Behavioral response to antennal tactile stimulation in the field cricket Gryllus bimaculatus

Abstract

1We examined behavioral responses of the field cricket Gryllus bimaculatus to tactile stimuli 2 to the antennae. Three stimulants of similar shape and size but different textures were used: a tibia 3 from the hunting spider Heteropoda venatoria (potential predator), a tibia from the orb-web spider 4Argiope bruennichii (less likely predator), and a glass rod. Each stimulus session comprised a first 5 gentle contact and a second strong contact. The evoked behavioral responses were classified into four 6 categories: aversion, aggression, antennal search, and no response. Regardless of the stimulants, the 7 crickets exhibited antennal search and aversion most frequently in response to the first and second 8 stimuli, respectively. The frequency of aversion was significantly higher to the tibia of H. venatoria 9 than to other stimulants. The most striking observation was that aggressive responses were exclusive 10 to the H. venatoria tibia. To specify the hair type that induced aggression, we manipulated two types 11 of common hairs (bristle and fine) on the tibia of the predatory spider. When bristle hairs were 12 removed from the H. venatoria tibia, aggression was significantly reduced. These results suggest that 13 antennae can discriminate the tactile texture of external objects and elicit adaptive behavioral 14 responses. 15 16

Encoding of near-range spatial information by descending interneurons in the stick insect antennal mechanosensory pathway

“…This situation was different from active tactile sensing, where 1) movements are driven by muscular contractions, 2) both antennal joints are moving at the same time, and 3) DINs might receive additional input from other sensory modalities. However, the experimental situation might resemble a state of passive sensing in which antennal deflections are introduced by external events, such as contact with approaching conspecifics or predators (Comer et al 2003;Okada and Akamine 2012).…”

Behavioural integration of auditory and antennal stimulation during phonotaxis in the field cricketGryllus bimaculatus(DeGeer)

“…We hypothesise that these animals detected the movement of the approaching object and that this stimulus elicited avoidance behaviour. In G. bimaculatus, weak antennal contact with spider legs elicits primarily antennal search, whereas strong contact elicits avoidance behaviour (Okada and Akamine, 2012). These findings, together with observations of antennal use in cockroaches Toh, 2004b, 2006;Stierle et al, 1994), indicate that behavioural responses to antennal stimulation depend on fine characteristics of the perceived stimulus.…”

Bugs scaring bugs: enemy‐risk effects in biological control systems

“…A large literature in behavioural and sensory ecology has examined prey perception of danger based on cues that provide information on the levels of enemy risk (Weissburg et al, 2014;Ehlman et al, 2019). Arthropods perceive risk using chemical (both airborne and via direct contact; Dicke and Grostal, 2001;Sitvarin and Rypstra, 2012;Thaler, 2014), visual (Gonc ßalves-Souza et al, 2008), vibratory (Castellanos and Barbosa, 2006), auditory (Skals, 2005) and tactile cues (Castellanos et al, 2011;Okada and Akamine, 2012). Organisms often use multiple cue modalities, which can vary depending on prey perceptual ability and the types of enemies.…”