Gesang des Männchens und Lautschema des Weibchens bei der FeldheuschreckeChorthippus biguttulus (Orthoptera, Acrididae)

Helversen, Dagmar von

doi:10.1007/bf00697757

Cited by 164 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, these systems are capable of astounding computations. Some grasshoppers, for instance, detect gaps in conspecific songs as short as 1-2 msec (von Helversen, 1972), a performance level similar to that reached by birds and mammals.…”

Section: Abstract: Auditory Receptor; Neural Coding; Acoustic Communmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…Because the shortest behaviorally relevant time scales of the AM signals are ϳ1-2 msec (von Helversen, 1972;von Helversen and von Helversen, 1998), frequency components of at least 250 -500 Hz are required in the random stimuli. To analyze the neural representation at these short time scales, LMD and SMD stimuli were designed with piece-wise flat spectral characteristics and cut-off frequencies of up to 800 Hz.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, female Ch. biguttulus grasshoppers do not respond to calling songs if these contain short gaps that are not part of the song of intact males (von Helversen, 1972;von Helversen and von Helversen, 1998).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1C). Gaps in a male song model as short as 1-2 msec reduce the frequency of a behavioral response on the part of the female almost down to zero (von Helversen, 1972;von Helversen and von Helversen, 1997). The time scales relevant to auditory recognition thus span three orders of magnitude, from 1 msec to several seconds.…”

Section: Stimulus Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Representation of Acoustic Communication Signals by Insect Auditory Receptor Neurons

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite their simple auditory systems, some insect species recognize certain temporal aspects of acoustic stimuli with an acuity equal to that of vertebrates; however, the underlying neural mechanisms and coding schemes are only partially understood. In this study, we analyze the response characteristics of the peripheral auditory system of grasshoppers with special emphasis on the representation of species-specific communication signals. We use both natural calling songs and artificial random stimuli designed to focus on two low-order statistical properties of the songs: their typical time scales and the distribution of their modulation amplitudes.Based on stimulus reconstruction techniques and quantified within an information-theoretic framework, our data show that artificial stimuli with typical time scales of Ͼ40 msec can be read from single spike trains with high accuracy. Faster stimulus variations can be reconstructed only for behaviorally relevant amplitude distributions. The highest rates of information transmission (180 bits/sec) and the highest coding efficiencies (40%) are obtained for stimuli that capture both the time scales and amplitude distributions of natural songs.Use of multiple spike trains significantly improves the reconstruction of stimuli that vary on time scales Ͻ40 msec or feature amplitude distributions as occur when several grasshopper songs overlap. Signal-to-noise ratios obtained from the reconstructions of natural songs do not exceed those obtained from artificial stimuli with the same low-order statistical properties. We conclude that auditory receptor neurons are optimized to extract both the time scales and the amplitude distribution of natural songs. They are not optimized, however, to extract higher-order statistical properties of the song-specific rhythmic patterns. Key words: auditory receptor; neural coding; acoustic communication; natural stimuli; stimulus reconstruction; insectEvolutionary processes have shaped acoustic communication behaviors of remarkable complexity (Hauser, 1996;Bradbury and Vehrenkamp, 1998). These behaviors are made possible by sophisticated neural systems in both sender and receiver. In human beings, for example, highly specialized cortical areas process auditory stimuli, extract language information, and generate finetuned motor signals required for proper speech production (Levelt, 1993;Ehret and Romand, 1997).Auditory systems of insects have a much simpler architecture, and with up to a few hundred neurons, they are orders of magnitude smaller than those of most vertebrates. Nevertheless, these systems are capable of astounding computations. Some grasshoppers, for instance, detect gaps in conspecific songs as short as 1-2 msec (von Helversen, 1972), a performance level similar to that reached by birds and mammals.These observations trigger the general question of how a small insect auditory system could possibly be organized to process acoustic signals reliably and with high temporal precision. Important clues will come from understanding the au...

show abstract

Section: Abstract: Auditory Receptor; Neural Coding; Acoustic Communmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Stimulus Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Representation of Acoustic Communication Signals by Insect Auditory Receptor Neurons

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The role of the presence/absence of gaps on sex identification and attractiveness had been known for some time (von Helversen 1972;von Helversen and von Helversen 1997). Onset accentuation refers to strength of the emphasis on the first pulse of a syllable, whereas offset depth quantifies the contrast between the baseline amplitude within a syllable to the minute pause between syllables (von Helversen et al 2004).…”

Section: Ranking By Song Attractivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genome size variation affects song attractiveness in grasshoppers: Evidence for sexual selection against large genomes

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genome size is largely uncorrelated to organismal complexity and adaptive scenarios. Genetic drift as well as intragenomic conflict have been put forward to explain this observation. We here study the impact of genome size on sexual attractiveness in the bow-winged grasshopper Chorthippus biguttulus. Grasshoppers show particularly large variation in genome size due to the high prevalence of supernumerary chromosomes that are considered (mildly) selfish, as evidenced by non-Mendelian inheritance and fitness costs if present in high numbers. We ranked male grasshoppers by song characteristics that are known to affect female preferences in this species and scored genome sizes of attractive and unattractive individuals from the extremes of this distribution.We find that attractive singers have significantly smaller genomes, demonstrating that genome size is reflected in male courtship songs and that females prefer songs of males with small genomes. Such a genome size dependent mate preference effectively selects against selfish genetic elements that tend to increase genome size. The data therefore provide a novel example of how sexual selection can reinforce natural selection and can act as an agent in an intragenomic arms race. Furthermore, our findings indicate an underappreciated route of how choosy females could gain indirect benefits.

show abstract

Sex‐specific repeatabilities and effects of relatedness and mating status on copulation duration in an acridid grasshopper

Haneke-Reinders

Reinhold

Schmoll

2017

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In species with direct sperm transfer, copulation duration is a crucial trait that may affect male and female reproductive success and that may vary with the quality of the mating partner. Furthermore, traits such as copulation duration represent the outcome of behavioral interactions between the sexes, for which it is important—but often difficult—to determine which sex is in phenotypic control. Using a double‐mating protocol, we compared copulation durations between (1) virgin and nonvirgin and (2) sibling and nonsibling mating pairs in rufous grasshoppers Gomphocerippus rufus. Nonvirgin copulations took on average approximately 30% longer than virgin copulations, whereas relatedness of mating partners was not a significant predictor of copulation duration. Longer nonvirgin copulations may represent a male adaptation to sperm competition if longer copulations allow more sperm to be transferred or function as postinsemination mate guarding. The absence of differences between pairs with different degrees of relatedness suggests no precopulatory or preinsemination inbreeding avoidance mechanism has evolved in this species, perhaps because there is no inbreeding depression in this species, or because inbreeding avoidance occurs after copulation. Controlling for the effects of male and female mating status (virgin vs. nonvirgin) and relatedness (sibling vs. nonsibling), we found significant repeatabilities (R) in copulation duration for males (R = 0.33; 95% CI: 0.09–0.55) but not for females (R = 0.09; 95% CI: 0.00–0.30). Thus, copulation durations of males more strongly represent a nontransient trait expressed in a consistent manner with different mating partners, suggesting that some aspect of the male phenotype may determine copulation duration in this species. However, overlapping confidence intervals for our sex‐specific repeatability estimates indicate that higher sampling effort is required for conclusive evidence.

show abstract

Gesang des Männchens und Lautschema des Weibchens bei der FeldheuschreckeChorthippus biguttulus (Orthoptera, Acrididae)

Cited by 164 publications

References 33 publications

Representation of Acoustic Communication Signals by Insect Auditory Receptor Neurons

Representation of Acoustic Communication Signals by Insect Auditory Receptor Neurons

Genome size variation affects song attractiveness in grasshoppers: Evidence for sexual selection against large genomes

Sex‐specific repeatabilities and effects of relatedness and mating status on copulation duration in an acridid grasshopper

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About