Males adjust signaling effort based on female mate-preference cues

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1218-1225

  Rodríguez, Rafael L ^a   Haen, Christina ^a   Cocroft, Reginald B ^b   Fowler Finn, Kasey D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

Auchenorrhyncha; duetting; Enchenopa binotata complex; male mate choice; phytophagous insect; vibratory communication.

Indexed keywords

ASSORTATIVE MATING; BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; CONSPECIFIC; FEMALE; INSECT; MALE; MATE CHOICE; REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION; SIGNALING;

EID: 84867795328     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/ars105     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Amundsen T. 2000. Why are female birds ornamented? Trends Ecol Evol. 15:149-155.
2. Bailey WJ. 2003. Insect duets: underlying mechanisms and their evolution. Physiol Entomol. 28:157-174.
3. Balsby TJS, Dabelsteen T. 2002. Female behaviour affects male courthip in whitethroats, Sylvia communis: an interactive experiment using visual and acoustic cues. Anim Behav. 63:251-257.
4. Bondurianksy R. 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol Rev. 76:305-339.
5. Clutton-Brock TH. 2007. Sexual selection in males and females. Science. 318:1882-1885.
6. Clutton-Brock TH. 2009. Sexual selection in females. Anim Behav. 77:3-11.
7. Cocroft RB. 1996. Insect vibrational defenses. Nature. 382:679-680.
8. Cocroft RB, Rodríguez RL. 2005. The behavioral ecology of insect vibrational communication. BioScience. 55:323-334.
9. Cocroft RB, Rodríguez RL, Hunt RE. 2008. Host shifts, the evolution of communication and speciation in the Enchenopa binotata complex of treehoppers. In: Tilmon K, editor. Specialization, speciation, and radiation: the evolutionary biology of herbivorous insects. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.
10. Cocroft RB, Rodríguez RL, Hunt RE. 2010. Host shifts and signal divergence: mating signals covary with host use in a complex of specialized plant-feeding insects. Biol J Linn Soc. 99:60-72.
11. Cokl A, Virant-Doberlet M. 2003. Communication with substrate-borne signals in small plant-dwelling insects. Annu Rev Entomol. 48:29-50.
12. Crudgington HS, Siva-Jothy MT. 2000. Genital damage, kicking and early death. Nature. 407:855-856.
13. Dutto MS, Calbacho-Rosa L, Peretti AV. 2011. Signalling and sexual conflict: female spiders use stridulation to inform males of sexual receptivity. Ethology. 117:1040-1049.
14. Eberhard WG. 1994. Evidence for widespread courtship during copulation in 131 species of insects and spiders, and implications for cryptic female choice. Evolution. 48:711-733.
15. Edvarsson M, Tregenza T. 2005. Why do male Callosobruchus maculatus harm their mates? Behav Ecol. 16:788-793.
16. Fernandez AA, Fernandez LR, Toth L. 2008. Head over heels: an examination of a possible mating signal in female swordtails, Xiphophorus cortezi. Anim Behav. 76:1073-1081.
17. Fowler-Finn KD, Rodríguez RL. 2012. Experience-mediated plasticity in mate preferences: mating assurance in a variable environment. Evolution. 66:459-468.
18. Hamilton KGA, Cocroft RB. 2009. Establishing the identity of existing names in the North American Enchenopa binotata species complex of treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae). Entomol News. 120:554-565.
19. Henry CS. 1994. Singing and cryptic speciation in insects. Trends Ecol Evol. 9:388-392.
20. Kozak G, Reisland M, Boughman JW. 2009. Sex differences in mate recognition and conspecific preference in species with mutual mate choice. Evolution. 63:353-365.
21. Mead LS, Arnold SJ. 2004. Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol. 19:264-271.
22. Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC. 2007. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev. 82:591-605.
23. Narins PM. 1992. Evolution of anuran chorus behavior: neural and behavioral constraints. Am Nat. 139:S90-S104.
24. Patricelli GL, Coleman SW, Borgia G. 2006. Male satin bowerbirds, Ptilonorhynchus violaceus, adjust their display intentsity in response to female startling: an experiment with robotic females. Anim Behav. 71:49-59.
25. Patricelli GL, Uy JAC, Walsh G, Borgia G. 2002. Male displays adjusted to female's response. Nature. 415:279-280.
26. Peretti A, Eberhard WG, Briceño RD. 2006. Copulatory dialogue: female spiders sing during copulation to influence male genitalic movements. Anim Behav. 72:413-421.
27. Prum RO. 2010. The Lande-Kirkpatrick mechanism is the null model of evolution by intersexual selection: implications for meaning, honesty, and design in intersexual signals. Evolution. 64:3085-3100.
28. Rodríguez RL. 1998. Possible female choice during copulation in Ozophora baranowskii (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae). J Insect Behav. 11:725-741.
29. Rodríguez RL, Barbosa F. (In press) Mutual mate choice and behavioral adjustments in vibrational duetting. In: Cocroft RB, Gogala M, Wessel A, editors. Vibrational communication in arthropods. Springer.
30. Rodríguez RL, Cocroft RB. 2006. Divergence in female duetting signals in the Enchenopa binotata species complex of treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae). Ethology. 112:1231-1238.
31. Rodríguez RL, Ramaswamy K, Cocroft RB. 2006. Evidence that female preferences have shaped male signal evolution in a clade of specialized plant-feeding insects. Proc R Soc B 273:2585-2593.
32. Rodríguez RL, Sullivan LE, Cocroft RB. 2004. Vibrational communication and reproductive isolation in the Enchenopa binotata species complex of treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae). Evolution. 58:571-578.
33. Rowland WJ, Grindle N, Maclaren RD, Granquist R. 2002. Male preference for a subtle posture cue that signals spawning readiness in female sticklebacks. Anim Behav. 63:743-748.
34. Sæther SA, Fiske P, Kålås JA. 2001. Male mate choice, sexual conflict and strategic allocation of copulations in a lekking bird. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 268:2097-2102.
35. Sullivan-Beckers L. 2008. The ecology of mate choice: identifying the agents of sexual selection on mating signals in Enchenopa treehoppers [dissertation]. [Columbia (MO)]: University of Missouri, p 111.
36. Sullivan-Beckers L, Cocroft RB. 2010. The importance of female choice, male-male competition, and signal transmission as causes of selection on male mating signals. Evolution. 64:3158-3171.
37. Sullivan-Beckers L, Hebets EA. 2011. Modality-specific experience with female feedback increases the efficacy of courtship signalling in male wolf spiders. Anim Behav. 82:1051-1057.
38. Uhl G, Elias DO. 2011. Communication. In: Herberstein ME, editor. Spider behaviour: flexibility and versatility. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 127-189.
39. West MJ, King A. 1985. Social guidance of vocal learning by female cowbirds: validating its functional significance. Z Tierpsychol. 70:225-235.
40. West-Eberhard MJ. 1983. Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Q Rev Biol. 58:155-183.
41. Wood TK. 1980. Divergence in the Enchenopa binotata Say complex (Homoptera: Membracidae) effected by host plant adaptation. Evolution. 34:147-160.
42. Wood TK. 1993. Speciation of the Enchenopa binotata complex (Insecta: Homoptera: Membracidae). In: Lees DR, Edwards D, editors. Evolutionary patterns and processes. New York: Academic Press. 299-317.