Author
Listed:
- Anne S. Leonard
- Ann V. Hedrick
Abstract
Males that produce conspicuous mating signals may attract competitors in addition to sexually receptive females. In many species, for example, females use male calls to locate and choose mates and males respond to competitors' signals by modulating signal production or changing location, thereby escalating or decreasing competition. Do these different receivers make decisions using male signals in the same way? We compared how male and female field crickets (Gryllus integer) made decisions to approach male calls differing in calling bout length, a heritable trait known to play an important role in female mate choice. When offered a simultaneous choice between playbacks, both males and females preferred calls with long bouts to those with short bouts. When presented with calls in isolation, however, only females preferred long-bout calls. Females thus appear to use an internal standard to evaluate calls, whereas males apparently compare the relative attractiveness of alternatives. We also found that males assess calls in relation to their own competitive potential by testing 2 hypotheses that make different predictions regarding variation in male responses to competitor signals. We found no support for the satellite male hypothesis, as unattractive males did not preferentially approach female-preferred calls; in support of the aggressive displacement hypothesis, males likely to win contests preferentially approached the female-preferred call. Our work demonstrates that even though the sexes process the same information, different mechanisms of reproductive success (mate location vs. mate attraction) can result in sex differences in the perception and use of conspecifics' signals. Copyright 2009, Oxford University Press.
Suggested Citation
Anne S. Leonard & Ann V. Hedrick, 2009.
"Male and female crickets use different decision rules in response to mating signals,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 20(6), pages 1175-1184.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:20:y:2009:i:6:p:1175-1184
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:20:y:2009:i:6:p:1175-1184. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.