spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by KAVANAGH, M. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by KAVANAGH, M. W.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?
Journal of Experimental Biology 130,107-119 (1987)
Published by Company of Biologists 1987

The Efficiency of Sound Production in Two Cricket Species, Gryllotalpa Australis and Teleogryllus Commodus (Orthoptera: Grylloidea)

MARK W. KAVANAGH 1

1 Department of Zoology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, 3052, Australia

1. Males of Gryllotalpa australis (Erichson) (Gryllotalpidae) and Teleogryllus commodus (Walter) (Gryllidae) produced their calling songs while confined in respirometers.

2. G. australis males used oxygen during calling at a mean rate of 4.637 ml O2 h-1, equivalent to 27.65 mW of metabolic energy, which was 13 times higher than the resting metabolic rate. T. commodus males used oxygen during calling at a rate of 0.728 ml O2 h-1, equivalent to 4.34 mW, which was four times the resting metabolic rate.

3. The sound field during calling by males represents a sound power output of 0.27 mW for G. australis and l.51 x l0.3 mW for T. commodus.

4. The efficiency of sound production was 1.05% for males of G. australis and 0.05% for males of T. commodus. Comparison with other insect species suggests that none is more than a few percent efficient in sound production.

Key words: cricket, mole cricket, efficiency, sound production

Accepted on February 27, 1987


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med SciHome page
C. Ruth Archer, N. Royle, S. South, C. Selman, and J. Hunt
Nutritional Geometry Provides Food for Thought
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci, September 1, 2009; 64A(9): 956 - 959.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Exp. Biol.Home page
V. L. Salazar and P. K. Stoddard
Sex differences in energetic costs explain sexual dimorphism in the circadian rhythm modulation of the electrocommunication signal of the gymnotiform fish Brachyhypopomus pinnicaudatus
J. Exp. Biol., March 15, 2008; 211(6): 1012 - 1020.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Exp. Biol.Home page
K. N. Prestwich and K. O'Sullivan
Simultaneous measurement of metabolic and acoustic power and the efficiency of sound production in two mole cricket species (Orthoptera: Gryllotalpidae)
J. Exp. Biol., April 15, 2005; 208(8): 1495 - 1512.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Exp. Biol.Home page
H. Bennet-Clark and A. Daws
Transduction of mechanical energy into sound energy in the cicada cyclochila australasiae
J. Exp. Biol., January 7, 1999; 202(13): 1803 - 1817.
[Abstract] [PDF]


© The Company of Biologists Ltd 1987