The role of chemoreception in sex recognition by male crickets: Acheta domesticus and Teleogryllus oceanicus

Abstract

Contact chemoreception is important in female recognition byTeleogryllus oceanicus (Le Guillou) males. Antennal contact of female conspecifics, body regions, detached antennae and conditioned substrate elicited mostly courtship responses including courtship songs. Aggressive acts were produced only in response to male conspecifics. Male body regions, detached antennae and conditioned substrate elicited very few courtship or aggressive acts and no songs. This suggests that one or several communication modes, in addition to chemical communication, are necessary to elicit aggressive responses. Acheta domesticus (L.) males cannot rely upon chemical cues for recognition of either sex. Responses to conspecifics suggest that A.domesticus males produce aggressive acts immediately after antenna1 contact with either sex. Aggressive response to males usually persists, but response to females often switches to courtship. Responses to body regions, detached antennae, and conditioned substrate were few, with courtship and aggressive responses elicited by both male-and female-generated stimuli. The importance of contact chemoreception in cricket communication is suggested by (1) failure of hexane-washed antennae to elicit aggressive or courtship acts, and (2) males spending more time in contact with body regions and conditioned substrates than with corresponding controls. Lack of response to male or female odour-laden air suggests that chemical signals are used by males only if directly contacted. Chemical and other signals supplement the obvious use of acoustic signals for intra-and intersexual communication in these crickets. The importance of multimodal communication in sex recognition is discussed.

Aggressive behavior in the antennectomized male cricket Gryllus bimaculatus

“…Chemical and tactile information are two major inputs from the antennae, and these sensory cues appear to determine the type of agonistic behavior adopted by a male cricket (Adamo and Hoy, 1995). In some cricket species, it has been suggested that male individuals use chemical signals emitted from the cuticle for conspecific sex recognition (Rence and Loher, 1977;Hardy and Shaw, 1983;Nagamoto et al, 2005;Iwasaki and Katagiri, 2008). Here, we found that the chloroform extract of the male forewings induced aggressive behavior by male individuals, clearly indicating that the males use sensory cues emitted from the cuticle.…”

“…Here, we found that the chloroform extract of the male forewings induced aggressive behavior by male individuals, clearly indicating that the males use sensory cues emitted from the cuticle. However, the aggressive behavior elicited by male cuticular substances is often much weaker than that elicited by active conspecific males (Fig.4) (Hardy and Shaw, 1983;Adamo and Hoy, 1995). This implies that expression of sequential aggressive behavior requires multimodal sensory processes and the chemical signals may be necessary only at the very beginning stage of the fight, i.e.…”

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

“…precisely (b, d). 10 In H. venatoria, the bristle hairs are thicker and more protrudent than the fine hairs (b). In A.…”

“…The test animals were maintained individually in 7 plastic petri dishes (90 mm in diameter and 10 mm in height) and provided rodent pellets and water ad 8 libitum. 9 The hunting spider Heteropoda venatoria (approximately 25 mm in body length) is 10 commonly found in Japanese households. For this study, spiders were captured in the buildings of 11 Nagasaki University during the night.…”

Chemical cues mediate species recognition in field crickets

“…Gryllus bimaculatus and T. oceanicus both use CHCs to determine the genetic relatedness of potential mates (Simmons, 1989(Simmons, , 1990Thomas and Simmons, 2011). G. bimaculatus, Acheta domesticus, G. integer, T. oceanicus, and T. commodus respond to sex differences in chemosensory cues (von Hörmann-Heck, 1957;Otte and Cade, 1976;Rence and Loher, 1977;Hardy and Shaw, 1983;Tregenza and Wedell, 1997;Nagamoto et al, 2005;Leonard and Hedrick, 2009), and in some cases CHC profiles have been shown to differ between the sexes (Warthen and Uebel, 1980;Tregenza and Wedell, 1997;Thomas and Simmons, 2008). Given their general importance in mate choice in crickets, we might also expect CHCs to play an important role in species recognition.…”