Modality-specific experience with female feedback increases the efficacy of courtship signalling in male wolf spiders

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 82, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 1051-1057

  Sullivan Beckers, Laura ^a   Hebets, Eileen A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA   (United States)

Author keywords

Communication; Experience; Female feedback; Learning; Schizocosa rovneri; Seismic signal; Signalling environment; Wolf spider

Indexed keywords

COURTSHIP; DISPLAY BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; FOREST FLOOR; LEARNING; MALE; OPTIMIZATION; SIGNALING; SPIDER; SUBSTRATE; VISUAL CUE;

ARANEAE; LYCOSIDAE; SCHIZOCOSA ROVNERI;

EID: 80054758163     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.07.040     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Arak A., Eiriksson T. Choice of singing sites by male bushcrickets (Tettigonia viridissima) in relation to signal propagation. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1992, 30:365-372.
2. Bailey W.J. Insect duets: underlying mechanisms and their evolution. Physiological Entomology 2003, 28:157-174.
3. Balsby T.J.S., Dabelsteen T. Female behaviour affects male courtship in whitethroats, Sylvia communis: an interactive experiment using visual and acoustic cues. Animal Behaviour 2002, 63:251-257.
4. Barker N.K.S., Mennill D.J. Song perch height in rufous-and-white wrens: does behaviour enhance effective communication in a tropical forest?. Ethology 2009, 115:897-904.
5. Barth F.G. Spiders of the genus Cupiennius Simon 1891 (Araneae, Ctenidae) II. On the vibratory environment of a wandering spider. Oecologia 1988, 77:194-201.
6. Boughman J.W. How sensory drive can promote speciation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2002, 17:571-577.
7. Brown T.J., Handford P. Why birds sing at dawn: the role of consistent song transmission. Ibis 2003, 145:120-129.
8. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 1988, L. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey. 2nd edn.
9. Dabelsteen T., McGregor P.K., Lampe H.M., Langmore N.E., Holland J. Quiet song in song birds: an overlooked phenomenon. Bioacoustics 1998, 9:89-105.
10. Daly M. The cost of mating. American Naturalist 1978, 112:771-774.
11. Dukas R. Learning decreases heterospecific courtship and mating in fruit flies. Biology Letters 2008, 4:645-647.
12. Egnor S.E.R., Hauser M.D. Noise-induced vocal modulation in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). American Journal of Primatology 2006, 68:1183-1190.
13. Elias D.O., Mason A.C. Signaling in variable environments: substrate-borne signaling mechanisms and communication behaviour in spiders. The Use of Vibrations in Communication: Properties, Mechanisms, and Function across Taxa 2011, 26-28. Transworld Research Network, Kerala, India. C. O'Connell-Rodwell (Ed.).
14. Elias D.O., Mason A.C., Hoy R.R. The effect of substrate on the efficacy of seismic courtship signal transmission in the jumping spider Habronattus dossenus (Araneae: Salticidae). Journal of Experimental Biology 2004, 207:4105-4110.
15. Endler J.A. Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution. American Naturalist, Supplement 1992, 139:S125-S153.
16. Endler J.A., Thery M. Interacting effects of lek placement, display behavior, ambient light, and color patterns in three Neotropical forest-dwelling birds. American Naturalist 1996, 148:421-452.
17. Farris H.E., Forrest T.G., Hoy R.R. The effects of calling song spacing and intensity on the attraction of flying crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae: Nemobiinae). Journal of Insect Behavior 1997, 10:639-653.
18. Forrest T.G. From sender to receiver: propagation of environmental effects on acoustic signals. American Zoologist 1994, 34:644-654.
19. Forrest T.G., Green D.M. Sexual selection and female choice in mole crickets (Scapteriscus: Gryllotalpidae): modelling the effects of intensity and male spacing. Bioacoustics 1991, 3:93-109.
20. Gerhardt H.C., Huber F. Acoustic Communication in Insects and Anurans: Common Problems and Diverse Solutions 2002, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
21. Gerhardt H.C., Klump G.M. Masking of acoustic signals by the chorus background noise in the green tree frog: a limitation on mate choice. Animal Behaviour 1988, 36:1247-1249.
22. Gordon S.D., Uetz G.W. Multimodal communication of wolf spiders on different substrates: evidence for behavioural plasticity. Animal Behaviour 2011, 81:367-375.
23. Greenfield M.D. Interspecific acoustic interactions among katydids Neoconocephalus: inhibition-induced shifts in diel periodicity. Animal Behaviour 1988, 36:684-695.
24. Hall M.L. A review of hypotheses for the functions of avian duetting. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2004, 55:415-430.
25. Hebets E.A. Subadult experience influences adult mate choice in an arthropod: exposed female wolf spiders prefer males of a familiar phenotype. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 2003, 100:13390-13395.
26. Hebets E.A. Seismic signal dominance in the multimodal courtship display of the wolf spider Schizocosa stridulans Stratton 1991. Behavioral Ecology 2008, 19:1250-1257.
27. Hebets E.A., Elias D.O., Mason A.C., Miller G.L., Stratton G.E. Substrate-dependent signalling success in the wolf spider, Schizocosa retrorsa. Animal Behaviour 2008, 75:605-615.
28. Macedonia J.M. Habitat light, colour variation, and ultraviolet reflectance in the Grand Cayman anole, Anolis conspersus. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 2001, 73:299-320.
29. McNett G.D., Cocroft R.B. Host shifts favor vibrational signal divergence in Enchenopa binotata treehoppers. Behavioral Ecology 2008, 19:650-656.
30. McNett G.D., Cocroft R.B. Wind-induced noise alters signaler and receiver behavior in vibrational communication. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2010, 64:2043-2051.
31. Manabe K., Sadr E.I., Dooling R.J. Control of vocal intensity in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): differential reinforcement of vocal intensity and the Lombard effect. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1998, 103:1190-1198.
32. Michelsen A., Fink F., Gogala M., Traue D. Plants as transmission channels for insect vibrational songs. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1982, 11:269-281.
33. Patricelli G.L., Uy J.A.C., Walsh G., Borgia G. Sexual selection: male displays adjusted to female's response. Nature 2002, 415:279-280.
34. Pomiankowski A. The costs of choice in sexual selection. Journal of Theoretical Biology 1987, 128:195-218.
35. Ryan M.J., Brenowitz E.A. The role of body size, phylogeny, and ambient noise in the evolution of bird song. American Naturalist 1985, 126:87-100.
36. Stratton G.E., Uetz G.W. Acoustic communication and reproductive isolation in two species of wolf spiders. Science 1981, 214:575-577.
37. Stratton G.E., Uetz G.W. The inheritance of courtship behavior and its role as a reproductive isolating mechanism in two species of Schizocosa wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae). Evolution 1986, 40:129-141.
38. Uetz G.W., Denterlein G. Courtship behavior, habitat and reproductive isolation in Schizocosa rovneri Uetz and Dondale (Araneae; Lycosidae). Journal of Arachnology 1979, 7:121-128.
39. Uetz G.W., Stratton G.E. Acoustic communication and reproductive isolation in spiders. Spider Communication: Mechanisms and Ecological Significance 1982, 123-159. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. P.N. Witt, J.S. Rovner (Eds.).
40. Waser P.M., Waser M.S. Experimental studies of primate vocalization: specializations for long distance propagation. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 1977, 43:239-263.
41. West M.J., King A.P. Female visual displays affect the development of male song in the cowbird. Nature 1988, 334:244-246.
42. Wilder S.M., Rypstra A.L. Sexual size dimorphism predicts the frequency of sexual cannibalism within and among species of spiders. American Naturalist 2008, 172:431-440.
43. Wilgers D., Hebets E.A. Complex courtship displays facilitate male reproductive success and plasticity in signaling across variable environments. Current Zoology 2011, 57:175-186.
44. Wollerman L. Acoustic interference limits call detection in a Neotropical frog Hyla ebraccata. Animal Behaviour 1999, 57:529-536.
45. Wollerman L., Wiley R.H. Background noise from a natural chorus alters female discrimination of male calls in a Neotropical frog. Animal Behaviour 2002, 63:15-22.