Attractiveness of grasshopper songs correlates with their robustness against noise

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 791-799

  Einhäupl, Anne ^a   Stange, Nicole ^a   Hennig, R Matthias ^a,b   Ronacher, Bernhard ^a,b  

^a HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b BERNSTEIN CENTER FOR COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE   (Germany)

Author keywords

acoustic communication; female choice; sensory exploitation; sexual selection; signal evolution

Indexed keywords

FEMALE; GRASSHOPPER; MATE ATTRACTION; MATE CHOICE; NOISE; SENSORY SYSTEM; SEXUAL SELECTION; SONG;

EID: 79959391581     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arr064     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Anderson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton (NJ): Princeton Uni¬versity Press.
2. Anderson M, Simmons LW. 2006. Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol. 21:296-302. (Pubitemid 43850058)
3. Balakrishnan R, von Helversen D, von Helversen O. 2001. Song pattern recognition in the grasshopper Chorthippus biguttulus: the mechanisms of syllable onset and offset detection. J Comp Physiol A. 187:255-264. (Pubitemid 32620722)
4. Bauer M, von Helversen O. 1987. Separate localisation of sound rec¬ognizing and sound producing neural mechanisms in a grasshop¬per. J Comp Physiol A. 165:687-695.
5. Bee MA. 2008. Finding a mate at a cocktail party: spatial release from masking improves acoustic mate recognition in grey treefrogs. Anim Behav. 75:1781-1791.
6. Bee MA, Schwartz JJ. 2009. Behavioral measures of signals recognition thresholds in frogs in the presence and absence of chorus-shaped noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 126:2788-2801.
7. Bennet-Clark HC. 1998. Size and scale effects as constraints in insect sound communication. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 353: 407-419. (Pubitemid 128713035)
8. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL. 1998. Principles of animal communi¬cation. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates Inc.
9. Brumm H, Slabbekoorn H. 2005. Acoustic communication in noise. Adv Study Behav. 35:151-209. (Pubitemid 43574773)
10. Brumm H, Todt D. 2002. Noise-dependent song amplitude regulation in a territorial song bird. Anim Behav. 63:891-897. (Pubitemid 34749790)
11. Couldridge VCK, van Staaden MJ. 2004. Habitat-dependent transmis¬sion of male advertisement calls in bladder grasshoppers (Orthop-tera; Pneumoridae). J Exp Biol. 207:2777-2786. (Pubitemid 39123259)
12. Deily JA, Schul J. 2006. Spectral selectivity during phonotaxis: a com¬parative study in Neoconocephalus (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). J Exp Biol. 209:1757-1764. (Pubitemid 43828846)
13. Feng AS, Narins PM, Xu CH, Lin WY, Yu ZL, Qiu Q, Xu ZM, Shen JX. 2006. Ultrasonic communication in frogs. Nature. 440:333-336.
14. Gerhardt HC. 1994. Selective responsiveness to long-range acoustic signals in insects and anurans. Am Zool. 34:706-714. (Pubitemid 126033461)
15. Gerhardt HC, Huber F. 2002. Acoustic communication in insects and anurans. Chicago (IL): Chicago University Press.
16. Gerhardt HC, Klump GM. 1988. Masking of acoustic signals by the chorus background noise in the green treefrog: a limitation on mate choice. Anim Behav. 36:1247-1249.
17. Gerhardt HC, Tanner SD, Corrigan CM, Walton HC. 2000. Female preference functions based on call duration in the gray tree frog (Hyla versicolor). Behav Ecol. 11:663-669. (Pubitemid 34134651)
18. Gomez D, Richardson C, Lengagne T, Plenet S, Joly P, Lena J-P, Thery M. 2009. The role of nocturnal vision in mate choice: females prefer conspicuous males in the European tree frog (Hyla arborea). Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 276:2351-2358.
19. Gottsberger B, Mayer F. 2007. Behavioral sterility of hybrid males in acoustically communicating grasshoppers (Acrididae, Gomphocer-inae). J Comp Physiol A. 193:703-714. (Pubitemid 47038028)
20. Greenfield MD. 2002. Signalers and receivers: mechanisms and evolution of arthropod communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Greenfield MD, Rodriguez RL. 2004. Genotype-environment interaction and the reliability of mating signals. Anim Behav. 68:1461-1468. (Pubitemid 39588488)
22. Guilford T, Dawkins MS. 1993. Receiver psychology and the design of animal signals. Trends Neurosci. 16:430-436. (Pubitemid 23313515)
23. Hasselquist D, Bensch S, von Schantz T. 1996. Correlation between male song repertoire, extra-pair paternity and offspring survival in the great reed warbler. Nature. 381:229-232.
24. Hennig RM, Franz A, Stumpner A. 2004. Processing of auditory in¬formation in insects. Microsc Res Tech. 63:351-374.
25. Hurlbert SH. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol monogr. 54:187-211.
26. Jennions MD, Petrie M. 1997. Variation in mate choice and mating pref¬erences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev. 72:283-327. (Pubitemid 27207611)
27. Klappert K, Reinhold K. 2003. Acoustic preference functions and sex¬ual selection on the male calling song in the grasshopper Chorthip-pus biguttulus. Anim Behav. 65:225-233. (Pubitemid 36198795)
28. Klappert K, Reinhold K. 2007. Indirect benefits for choosy female grasshoppers (Chorthippus biguttulus)? Zoology. 110:354-359. (Pubitemid 350026753)
29. Klump GM. 1996. Bird communication in the noisy world. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH, editors. Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds. Ithaca (NY): Cornell Univer¬sity Press. p. 321-338.
30. Kriegbaum H. 1989. Female choice in the grasshopper Chorthippus biguttulus: mating success is related to song characteristics of the male. Naturwissenschaften. 76:81-82.
31. Kriegbaum H, von Helversen O. 1992. Influence of male songs on female mating behavior in the grasshopper Chorthippus biguttulus (Orthoptera, Acrididae). Ethology. 91:248-254.
32. Kroodsma DE. 1990. Using appropriate experimental designs for in¬tended hypotheses in 'song' playbacks, with examples for testing effects of song repertoire sizes. Anim Behav. 40:1138-1150.
33. Kroodsma DE, Miller EH, editors. 1996. Ecology and evolutionof acous¬tic communication in birds. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press.
34. Lohr B, Wright TF, Dooling RJ. 2003. Detection and discrimination of natural calls in masking noise by birds: estimating the active space of a signal. Anim Behav. 65:763-777. (Pubitemid 36453595)
35. Love EK, Bee MA. 2010. An experimental test of noise-dependent voice amplitude regulation in Cope's grey treefrog, Hyla chrysosce-lis. Anim Behav. 80:509-515
36. Machens CK, Schütze H, Franz A, Stemmler MB, Ronacher B, Herz AVM. 2003. Auditory receptor neurons preserve characteristic differences between conspecific communication signals. Nat Neurosci. 6: 341-342. (Pubitemid 36373977)
37. Machens CK, Stemmler MB, Prinz P, Krahe R, Ronacher B, Herz AVM. 2001. Representation of acoustic communication signals by insect auditory receptor neurons. J Neurosci. 21:3215-3227. (Pubitemid 32323503)
38. Meyer J, Elsner N. 1996. How well are frequency sensitivities of grass¬hopper ears tuned to species-specific song spectra? J Exp Biol. 199:1631-1642. (Pubitemid 26270230)
39. Michelsen A, Rohrseitz K. 1997. Sound localization in a habitat: an analytical approach to quantifying the degradation of directional cues. Bioacoustics. 7:291-313.
40. Pfennig KS. 2000. Female spadefoot toads compromise on mate qual¬ity to ensure conspecific matings. Behav Ecol. 11:220-227. (Pubitemid 30217965)
41. Römer H. 1992. Ecological constraints for the evolution of hearing and sound communication in insects. In: Webster DB, Fay RR, Popper AN, editors. Evolutionary biology of hearing. Berlin: Springer. p. 79-93.
42. Römer H. 1998. The sensory ecology of acoustic communication in insects. In: Hoy RR, Popper AN, Fay RR, editors. Comparative hear¬ing: insects. New York: Springer. p. 63-96.
43. Römer H. 2001. Ecological constraints for sound communication. from grasshoppers to elephants. In: Barth FG, Schmid A, editors. Ecology of sensing. Berlin: Springer. p. 59-77.
44. Römer H, Bailey W, Dadour I. 1989. Insect hearing in the field. III Masking by noise. J Comp Physiol A. 164:609-620.
45. Ronacher B, von Helversen D, von Helversen O. 1986. Routes and stations in the processing of auditory directional information in the CNS of a grasshopper, as revealed by surgical experiments. J Comp Physiol A. 158:363-374. (Pubitemid 16068889)
46. Ronacher B, Krahe R, Hennig RM. 2000. Effects of signal duration on the recognition of masked communication signals by the grasshopper Chorthippus biguttulus. J Comp Physiol A. 186:1065-1072.
47. Ronacher B, Wohlgemuth S, Vogel A, Krahe R. 2008. Discrimination of acoustic communication signals by grasshoppers (Chorthippus biguttulus): temporal resolution, temporal integration, and the im¬pact of intrinsic noise. J Comp Psychol. 122:252-263.
48. Ryan MJ, Kime NM. 2002. Selection on long-distance acoustic signals. In: Simmons AM, Popper AN, Fay RR, editors. Acoustic communi¬cation. New York: Springer. p. 225-274.
49. Safi K, Heinzle J, Reinhold K. 2006. Species recognition influences female mate preferences in the common European grasshopper (Chorthippus biguttulus L). Ethology. 112:1225-1230. (Pubitemid 44789651)
50. Schmidt A, Ronacher B, Hennig RM. 2008. The role of frequency, phase and time for processing of amplitude modulated signals by grasshoppers. J Comp Physiol A. 194:221-233.
51. Schwartz JJ, Gerhardt HC. 1989. Spatially mediated release from auditory masking in an anuran amphibian. J Comp Physiol A. 166:37-41. (Pubitemid 20024405)
52. Schwartz JJ, Wells KD. 1984. Interspecific acoustic interactions of the neotropical treefrog Hyla ebraccata. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 14:211-224.
53. Stumpner A, von Helversen D. 2001. Evolution and function of audi¬tory systems in insects. Naturwissenschaften. 88:159-170. (Pubitemid 32577938)
54. Todt D, Hultsch H. 1998. How songbirds deal with large amounts of serial information: retrieval rules suggest a hierarchical song mem¬ory. Biol Cybern. 79:487-500. (Pubitemid 128636556)
55. Tregenza T, Simmons LW, Wedell N, Zuk M. 2006. Female preference for male courtship song and its role as a signal of immune function and condition. Anim Behav. 72:809-818. (Pubitemid 44380164)
56. von Helversen D. 1972. Gesang des Männchens und Lautschema des Weibchens bei der Feldheuschrecke Chorthippus biguttulus (Orthop-tera, Acrididae). J Comp Physiol. 81:381-422.
57. von Helversen D, Balakrishnan R, von Helversen O. 2004. Acoustic com¬munication in a duetting grasshopper: receiver response variability, male strategies and signal design. Anim Behav. 68:131-144. (Pubitemid 38865833)
58. von Helversen D, von Helversen O. 1975. Verhaltensgenetische Untersuchungen am akustischen Kommunikationssystem der Feldheuschrecken (Orthoptera, Acrididae) I Der Gesang von Artbastarden zwischen Chorthippus biguttulus und C. mollis. J Comp Physiol A. 104:273-299.
59. von Helversen O, von Helversen D. 1994. Forces driving coevolution of song and song recognition in grasshoppers. In: Schildberger K, Elsner N, editors. Neural basis of behavioural adaptations. Stuttgart (Germany): G. Fischer. p. 253-284.
60. von Helversen D, von Helversen O. 1997. Recognition of sex in the acoustic communication of the grasshopper Chorthippus biguttulus (Orthoptera, Acrididae). J Comp Physiol A. 180:373-386. (Pubitemid 27161760)
61. Welch AM, Semlitsch RD, Gerhardt HC. 1998. Call duration as an indi¬cator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science. 280: 1928-1930. (Pubitemid 28299398)
62. Wiley RH. 2006. Signal detection and animal communication. Adv Study Behav. 36:217-247. (Pubitemid 44811700)
63. Wollerman L, Wiley RH. 2002. Background noise from a natural chorus alters female discrimination of male calls in a Neotropical frog. Anim Behav. 63:15-22.
64. Zelick R, Narins PM. 1985. Characterization of the advertisement call oscillator in the frog Eleutherodactylus coqui. J Comp Physiol A. 156:223-229.