Author
Listed:
- Eileen Gabel
- R. Matthias Hennig
Abstract
Acoustic communication signals are often involved in mate-choice decisions. The decision for the best mating partner can become difficult when the available parameters of a signal are not positively correlated. Rational choice theory predicts that animals assign each signal a fixed value on a single dimension. The probability of choosing one signal over the other should be a monotonic function of the respective values and result in transitive choices. A violation of transitivity in choice behavior would suggest comparative rather than absolute decision making. Here, we tested the transitivity of preferences of female crickets for male calling songs. We conducted a series of binary choice experiments and compared their outcome to female preferences measured in no-choice experiments. To test transitivity, every choice pair had to differ in 2 parameters of the calling song. The parameter pairs used were 1) pulse rate and sound intensity, 2) chirp rate and sound intensity, and 3) pulse rate and chirp rate. The results revealed that females acted transitively if chirp rate and sound intensity or pulse rate and chirp rate of the patterns were varied. But females violated transitivity if pulse rate and sound intensity of signals differed as they mostly chose the louder pattern, although it was less attractive in the no-choice situation. This implies that sound intensity was weighted differently by females in the decision process in no-choice and choice experiments. The violation of transitivity suggests a comparative evaluation of available signals by female crickets.
Suggested Citation
Eileen Gabel & R. Matthias Hennig, 2016.
"Evidence for comparative decision making in female crickets,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 27(4), pages 1216-1222.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:27:y:2016:i:4:p:1216-1222.
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:27:y:2016:i:4:p:1216-1222.. 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.