‘Protest’ Sounds of a Grasshopper: Predator‐Deterrent Signal?

Blondheim, Syril A.; Frankenberg, Eliezer

doi:10.1155/1983/98675

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another possibility is that sound production is a regional phenomenon (Brown et al 2007), and is one of the limited options for sound production in a soft bodied insect such as a larva. Mandible clicking is not common in other insects, to my knowledge, but has also been reported in some grasshoppers during encounters with conspecifics and as a reaction to disturbance (Alexander 1960, Blondheim andFrankenberg 1983). Some suggestions have been made as to the mechanisms and functions of these sounds, though they have not been studied in detail.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…One click is equivalent to one pulse, produced by a single movement and contains a minimum of one component. Mandible clicking is considered a type of stridulation using undefined parts (Dumortier 1963) and is also used by other insects, such as grasshoppers, in conspecific communication and as a response to disturbance (Alexander 1960, Blondheim andFrankenberg 1983).…”

Section: Sound Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sound production in Bombycoidea caterpillars: a comparative study of taxonomic diversity, mechanisms and function

Bura¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Sound Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sound production in Bombycoidea caterpillars: a comparative study of taxonomic diversity, mechanisms and function

Bura¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Sound production using mandibles is not unique to Bombycoidea caterpillars, occurring in different insect orders and in different contexts. For example, in Orthoptera, mandibular stridulation has been reported in Acrididae grasshoppers in the contexts of both defence and courtship (Alexander, 1960a;Blondheim and Frankenberg, 1983), and in Anostostomatidae tusked wetas in the context of defence (Field, 1993). Mandibular scraping against the leaf surface (a form of stridulation) is used in other larval Lepidoptera for defence against intruders (e.g., Gracillariidae, Fletcher et al, 2006;Drepanidae, Guedes et al, 2012).…”

Section: Evolutionary Origins Of Mandibular Stridulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Sound? Diversity and Evolution of Sonic Defences in Caterpillars

Low

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Defensive sound production is widespread and highly diverse among insects, yet the specific functions and factors affecting its evolution are poorly understood. In this thesis, I have two overarching objectives. 1) I conduct a literature review on insect defence sounds and show that sounds have been reported in 12 insect orders with an enormous variety of sound-producing mechanisms, acoustic features, and proposed functions. Based on my review, I pose hypotheses and predictions to explain the diversity and evolution of sonic defences. 2) I study caterpillars of the Superfamily Bombycoidea (silk and hawk moths) to test some of these hypotheses using experimental and phylogenetic comparative methods. I do this in three stages. First, I document defensive responses of 44 species (33 previously untested), bringing the total number of tested Bombycoidea species in our database to 97. I show that 34/97 produce defence sounds. Second, I characterize different sound-producing mechanisms (clicking, chirping, whistling, and vocalizing), contributing new acoustic data for 13 previously unreported sound producers. Third, I use this information to develop and test hypotheses on how defence sounds evolved and function in Bombycoidea by mapping sound production onto a phylogeny that I constructed.Interestingly, the different sound-producing mechanisms occur in multiple distantly related groups, suggesting convergent evolution; yet, closely related species can differ in their soundproducing abilities or mechanisms. These results suggest there are important selective pressures for evolving defence sounds, and that these pressures could vary to produce different types of sounds. Using phylogenetic comparative methods, I explore possible factors to explain "why sound". Two results stand out: body size (based on head capsules) and trade-offs with defensive secretions. I also found support for the hypothesis that short sounds (i.e., clicking and chirping) are aposematic in function because they correlate to the presence of chemical defences. Overall, iii this research offers valuable contributions to the study of insect defence sounds: I provide the first comprehensive review of this topic, establish a model system by characterizing sonic defences (and other responses) in Bombycoidea caterpillars, and provide support for key hypotheses on the evolutionary origins, selective pressures, and functions of these sounds.iv AcknowledgementsFirst and foremost, I would like to thank Jayne for her continuous guidance and support over the years. From her prompt response to my first inquiry about grad school, to encouraging me to fast-track to the PhD program, and to (finally!) getting this tome complete, Jayne has been hands-down the greatest supervisor I could have asked for. Not only has Jayne been an awesome supervisor, but she has also been instrumental in helping me pursue teaching as a career, and has been there to celebrate many of my major life events. I'd also like to thank the other two key members of my committee: Myron Smith and Tom...

show abstract