Recognition of calls with exceptionally fast pulse rates: female phonotaxis in the genus Neoconocephalus (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae)

SUMMARY Male Neoconocephalus robustus and Neoconocephalus bivocatus produce remarkably fast calls, with pulse rates of approximately175–200 Hz. The temporal call patterns differ significantly between the two species. Male N. robustus produce calls with a single pulse rate of 200 Hz. In N. bivocatus, pulses are repeated with alternating periods, resulting in distinct pulse pairs: approximately 175 pulses s–1 are grouped into 87 pulse pairs s–1. In order to identify the temporal parameters used to recognize calls with such fast pulse rates, female call recognition in both species was tested during phonotaxis on a walking compensator. Female N. robustus were attracted to calls without amplitude modulation. Amplitude-modulated signals were equally attractive, as long as the silent intervals were short enough. The maximally tolerated interval duration varied with pulse duration. Female N. bivocatus did not require the paired-pulse pattern but were attracted to call models in which each pulse pair was merged into one long pulse. Females used the pulse rate to recognize such signals: pulse rates close to 87 Hz were attractive, largely independent of the duty cycle. Thus, females of the sibling species N. robustus and N. bivocatus used qualitatively different call recognition mechanisms.

[1]  Johannes Schul,et al.  What determines the tuning of hearing organs and the frequency of calls? A comparative study in the katydid genus Neoconocephalus (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae) , 2003, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[2]  B. Ronacher,et al.  Temperature dependence of temporal resolution in an insect nervous system , 2002, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[3]  D. Blumstein Acoustic Communication in Insects and Anurans : Common Problems and Diverse Solutions , 2002 .

[4]  R. M. Hennig Acoustic feature extraction by cross-correlation in crickets? , 2003, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[5]  R. M. Hennig,et al.  Filtering of temporal parameters of the calling song by cricket females of two closely related species: a behavioral analysis , 1997, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[6]  WARM-UP AND STRIDULATION IN THE BUSHCRICKET, HEXACENTRUS UNICOLOR SERVILLE (ORTHOPTERA, CONOCEPHALIDAE, LISTROSCELIDINAE) , 1986 .

[7]  T. J. Walker Stridulatory movements in eight species of Neoconocephalus (Tettigoniidae). , 1975, Journal of insect physiology.

[8]  G. K. Morris,et al.  CALLING COMMUNICATION IN MEADOW KATYDIDS (ORTHOPTERA, TETTIGONIIDAE): FEMALE PREFERENCES FOR SPECIES-SPECIFIC WINGSTROKE RATES , 2002 .

[9]  T. J. Walker,et al.  The Robust Conehead: Two Widespread Sibling Species (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae: Neoconocephalus "Robustus") , 1973 .

[10]  Franz Huber,et al.  Auditory behavior of the cricket , 2004, Journal of comparative physiology.

[11]  Dagmar von Helversen Gesang des Männchens und Lautschema des Weibchens bei der FeldheuschreckeChorthippus biguttulus (Orthoptera, Acrididae) , 1972, Journal of comparative physiology.

[12]  R. C. Froeschner The Grasshoppers and Other Orthoptera of Iowa , 1954 .

[13]  John A. Doherty,et al.  Trade-off phenomena in calling song recognition and phonotaxis in the cricket,Gryllus bimaculatus (Orthoptera, Gryllidae) , 1985, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[14]  J. Schul,et al.  Non-parallel coevolution of sender and receiver in the acoustic communication system of treefrogs , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[15]  Processing of complex song parameters by parallel neuronal activity within the auditory system of two closely related bushcricket species , 1993 .

[16]  D. Helversen,et al.  Species Recognition and Acoustic Localization in Acridid Grasshoppers: A Behavioral Approach , 1983 .

[17]  J. Schul,et al.  Song recognition by temporal cues in a group of closely related bushcricket species (genus Tettigonia) , 1998, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[18]  Johannes Schul,et al.  Pattern recognition and call preferences in treefrogs (Anura: Hylidae): a quantitative analysis using a no-choice paradigm , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[19]  K. Schildberger,et al.  Temporal selectivity of identified auditory neurons in the cricket brain , 2004, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[20]  N. Tinbergen,et al.  The Study of Instinct , 1953 .

[21]  H. Gerhardt,et al.  Female mate choice in treefrogs: static and dynamic acoustic criteria , 1991, Animal Behaviour.

[22]  Michael D Greenfield Evolution of Acoustic Communication in the Genus Neoconocephalus: Discontinuous Songs, Synchrony, and Interspecific Interactions , 1990 .

[23]  A. Ewing,et al.  Arthropod Bioacoustics: Neurobiology and Behaviour , 1989 .

[24]  M. Ryan,et al.  Female Responses to Ancestral Advertisement Calls in T�ngara Frogs , 1995, Science.

[25]  Franz Huber,et al.  Auditory behavior of the cricket , 1981, Journal of comparative physiology.

[26]  A. Surlykke,et al.  Temporal coding in the auditory receptor of the moth ear , 1988, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[27]  B. Ronacher,et al.  Temporal modulation transfer functions in auditory receptor fibres of the locust (Locusta migratoria L.) , 2002, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.