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

First published online August 22, 2008
Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 2799-2806 (2008)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2008
doi: 10.1242/jeb.019596

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 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 Goerlitz, H. R. Articles by Siemers, B. M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Goerlitz, H. R. Articles by Siemers, B. M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Cues for acoustic detection of prey: insect rustling sounds and the influence of walking substrate

Holger R. Goerlitz^1,2, Stefan Greif^2,3 and Björn M. Siemers^3,*

¹ Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Department Biology II, Neurobiology, Großhaderner Straße 2, D-82152 Martinsried, Germany
² University of Tübingen, Animal Physiology, Auf der Morgenstelle 28, D-72076 Tübingen, Germany
³ Max-Planck Institute for Ornithology, Sensory Ecology Group, Eberhard-Gwinner-Straße, D-82319 Seewiesen, Germany

View larger version (20K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Example of a rustling sound from a walking Kheper subaeneus on dry leaf litter in waveform representation. (A) For this example sound sequence, the blue frame indicates the highest root mean square level (MaxRMS) for a gliding 200 ms time window and the red frame the 0.2 ms time window with MaxRMS. The latter is shown on an expanded time scale in B. a.u., arbitrary units.

View larger version (28K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Amplitude parameters for six European Carabus and 10 Madagascan Kheper beetles (second-order means ± s.e.m.) walking on different substrates. (A) Carabus, MaxRMS for gliding 0.2 ms window; (B) Carabus, MaxRMS for 200 ms window; (C) Kheper, MaxRMS for 0.2 ms window; and (D) Kheper, MaxRMS for 200 ms window. SPL, sound pressure level. For statistical analyses of substrate and moisture effects, see Table 2.

View larger version (100K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Spectra of walking sounds. Spectra differ mainly in amplitude, not shape, between substrates. (A) German Carabus, dry leaves versus wet leaves. Thin, bright lines: spectrum of single recordings; medium, bright lines: mean of all recordings per beetle; thick lines: second-order mean across all beetles on a given substrate. (B) German Carabus, all three substrates with both moisture conditions. Only the second-order means are shown. (C) Madagascan Kheper, all three substrates. Thin, bright lines: spectrum of single recordings; medium, bright lines: mean of all recordings per beetle; thick lines: second-order mean across all beetles on a given substrate.

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Rustling sound amplitude increased with walking speed. Data for Carabus, walking on dry substrates only. For statistics, see text. (A) MaxRMS for 0.2 ms window; (B) MaxRMS for 200 ms window.

View larger version (16K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Amplitude parameters for walking sounds of Madagascan insects (individual means) plotted versus body mass. Walking sound amplitude increased with mass and differed between the walking substrates sand, bark and leaf litter (for statistics see text). (A) MaxRMS for 0.2 ms window; (B) MaxRMS for 200 ms window.

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

Twitter