Abstract
ABSTRACTFor crickets, which approach singing males by phonotaxis, the female choosiness hypothesis postulates that young females should be more selective of male calling song patterns than older individuals. However, there is no information about the behavioural preferences of females over their complete adulthood. We analysed phonotaxis in female Gryllus bimaculatus throughout their entire adult lifetime and measured the impact of sound amplitude, carrier frequency and the temporal pattern of test songs on their auditory response. Females of all ages demonstrated their best responses to male calling songs with a pulse period of 34–42 ms, a carrier frequency of 4.5 kHz and a sound pressure level of 75 dB. The response profile to somewhat less optimal song types did vary with age, but not in a manner consistent with a simple loosening of selectiveness in older females. Age, however, had an effect on the overall strength of phonotaxis, as very old females showed an overall diminishing response to all song types. Our data suggest that although there are minor changes in the relative preferences of crickets to individual song elements as they age, the breadth of song patterns to which they will perform phonotaxis remains similar across age groups.
Highlights
Animals make choices over their adult life span that directly affect their reproductive success and their fitness
MATERIALS AND METHODS Animals Last-larval instar female Gryllus bimaculatus De Geer 1773 were obtained from a breeding colony maintained at the University of Cambridge Department of Zoology for many years, which has been occasionally supplemented by stock from commercial insect suppliers based in the UK
We analyzed the phonotaxis of virgin female G. bimaculatus over their entire adulthood using a highly sensitive trackball, which gives a quantitative readout of the behavioural performance (Hedwig and Poulet, 2004, 2005)
Summary
Animals make choices over their adult life span that directly affect their reproductive success and their fitness. One such choice is to find suitable mating partners, as considered by life history theory (Ligout et al, 2012). A distinction has been made between preference functions, which describe how mating preference changes with systematic variation in display stimulus values, and choosiness itself, which has received contrasting definitions (Reinhold and Schielzeth, 2015). Jennions and Petrie (1997) defined choosiness as ‘the effort an individual is prepared to invest in mate assessment’, independent of preference functions (Neelon et al, 2019).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
