Fine- and Broad-Scale Approaches to Understanding the Evolution of Aggression in Crickets

Ethology

Volumn 117, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 1067-1080

  Bertram, Susan M ^a   Rook, Vanessa L M ^a   Fitzsimmons, Jay M ^b   Fitzsimmons, Lauren P ^a  

^a CARLETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGGRESSION; CRICKET; DATA SET; DOMINANCE; MATE ATTRACTION; NUMERICAL MODEL; PHYLOGENETICS; REPRODUCTIVE COST; TAXONOMY;

GRYLLIDAE; GRYLLINAE; GRYLLUS ASSIMILIS; ORTHOPTERA;

EID: 80054999431     PISSN: 01791613     EISSN: 14390310     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2011.01970.x     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Adamo, S. A. & Hoy, R. R. 1995: Agonistic behaviour in male and female crickets, Gryllus bimaculatus, and how behavioural context influences its expression. Anim. Behav. 49, 1491-1501.
2. Alexander, R. D. 1961: Aggressiveness, territoriality, and sexual behavior in field crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Behaviour 17, 130-223.
3. Alexander, R. D. & Bigelow, R. S. 1960: Allochronic speciation in field crickets, and a new species, Acheta veletis. Evolution 14, 334-346.
4. Benjamini, Y., Drai, D., Elmer, G., Kafkadi, N. & Golani, I. 2001: Controlling the false discovery rate in behavior genetics research. Behav. Brain Res. 125, 279-284.
5. Berglund, A. & Rosenqvist, G. 2001: Male pipefish prefer dominant over attractive females. Behav. Ecol. 12, 402-406.
6. Bertram, S. M., Rook, V. L. M. & Fitzsimmons, L. P. 2010: Strutting their stuff: victory displays in the spring field cricket, Gryllus veletis. Behaviour 147, 1249-1266.
7. Blomberg, S. P., Garland, T. J. & Ives, A. R. 2003: Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57, 717-745.
8. Brook, R. K. & McLachlan, S. M. 2008: Trends and prospects for local knowledge in ecological and conservation research and monitoring. Biodivers. Conserv. 17, 3501-3512.
9. Brown, W. D., Smith, A. T., Moskalik, B. & Gabriel, J. 2006: Aggressive contests in house crickets: size, motivation and the information content of aggressive songs. Anim. Behav. 72, 225-233.
10. Burke, R. J., Fitzsimmons, J. M. & Kerr, J. T. 2011: A mobility index for Canadian butterfly species based on naturalists' knowledge. Biodivers. Conserv. 20, 2273-2295.
11. Chen, S., Lee, A. Y., Bowens, N. M., Huber, R. & Kravitz, E. A. 2002: Fighting fruit flies: a model system for the study of aggression. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 5664-5668.
12. Cordero, C. & Eberhard, W. G. 2003: Female choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptations: a critical review of some current research. J. Evol. Biol. 16, 1-6.
13. Darwin, C. R. 1871: The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. John Murray, London.
14. Double, M. C. & Cockburn, A. 2003: Subordinate superb fairy-wrens (Malurus cyaneus) parasitize the reproductive success of attractive dominant males. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 270, 379-384.
15. French, B. W. & Cade, W. H. 1987: The timing of calling, movement, and mating in the field crickets Gryllus veletis, G. pennsylvanicus, and G. integer. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 21, 157-162.
16. Garland, T. J., Bennett, A. F. & Rezende, E. L. 2005: Phylogenetic approaches in comparative physiology. J. Exp. Biol. 208, 3015-3035.
17. Gray, D. A. & Eckhardt, G. 2001: Is cricket courtship song condition dependent? Anim. Behav. 62, 871-877.
18. Hack, M. A. 1997a: Assessment strategies in the contests of male crickets, Acheta domesticus (L.). Anim. Behav. 53, 733-747.
19. Hack, M. A. 1997b: The energetic costs of fighting in the house cricket, Acheta domesticus L. Behav. Ecol. 8, 28-36.
20. Hagelin, J. C. 2002: The kinds of traits involved in male-male competition: a comparison of plumage, behavior, and body size in quail. Behav. Ecol. 13, 32-41.
21. Hedrick, A. V., Perez, D., Lichti, N. & Yew, J. 2002: Temperature preferences of male field crickets (Gryllus integer) alter their mating calls. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 188, 799-805.
22. Hissmann, K. 1990: Strategies of mate finding in the European field cricket Gryllus campestris at different population densities a field study. Ecol. Entomol. 15, 281-292.
23. Hofmann, H. A. & Schildberger, K. 2001: Assessment of strength and willingness to fight during aggressive encounters in crickets. Anim. Behav. 62, 337-348.
24. Huang, Y., Ortí, G., Sutherlin, M., Duhachek, A. & Zera, A. 2000: Phylogenetic relationships of North American field crickets inferred from mitochondrial DNA data. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 17, 48-57.
25. Husak, J. F., Lappin, A. K., Fox, S. F. & Lemos-Espinal, J. A. 2006: Bite-force performance predicts dominance in male venerable collared lizards (Crotaphytus antiquus). Copeia 2006, 301-306.
26. Ives, A. R. & Garland, T. J. 2010: Phylogenetic logistic regression for binary dependent variables. Syst. Biol. 59, 9-26.
27. Ives, A. R. & Zhu, J. 2006: Statistics for correlated data: phylogenies, space, and time. Ecol. Appl. 16, 20-32.
28. Jang, Y. & Gerhardt, H. C. 2006: Divergence in the calling songs between sympatric and allopatric populations of the southern wood cricket Gryllus fultoni (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). J. Evol. Biol. 19, 459-472.
29. Jang, Y., Gerhardt, H. C. & Choe, J. C. 2008: A comparative study of aggressiveness in eastern North American field cricket species (genus Gryllus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62, 1397-1407.
30. Judge, K. A. & Bonanno, V. L. 2008: Male weaponry in a fighting cricket. PLoS One 3, e3980.
31. Kotiaho, J., Alatalo, R. V., Mappes, J. & Parri, S. 1997: Fighting success in relation to body mass and drumming activity in the male wolf spider Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata. Can. J. Zool. 75, 1532-1535.
32. Lappin, A. K. & Husak, J. F. 2005: Weapon performance, not size, determines mating success and potential reproductive output in the collared lizard (Crotaphytus collaris). Am. Nat. 166, 426-436.
33. Lavin, S. R., Karasov, W. H., Ives, A. R., Middleton, K. M. & Garland, T. J. 2008: Morphometrics of the avian small intestine compared with that of nonflying mammals: a phylogenetic approach. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 81, 526-550.
34. Logue, D. M., Abiola, I. O., Rains, D., Bailey, N. W., Zuk, M. & Cade, W. H. 2010: Does signalling mitigate the cost of agonistic interactions? A test in a cricket that has lost its song. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 277, 2571-2575.
35. López, P., Muñoz, A. & Martín, J. 2002: Symmetry, male dominance, and female mate preferences in the Iberian rock lizard, Lacerta monticola. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 52, 342-347.
36. Maddison, W. P. & Maddison, D. R. 2010: Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 2.74.
37. Midford, P. E., Garland, T. J. & Maddison, W. P. 2010: PDAP package. Version 1.15.
38. Mitra, C., Wagner, W. E., Zera, A. J. & Tolle, A. E. 2011: Variation in singing behaviour among morphs of the sand field cricket, Gryllus firmus. Ecol. Entomol. 36, 152-160.
39. Moretz, J. A. 2003: Aggression and RHP in the Northern swordtail fish, Xiphophorus cortezi: the relationship between size and contest dynamics in male-male competition. Ethology 109, 995-1008.
40. Nakagawa, S. 2004: A farewell to Bonferroni: the problems of low statistical power and publication bias. Behav. Ecol. 15, 1044-1045.
41. Nakagawa, S. & Cuthill, I. C. 2007: Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol. Rev. 82, 591-605.
42. Narum, S. R. 2006: Beyond Bonferroni: less conservative analyses for conservation genetics. Conserv. Genet. 7, 783-787.
43. Olsson, M. 1992: Contest success in relation to size and residency in male sand lizards, Lacerta agilis. Anim. Behav. 44, 386-388.
44. Ritz, M. S. & Köhler, G. 2007: Male behaviour over the season in a wild population of the field cricket Gryllus campestris L. Ecol. Entomol. 32, 384-392.
45. Robertson, J. G. M. 1986: Male territoriality, fighting and assessment of fighting ability in the Australian frog Uperoleia rugosa. Anim. Behav. 34, 763-772.
46. Rohlf, F. J. 2006: A comment on phylogenetic correction. Evolution 60, 1509-1515.
47. Schuett, G. W. 1997: Body size and agonistic experience affect dominance and mating success in male copperheads. Anim. Behav. 54, 213-224.
48. Shackleton, M. A., Jennions, M. D. & 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.
49. Simmons, L. W. 1986: Inter-male competition and mating success in the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (de Geer). Anim. Behav. 34, 567-579.
50. Sneddon, L. U., Huntingford, F. A., Taylor, A. C. & Orr, J. F. 2000: Weapon strength and competitive success in the fights of shore crabs (Carcinus maenas). J. Zool. 250, 397-403.
51. Tachon, G., Murray, A.-M., Gray, D. A. & Cade, W. H. 1999: Agonistic displays and the benefits of fighting in the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus. J. Insect Behav. 12, 533-543.