QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online August 31, 2004
Journal of Experimental Biology 207, 3523-3529 (2004)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2004
doi: 10.1242/jeb.01179

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JEB Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Deily, J. A. Articles by Schul, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Deily, J. A. Articles by Schul, J.

Recognition of calls with exceptionally fast pulse rates: female phonotaxis in the genus Neoconocephalus (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae)

Joshua A. Deily^* and Johannes Schul

Division of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri, Tucker Hall, Columbia, MO 65211, USA

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. (A) Oscillograms of calls recorded from male N. robustus (top trace) and N. bivocatus (bottom trace) at 25°C. The filled arrowheads indicate sound produced during closing movements; open arrowheads represent the sound generated during the opening movements of the tegmina. (B) Durations of the pulses produced during the closing movements of the wings and of the intervals between them (Walker, 1975) in the calls of N. robustus and N. bivocatus (mean ± S.D.; N=12 and 8, respectively). Due to the two alternating pulse periods of N. bivocatus, two combinations of pulse and interval are given for this species; pulse durations were combined with the duration of the following interval. (C) Oscillograms of the models of the conspecific calls of N. robustus (top trace) and N. bivocatus (bottom trace) used in this study. Note the different time scales in A and C.

View larger version (11K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Phonotaxis score (mean ± S.E.M.; N=9 each) of female N. robustus (A) and N. bivocatus (B) in response to the model of the conspecific call (left bar) and to an unmodulated sine wave (right bar). Asterisk indicates a significant difference from the corresponding conspecific call model (P<0.05, Mann–Whitney U-test).

View larger version (11K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Importance of pulse duration and interval duration for phonotactic responses of N. robustus. The bars indicate the phonotaxis score (mean ± S.E.M.; N=8–9) for the respective parameter combination (see inset for the scale of the phonotaxis score). The baseline of each bar is positioned on the interval duration. Filled bars indicate significant responses, and white bars indicate non-significant responses.

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. (A) Phonotaxis scores (mean ± S.E.M.; N=8) of female N. bivocatus to different stimuli. (B) Oscillograms of the stimuli used in A. These stimuli test the importance of the temporal parameters occurring in the pattern of the conspecific call. DP indicates the model of the conspecific call. For further description of the stimuli, see text.

View larger version (12K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Importance of pulse duration and interval duration for phonotactic responses of N. bivocatus. The bars indicate the phonotaxis score (mean ± S.E.M.; N=8–10) for the respective parameter combination (see inset for the scale of the phonotaxis score). The baseline of each bar is positioned on the interval duration. Filled bars indicate significant responses, and white bars indicate non-significant responses.