertson JGM. 1990. Female preferences, male decision rules and the evolution of leks in the great snipe Gallinago media. Anim Behav. 40:15-22.
38. Hoy RR, Robert D. 1996. Tympanal hearing in insects. Ann Rev Entomol. 41:433-450.
39. Hsu YY, Earley RL, Wolf LL. 2006. Modulation of aggressive behaviour by fighting experience: mechanisms and contest outcomes. Biol Rev. 81:33-74.
40. Humfeld SC. 2008. Intersexual dynamics mediate the expression of satellite mating tactics: unattractive males and parallel preferences. Anim Behav. 75:205-215.
41. Hutchinson JMC, Halupka K. 2004. Mate choice when males are in patches: optimal strategies and good rules of thumb. J Theor Biol. 231:129-151.
42. Janetos AC. 1980. Strategies of female mate choice: a theoretical analysis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 7:107-112.
43. Kiflawi M, Gray DA. 2000. Size-dependent response to conspecific mating calls by male crickets. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 267: 2157-2161.
44. Kirkpatrick M, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2005. Mate choice rules in animals. Anim Behav. 71:1215-1225.
45. Kortet R, Hedrick A. 2005. The scent of dominance: female field crickets use odour to predict the outcome of male competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 59:77-83.
46. Kortet R, Hedrick A. 2007. A behavioural syndrome in the field cricket Gryllus integer: intrasexual aggression is correlated with activity in a novel environment. Biol J Linn Soc. 91:475-482.
47. Luttbeg B. 1996. A comparative Bayes tactic for mate assessment and choice. Behav Ecol. 7:451-460.
48. Luttbeg B. 2002. Assessing the robustness and optimality of alternative decision rules with varying assumptions. Anim Behav. 63:805-814.
49. McCarthy TM, Keyes J, Cade WH. Forthcoming. Male field crickets (Gryllus texensis) exhibit phonotactic behavior in response to acoustic calls from conspecific males. J Insect Behav.
50. Moore AJ, Moore PJ. 1988. Female strategy during mate choice: threshold assessment. Evolution. 42:387-391.
51. Muller KL. 1998. The role of conspecifics in habitat settlement in a territorial grasshopper. Anim Behav. 56:479-485.
52. Narins PM, Capranica RR. 1976. Sexual differences in the auditory system of the tree frog Eleutherodactylus coqui. Science. 192:378-380.
53. Nelson CM, Nolen TG. 1997. Courtship song, male agonistic encounters, and female mate choice in the house cricket, Acheta domesticus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). J Insect Behav. 10:557-570.
54. Parker GA. 1983. Mate quality and mating decisions. In: Bateson P, editor. Mate choice. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. p. 141-164.
55. Perrill SA, Gerhardt HC, Daniel RE. 1982. Mating strategy shifts in male green tree frogs (Hyla cinerea): an experimental study. Anim Behav. 30:43-48.
56. Pfennig KS, Rapa K, McNatt R. 2000. Evolution of male mating behavior: male spadefoot toads preferentially associate with conspe-cific males. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 48:69-74.
57. Pollack GS. 1982. Sexual differences in cricket calling song recognition. J Comp Physiol A. 146:217-221.
58. Real L. 1990. Search theory and mate choice (1) Models of single sex discrimination. Am Nat. 136:376-405.
59. Robertson JGM. 1986. Male territoriality, fighting and assessment of fighting ability in the Australian frog Uperoleia rugosa. Anim Behav. 34:763-772.
60. Roitberg BD, Reid ML, Li C. 1993. Choosing hosts and mates: the value of learning. In: Lewis AC, Papaj DR, editors. Insect learning: ecology and evolutionary perspectives. New York: Chapman & Hall.
61. Sakaluk SK. 1987. Reproductive behavior of the decorated cricket Gryllodes supplicans (Orthoptera: Gryllidae): calling schedules, spatial distribution, and mating. Behaviour. 100:202-225.
62. Sakaluk SK, Ivy TM. 2007. Sequential mate choice in decorated crickets: females use a fixed internal threshold in pre-and postcopula-tory choice. Anim Behav. 74:1065-1072.
63. Savage KE, Hunt J, Jennions MD, Brooks R. 2004. Male attractiveness covaries with fighting ability but not with prior fight outcome in house crickets. Behav Ecol. 16:196-200.
64. Searcy WA, Nowicki S. 2000. Male-male competition and female choice in the evolution of vocal signaling. In: Espmark Y, Amundsen T, Rosenqvist G, editors. Animal signals: signalling and signal design in animal communication. Trondheim (Norway): Tapir Academic Press. p. 301-315.
65. Shackleton MA, Jennions MD, Hunt J. 2005. Fighting success and attractiveness as predictors of male mating success in the black field cricket, Teleogryllus commodus: the effectiveness of no-choice tests. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 58:1-8.
66. Shafir S. 1994. Intransitivity of preferences in honey bees: support for ''comparative'' evaluation of foraging options. Anim Behav. 48: 55-67.
67. Simmons LW. 1986. Inter-male competition and mating success in the field cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Anim Behav. 34:567-579.
68. Simmons LW. 1988. The callings song of the field cricket Gryllus bi-maculatus (De Geer): constraints on transmission and its role in intermale competition and female choice. Anim Behav. 36:380-394.
69. Thornhill R, Alcock J. 1983. The evolution of insect mating systems. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
70. Ulagaraj SM, Walker TJ. 1973. Phonotaxis of crickets in flight: attraction of male and female crickets to male calling songs. Science. 182:1278-1279.
71. Uy JAC, Patricelli GL, Borgia G. 2001. Complex mate searching in the Satin Bowerbird Ptilonorhynchus violaceus. Am Nat. 158:530-542.
72. Valone TJ, Nordell SE, Giraldeau LA, Templeton JJ. 1996. The empirical question of threshold and mechanisms of mate choice. Evol Ecol. 10:447-455.
73. Wagner WE. 1989. Fighting, assessment, and frequency alteration in blanchard cricket frogs. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 25:429-436.
74. Wagner WE. 1992. Deceptive or honest signaling of fighting ability: a test of alternative hypotheses for the function of changes in call dominant frequency by male cricket frogs. Anim Behav. 44:449-462.
75. Wagner WE, Smeds MR, Wiegmann DD. 2001. Experience affects female responses to male song in the variable field cricket Gryllus lineaticeps (Orthoptera, Gryllidae). Ethology. 107:769-776.
76. Waltz EC. 1982. Alternative mating tactics and the law of diminishing returns: the satellite threshold model. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 10:75-83.
77. Wiegmann DD, Real LA, Capone TA, Ellner S. 1996. Some distinguishing features of models of search behavior and mate choice. Am Nat. 147:188-204.
78. Wilczynski W. 1986. Sexual differences in neural tuning and their effect on active space. Brain Behav Evol. 28:83-94.
79. Wittenberger JF. 1983. Tacticsofmatechoice.In:BatemanP,editor. Mate choice. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. p. 435-447.
80. Zar JH. 1984. Biostatistical analysis. 2nd edn. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall, Inc.
81. Zuk M, Johnstone K, Thornhill R, Ligon JD. 1990. Mechanisms of female choice in red jungle fowl. Evolution. 44:477-485.
82. Zuk M, Rotenberry JT, Tinghitella RM. 2006. Silent night: adaptive disappearance of a sexual signal in a parasitized population of field crickets. Biol Lett. 2:521-524.