Direct Benefits and the Evolution of Female Mating Preferences. Conceptual Problems, Potential Solutions, and a Field Cricket

Advances in the Study of Behavior

Volumn 43, Issue , 2011, Pages 273-319

  Wagner, William E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955958978     PISSN: 00653454     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-380896-7.00006-X     Document Type: Book

References (159)

1. Adamo S.A., Robert D., Perez J., Hoy R.R. The response of an insect parasitoid, Ormia ochracea (Tachinidae), to the uncertainty of larval success during infestation. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1995, 36:111-118.
2. Alexander R.D. Aggressiveness, territoriality, and sexual behavior in field crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Behaviour 1961, 17:130-223.
3. Alexander R.D., Otte D. The evolution of genitalia and mating behavior in crickets (Gryllidae) and other Orthoptera. Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. 1967, 133:1-62.
4. Andersson M. Sexual Selection 1994, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
5. Andersson M., Simmons L.W. Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2006, 21:296-302.
6. Arnqvist G., Rowe L. Sexual Conflict 2005, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
7. Backus V.L., Cade W.H. Sperm competition in the field cricket Gryllus integer (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Fla. Entomol. 1986, 69:722-728.
8. Bailey N.W., Zuk M. Acoustic experience shapes female choice in field crickets. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2008, 275:2645-2650.
9. Bailey N.W., Zuk M. Field crickets change mating preferences suing remembered social information. Biol. Lett. 2009, 5:449-451.
10. Balakrishnan R., Pollack G. The role of antennal sensory cues in female responses to courting males in the cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. J. Exp. Biol. 1997, 200:511-522.
11. Basolo A.L. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 1990, 250:808-810.
12. Basolo A.L. Phylogenetic evidence for the role of a preexisting bias in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 1995, 259:307-311.
13. Beckers O.M., Wagner W.E. Mate sampling strategy in a field cricket: evidence for a fixed threshold strategy with last chance option. Anim. Behav. 2011, 81:519-527.
14. Boggs C.L., Gilbert L.E. Male contribution to egg production in butterflies: evidence for transfer of nutrients at mating. Science 1979, 206:83-84.
15. Borgia G. Mate selection in the fly Scatophaga stercoraria: female choice in a male-controlled system. Anim. Behav. 1981, 29:71-80.
16. Bro-Jørgensen J. Dynamics of multiple signalling systems: animal communication in a world in flux. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009, 25:292-300.
17. Burley N. Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care. Am. Nat. 1986, 127:415-445.
18. Bussière L.F. A model of the interaction between "good genes" and direct benefits in courtship-feeding animals: when do males of high genetic quality invest less?. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 2002, 357:309-317.
19. Bussière L.F., Basit H.A., Gwynne D.T. Preferred males are not always good providers: female choice and male investment in tree crickets. Behav. Ecol. 2005, 16:223-231.
20. Cade W.H. Acoustically orienting parasitoids: fly phonotaxis to cricket song. Science 1975, 190:1312-1313.
21. Cade W.H. The evolution of alternative male reproductive strategies in field crickets. Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects 1979, 343-379. Academic Press, New York. M.S. Blum, N.A. Blum (Eds.).
22. Cade W.H. Alternative male reproductive behaviors. Fla. Entomol. 1980, 63:30-45.
23. Cade W.H., Ciceran M., Murray A.M. Temporal patterns of parasitoid fly (Ormia ochracea) attraction to field cricket song (Gryllus integer). Can. J. Zool. 1996, 74:393-395.
24. Christy J.H. Mimicry, mate choice, and the sensory trap hypothesis. Am. Nat. 1995, 146:171-181.
25. Cotton S., Fowler K., Pomiankowski A. Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis?. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2004, 271:771-783.
26. Cotton S., Small J., Pomiankowski A. Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr. Biol. 2006, 16:R755-R765.
27. David P., Bjorksten T., Fowler K., Pomiankowski A. Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyed flies. Nature 2000, 406:186-188.
28. Dawkins R., Carlisle T.R. Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy. Nature 1976, 262:131-133.
29. Dobzhansky T., Holz A.M. A reexamination of the problem of manifold effects of genes in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 1943, 28:295-303.
30. Downhower J.F., Brown L. Mate preferences of female mottled sculpins, Cottus bairdi. Anim. Behav. 1980, 28:728-734.
31. Drnevich J.M., Papke R.S., Rauser C.L., Rutowski R. Material benefits from multiple mating in female mealworm beetles (Tenebrio molitor L.). J. Insect Behav. 2001, 14:215-230.
32. Dudley R. The Biomechanics of Insect Flight: Form, Function, Evolution 2000, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
33. Dussourd D.E., Harvis C.A., Meinwald J., Eisner T. Paternal allocation of sequestered plant pyrrolizidine alkaloid to eggs in the danaine butterfly Danaus gillipus. Experientia 1989, 45:896-898.
34. Eisner T., Meinwald J. The chemistry of sexual selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1995, 92:50-55.
35. Endler J.A., Basolo A.L. Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1998, 13:415-420.
36. Fedorka K.M., Mousseau T.A. Female mating bias results in conflicting sex-specific offspring fitness. Nature 2004, 429:65-67.
37. Fisher R.A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection 1930, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
38. Freeman-Gallant C.R. Parentage and paternal care: Consequences of intersexual selection in Savannah sparrows?. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1997, 40:395-400.
39. Getty T. Handicap signalling: when fecundity and viability do not add up. Anim. Behav. 1998, 56:127-130.
40. Gong A., Gibson R.M. Reversal of a female preference after visual exposure to a predator in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Anim. Behav. 1996, 52:1007-1015.
41. González A., Rossini C., Eisner M., Eisner T. Sexually transmitted chemical defense in a moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1999, 96:5570-5574.
42. Grafen A. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol. 1990, 144:517-546.
43. Gray D.A., Cade W.H. Sex, death and genetic variation: natural and sexual selection on cricket song. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 1999, 266:707-709.
44. Greenfield M.D., Rodriguez R.L. Genotype-environment interaction and the reliability of mating signals. Anim. Behav. 2004, 68:1461-1468.
45. Grether G.F. The evolution of mate preferences, sensory biases, and indicator traits. Adv. Study Behav. 2010, 41:35-76.
46. Gwynne D.T. Courtship feeding and the fitness of female katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Evolution 1988, 42:545-555.
47. Gwynne D.T. Katydids and Bush-Crickets: Reproductive Behavior and Evolution of the Tettigoniidae 2001, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
48. Haas F., Gorb S., Blickhan R. The function of resilin in beetle wings. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2000, 267:1375-1381.
49. Hadfield J.D., Burgess M.D., Lord A., Phillimore A.B., Clegg S.M., Owens I.P.F. Direct versus indirect sexual selection: genetic basis of colour, size and recruitment in a wild bird. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2006, 273:1347-1353.
50. Halliday T. Sexual selection and mate choice. Behavioral Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach 1978, 180-213. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA. J.R. Krebs, N.B. Davies (Eds.).
51. Hebets E.A., Papaj D.R. Complex signal function: developing a framework for testable hypotheses. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2005, 57:197-214.
52. Hedrick A.V., Dill L.M. Mate choice by female crickets is influenced by predation risk. Anim. Behav. 1992, 46:193-196.
53. Heywood J.S. Sexual selection by the handicap principle. Evolution 1989, 43:1387-1397.
54. Higginson A.D., Reader T. Environmental heterogeneity, genotype-by-environment interactions and the reliability of sexual traits as indicators of mate quality. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2009, 276:1153-1159.
55. Hill G.E. Plumage coloration is a sexually selected indicator of male quality. Nature 1991, 350:337-339.
56. Hoback W.W., Wagner W.E. The energetic cost of calling in the variable field cricket, Gryllus lineaticeps. Physiol. Entomol. 1997, 22:286-290.
57. Hoelzer G.A. The good parent process of sexual selection. Anim. Behav. 1989, 38:1067-1078.
58. Howard R.D. The influence of male-defended oviposition sits on early embryo mortality in bullfrogs. Ecology 1978, 59:789-798.
59. Hunt J., Bussière L.F., Jennions M.D., Brooks R. What is genetic quality?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19:329-333.
60. Hunter F.M., Petrie M., Otronen M., Birkhead T., Møller A.P. Why do females copulate repeatedly with one male?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1993, 8:21-26.
61. Iyengar V.K., Eisner T. Female choice increases offspring fitness in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1999, 96:15013-15016.
62. Jennions M.D., Petrie M. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. 1997, 72:283-327.
63. Jia F.Y., Greenfield M.D., Collins R.D. Genetic variance of sexually selected traits in waxmoths: maintenance by genotype x environment interaction. Evolution 2000, 54:953-967.
64. Johnson J.B., Basolo A.L. Predator exposure alters female mate choice in the green swordtail. Behav. Ecol. 2003, 14:619-625.
65. Johnstone R.A. The evolution of animal signals. Behavioural Ecology 1997, 155-178. Blackwell, Oxford. J.R. Krebs, N.B. Davies (Eds.).
66. Jones A.G., Ratterman N.L. Mate choice and sexual selection: what have we learned since Darwin?. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106:10001-10008.
67. Kirkpatrick M. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 1982, 36:1-12.
68. Kirkpatrick M. The evolutionary forces acting on female mating preferences in polygynous animals 1987, 67-82. John Wiley, Chichester. J.W. Bradbury, M.B. Andersson (Eds.).
69. Kirkpatrick M. Sexual selection by female choice in polygynous animals. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1987, 18:43-70.
70. Kirkpatrick M., Barton N.H. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1997, 94:1282-1286.
71. Kirkpatrick M., Ryan M.J. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 1991, 350:33-38.
72. Knapp R.A., Kovach J.T. Courtship as an honest indicator of male parental quality in the bicolor damselfish, Stegastes partitus. Behav. Ecol. 1991, 2:295-300.
73. Kokko H. Should advertising of parental care be honest?. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 1998, 265:1871-1878.
74. Kokko K., Heubel K. Condition-dependence, genotype-by-environment interactions and the lek paradox. Genetica 2008, 134:55-62.
75. Kokko H., Brooks R., Jennions M.D., Morley J. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2003, 270:653-664.
76. Kotiaho J.S. Costs of sexual traits: a mismatch between theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Biol. Rev. 2001, 76:365-376.
77. Kotiaho J.S., Puurtinen M. Mate choice for indirect genetic benefits: scrutiny of the current paradigm. Funct. Ecol. 2007, 21:638-644.
78. Kvarnemo C. Evolution of maintenance of male care: is increased paternity a neglected benefit of care?. Behav. Ecol. 2006, 17:144-148.
79. Lande R. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1981, 78:3721-3725.
80. Leonard A.S., Hedrick A.V. Male and female crickets use different decision rules in response to mating signals. Behav. Ecol. 2009, 20:1175-1184.
81. Lindén M. Divorce in great tits-chance or choice? An experimental approach. Am. Nat. 1991, 138:1039-1048.
82. Markow T.A. Drosophila males provide a material contribution to offspring sired by other males. Funct. Ecol. 1988, 2:77-79.
83. Martin C.M., Wagner W.E. Female field incur increased parasitism risk when near preferred song. PLoS ONE 2010, 5:e9592.
84. Matthews I.M., Evans J.P., Magurran A.E. Male display rate reveals ejaculate characteristics in the Trinidadian guppy Poecilia reticulata. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 1997, 264:695-700.
85. Maynard Smith J., Harper D. Animal Signals 2003, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
86. Mills S.C., Alatalo R.V., Koskela E., Mappes J., Mappes T., Oksanen T.A. Signal reliability compromised by genotype-by-environment interaction and potential mechanisms for its preservation. Evolution 2007, 61:1748-1757.
87. Mole S., Zera A.J. Differential allocation of resources underlies the dispersal-reproduction trade-off in the wing-dimorphic cricket, Gryllus rubens. Oecologia 1993, 93:121-127.
88. Møller A.P., Alatalo R.V. Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 1999, 266:85-91.
89. Møller A.P., de Lope F. Differential costs of a secondary sexual character: An experimental test of the handicap principle. Evolution 1994, 48:1676-1683.
90. Møller A.P., Jennions M.D. How important are direct fitness benefits to sexual selection?. Naturwissenschaften 2001, 88:401-415.
91. Møller A.P., Thornhill R. Male parental care, differential parental investment by females and sexual selection. Anim. Behav. 1998, 55:1507-1515.
92. Murakami S., Itoh M.T. Removal of both antennae influences the courtship and aggressive behaviors in male crickets. J. Neurobiol. 2003, 57:110-118.
93. Nur N., Hasson O. Phenotypic plasticity and the handicap principle. J. Theor. Biol. 1984, 110:275-297.
94. Pampoulie C., Lindström K., St.Mary C.M. Have your cake and eat it too: male sand gobies show more parental care in the presence of female partners. Behav. Ecol. 2004, 15:199-204.
95. Pfennig K.S. Facultative mate choice drives adaptive hybridization. Science 2007, 318:965-967.
96. Pleszynska W.K. Microgeographic prediction of polygyny in the lark bunting. Science 1978, 201:935-937.
97. Pomiankowski A. The evolution of female mate preferences for male genetic quality. Oxf. Surv. Evol. Biol. 1988, 5:136-184.
98. Popov A.V., Shuvalov V.F. Phonotactic behavior of crickets. J. Comp. Physiol. 1977, 119:111-126.
99. Price T., Schluter D., Heckman N.E. Sexual selection when the female directly benefits. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 1993, 48:187-211.
100. Qvarnström A., Pärt T., Sheldon B.C. Adaptive plasticity in mate preference linked to differences in reproductive effort. Nature 2000, 405:344-347.
101. Qvarnström A., Brommer J.E., Gustafsson L. Testing the genetics underlying the co-evolution of mate choice and ornament in the wild. Nature 2006, 441:84-86.
102. Reynolds J.D., Gross M.R. Costs and benefits of female mate choice: is there a lek paradox?. Am. Nat. 1990, 136:230-243.
103. Robertson J.G.M. Female choice increases fertilization success in the Australian frog Uperoleia laevigata. Anim. Behav. 1990, 39:639-645.
104. Rodriguez R.L., Greenfield M.D. Genetic variance and phenotypic plasticity in a component of female mate choice in an ultrasonic moth. Evolution 2003, 57:1304-1313.
105. Rodriguez R.L., Sullivan L.M., Snyder R.L., Cocroft R.B. Host shifts and the beginning of signal divergence. Evolution 2008, 62:12-20.
106. Rodríguez-Muñoz R., Bretman A., Slate J., Walling C.A., Tregenza T. Natural and sexual selection in a wild insect population. Science 2010, 328:1269-1272.
107. Ryan M.J. Signals, species, and sexual selection. Oxf. Surv. Evol. Biol. 1990, 7:157-195.
108. Ryan M.J., Keddy-Hector A. Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am. Nat. 1992, 139:S4-S35.
109. Ryan K.M., Sakaluk S.K. Dulling the senses: the role of the antennae in mate recognition, copulation and mate guarding in decorated crickets. Anim. Behav. 2009, 77:1345-1350.
110. Sakaluk S.K. Male crickets feed females to ensure complete sperm transfer. Science 1984, 223:609-610.
111. Sakaluk S.K. Sperm competition and the evolution of nuptial feeding behavior in the cricket, Gryllodes supplicans (Walker). Evolution 1986, 40:584-593.
112. Sakaluk S.K., Cade W.H. Female mating frequency and progeny production in singly and doubly mated house and field crickets. Can. J. Zool. 1980, 58:404-411.
113. Sakaluk S.K., Avery R.L., Weddle C.B. Cryptic sexual conflict in gift-giving insects: chasing the chase-away. Am. Nat. 2006, 167:94-104.
114. Searcy W.A. Female choice of mates: a general model for birds and its application to red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus). Am. Nat. 1979, 114:77-100.
115. Searcy W.A. The evolutionary effect of mate selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1982, 13:57-85.
116. Searcy W.A., Nowicki S. The Evolution of Animal Communication: Reliability and Deception in Signaling Systems 2005, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
117. Simmons L.W. Sperm competition as a mechanism of female choice in the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1987, 21:197-202.
118. Simmons L.W. The contribution of multiple mating and spermatophore consumption to the lifetime reproductive success of female field crickets (Gryllus bimaculatus). Ecol. Entomol. 1988, 13:57-69.
119. Simmons L.W. Sperm Competition and its Evolutionary Consequences in the Insects 2001, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
120. Simmons L.W., Parker G.A. Nuptial feeding in insects: mating effort versus paternal investment. Ethology 1989, 81:332-343.
121. Simmons L.W., Wernham J., García-González F., Kamien D. Variation in paternity in the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus: no detectable influence of sperm numbers or sperm length. Behav. Ecol. 2003, 14:539-545.
122. Thornhill R. Sexual selection and nuptial feeding behavior in Bittacus apicalis (Insecta: Mecoptera). Am. Nat. 1976, 110:529-548.
123. Thornhill R. Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpobitacus nigriceps. Am. Nat. 1983, 122:765-788.
124. Thornhill R., Alcock J. The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems 1983, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
125. Tinghitella R.M., Zuk M. Asymmetric mating preferences accommodated the rapid evolutionary loss of a sexual signal. Evolution 2009, 63:2087-2098.
126. Tolle A.E., Wagner W.E. Costly signals in a field cricket can indicate high or low quality direct benefits depending upon the environment. Evolution 2011, 65:283-294.
127. Tregenza T., Wedell N. Definitive evidence for cuticular pheromones in a cricket. Anim. Behav. 1997, 54:979-984.
128. Tregenza T., Wedell N. Benefits of multiple mates in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Evolution 1998, 52:1726-1730.
129. Vahed K. The function of nuptial feeding in insects: A review of empirical studies. Biol. Rev. 1998, 73:43-78.
130. Velez M.J., Brockmann H.J. Seasonal variation in selection on male calling song in the field cricket, Gryllus rubens. Anim. Behav. 2006, 72:439-448.
131. Wagner W.E. Convergent song preferences between female field crickets and acoustically orienting parasitoid flies. Behav. Ecol. 1996, 7:279-285.
132. Wagner W.E. Male field crickets that provide reproductive benefits to females incur higher costs. Ecol. Entomol. 2005, 30:350-357.
133. Wagner W.E., Basolo A.L. The relative importance of different direct benefits in the mate choices of a field cricket. Evolution 2007, 61:617-622.
134. Wagner W.E., Basolo A.L. Host preferences in a phonotactic parasitoid of field crickets: The relative importance of host song characters. Ecol. Entomol. 2007, 32:478-484.
135. Wagner W.E., Basolo A.L. Incidental sanctions and the evolution of direct benefits. Ethology 2008, 114:521-539.
136. Wagner W.E., Harper C.J. Female life span and fertility are increased by the ejaculates of preferred males. Evolution 2003, 57:2054-2066.
137. Wagner W.E., Reiser M.G. The relative importance of calling song and courtship song in female mate choice in the variable field cricket. Anim. Behav. 2000, 59:1219-1226.
138. Wagner W.E., Kelley R.J., Tucker K.R., Harper C.J. Females receive a life span benefit from male ejaculates in a field cricket. Evolution 2001, 55:994-1001.
139. Wagner W.E., Smeds M.R., Wiegmann D.D. Experience affects female responses to male song in the variable field cricket, Gryllus lineaticeps (Orthoptera, Gryllidae). Ethology 2001, 107:769-776.
140. Wagner W.E., Smith A.R., Basolo A.L. False promises: females spurn cheating males in a field cricket. Biol. Lett. 2007, 3:379-381.
141. Walker T.J. Monitoring the flights of field crickets (Gryllus spp.) and a tachinid fly (Euphasiopteryx ochracea) in north Florida. Fla. Entomol. 1986, 69:678-685.
142. Walker T.J., Wineriter S.A. Hosts of a phonotactic parasitoid and levels of parasitism (Diptera: Tachinidae: Ormia ochracea). Fla. Entomol. 1991, 74:554-559.
143. Wedell N. Sperm competition select for nuptial feeding in a bushcricket. Evolution 1991, 45:1975-1978.
144. Wedell N. Dual function of the bushcricket spermatophore. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 1994, 258:181-185.
145. Wedell N. Mate quality affects reproductive effort in a paternally investing species. Am. Nat. 1996, 148:1075-1088.
146. Weissman D.B., Rentz D.C.F., Alexander R.D., Loher W. Field crickets (Gryllus and Acheta) of California and Baja California, Mexico (Orthoptera: Gryllidae: Gryllinae). Trans. Am. Entomol. Soc. 1980, 106:327-356.
147. Welch A.M. Genetic benefits of a female mating preference in gray tree frogs are context-dependent. Evolution 2003, 57:883-893.
148. Williams G.C. Pleiotropy, natural selection, and the evolution of senescence. Evolution 1957, 11:398-411.
149. Williams G.C. Adaptation and Natural Selection 1966, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
150. Wright S. Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, Vol. I. Genetic and Biometric Foundations 1968, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
151. Wright J., Cuthill I. Manipulation of sex differences in parental care. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1989, 25:171-181.
152. Zahavi A. Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 1975, 53:205-214.
153. Zera A.J., Cisper G. Genetic and diurnal variation in the juvenile hormone titer in a wing-polymorphic cricket: Implications for the evolution of life histories and dispersal. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 2001, 74:293-306.
154. Zera A.J., Rokke K., Mole S. Lipid, carbohydrate and nitrogen contents of long-winged and short-winged Gryllus firmus: implications for the cost of flight capability. J. Insect Physiol. 1994, 40:1037-1044.
155. Zera A.J., Sall J., Grudzinski K. Flight-muscle polymorphism in the cricket Gryllus firmus: Muscle characteristics and their influence on the evolution of flightlessness. Physiol. Zool. 1997, 70:519-529.
156. Zuk M., Simmons L.W. Reproductive strategies of the crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids 1997, 89-109. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. J.C. Choe, B.J. Crespi (Eds.).
157. Zuk M., Simmons L.W., Cupp L. Song characteristics of parasitized and unparasitized populations of the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1993, 33:339-343.
158. Zuk M., Simmons L.W., Rotenberry J.T. Acoustically-orienting parasitoids in calling and silent males of the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. Ecol. Entomol. 1995, 20:380-383.
159. Zuk M., Rotenberry J.T., Tinghitella R.M. Silent night: adaptive disappearance of a sexual signal in a parasitized population of field crickets. Biol. Lett. 2006, 2:521-524.