Advertisement

Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 1–22 | Cite as

A rain forest dusk chorus: cacophony or sounds of silence?

  • Manjari Jain
  • Swati Diwakar
  • Jimmy Bahuleyan
  • Rittik Deb
  • Rohini Balakrishnan
Original Paper

Abstract

A rain forest dusk chorus consists of a large number of individuals of acoustically communicating species signaling at the same time. How different species achieve effective intra-specific communication in this complex and noisy acoustic environment is not well understood. In this study we examined acoustic masking interference in an assemblage of rain forest crickets and katydids. We used signal structures and spacing of signalers to estimate temporal, spectral and active space overlap between species. We then examined these overlaps for evidence of strategies of masking avoidance in the assemblage: we asked whether species whose signals have high temporal or spectral overlap avoid calling together. Whereas we found evidence that species with high temporal overlap may avoid calling together, there was no relation between spectral overlap and calling activity. There was also no correlation between the spectral and temporal overlaps of the signals of different species. In addition, we found little evidence that species calling in the understorey actively use spacing to minimize acoustic overlap. Increasing call intensity and tuning receivers however emerged as powerful strategies to minimize acoustic overlap. Effective acoustic overlaps were on average close to zero for most individuals in natural, multispecies choruses, even in the absence of behavioral avoidance mechanisms such as inhibition of calling or active spacing. Thus, call temporal structure, intensity and frequency together provide sufficient parameter space for several species to call together yet communicate effectively with little interference in the apparent cacophony of a rain forest dusk chorus.

Keywords

Katydids Acoustic interference Western Ghats Acoustic communication network Paleotropical cricket assemblage 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India for funding and the Karnataka State Forest Department for permits. RD is supported by CSIR, India. Many thanks to Vivek Nityananda, Natasha Mhatre and Chandra Sekhar Seelamantula for help with computer codes, Hastagiri Prakash for suggestions on the algorithm for simulation for pairwise ASO and to Sudhakar Gowda and Hanumanthan Raghuram for help with fieldwork. We thank two anonymous referees and the Associate Editor for suggestions that greatly improved the manuscript. Author contributions: MJ carried out the work on ASO, SD on ETO, JB on EAO in natural choruses, RD statistical analyses and figures, RB designed the study, RB and MJ wrote the manuscript. Data and codes are available from the authors. This article is dedicated to Otto von Helversen.

Supplementary material

10682_2013_9658_MOESM1_ESM.docx (502 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 501 kb)

References

  1. Amézquitas A, Flechas SV, Lima AP, Gasser H, Hödl W (2011) Acoustic interference and recognition space within a complex assemblage of dendrobatid frogs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:17058–17063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bee A, Micheyl C (2008) The cocktail party problem: What is it? How can it be solved? And why should animal behaviorists study it? J Comp Psychol 122:235–251PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brumm H (2006) Signalling through acoustic windows: nightingales avoid interspecific competition by short-term adjustment of song timing. J Comp Physiol A 192:1279–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brumm H, Slabbekoorn H (2005) Acoustic communication in noise. Adv Stud Behav 35:151–209Google Scholar
  5. Capranica RR, Moffat AJM (1983) Neurobehavioral correlates of sound communication in anurans. In: Ewert JP, Capranica RR, Ingle D (eds) Advances in vertebrate neuroethology. Plenum, New York, pp 701–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chek AA, Bogart JP, Lougheed SC (2003) Mating signal partitioning in multi-species assemblages: a null model test using frogs. Ecol Lett 6:235–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Darwin C (1988 reprinted) The voyage of the Beagle. NAL Penguin, New York, p 10Google Scholar
  9. Diwakar S, Balakrishnan R (2006) The assemblage of acoustically communicating crickets of a tropical evergreen forest in southern India: call diversity and diel calling patterns. Bioacoustics 16:113–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diwakar S, Balakrishnan R (2007) Vertical stratification in an acoustically communicating ensiferan assemblage of a tropical evergreen forest in southern India. J Trop Ecol 23:479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diwakar S, Jain M, Balakrishnan R (2007) Psychoacoustic sampling as a reliable non-invasive method to monitor orthopteran species diversity in tropical forests. Biodivers Conserv 16:4081–4093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Farris HE, Forrest TG, Hoy RR (1997) The effects of calling song spacing and intensity on the attraction of flying crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae: Nemobiinae). J Insect Behav 10:639–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ficken RW, Ficken MS, Hailman JP (1974) Temporal pattern shifts to avoid acoustic interference in singing birds. Science 183:762–763PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forrest TG, Green DM (1991) Sexual selection and female choice in mole crickets (Scapteriscus: Gryllotalpidae): modeling the effects of intensity and male spacing. Bioacoustics 3:93–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerhardt HC, Huber F (2002) Acoustic communication in insects and anurans: common problems and diverse solutions. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  16. Gogala M, Riede K (1995) Time sharing of song activity by cicadas in Temengor Forest Reserve, Hulu Perak, and in Sabah, Malaysia. Malay Nat J 48:297–305Google Scholar
  17. Greenfield MD (1988) Interspecific acoustic interactions among katydids Neoconocephalus: Inhibition-induced shifts in diel periodicity. Anim Behav 36:684–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hummel J, Kössl M, Nowotny M (2011) Sound-induced tympanal membrane motion in bushcrickets and its relationship to sensory input. J Exp Biol 214:3596–3604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jain M, Balakrishnan R (2011) Microhabitat selection in an assemblage of crickets (Orthoptera: Ensifera) of a tropical evergreen forest in Southern India. Insect Conserv Div 4:152–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jain M, Balakrishnan R (2012) Does acoustic adaptation drive vertical stratification? A test in a tropical cricket assemblage. Behav Ecol 23:343–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jain M, Kuriakose G, Balakrishnan R (2010) Evaluation of methods to estimate foliage density in the understorey of a tropical evergreen forest. Curr Sci 98:508–515Google Scholar
  22. Kostarakos K, Hartbauer M, Römer H (2008) Matched filters, mate choice and the evolution of sexually selected traits. PLoS ONE 3:e3005PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Langemann U, Klump GM (2005) Perception and acoustic communication networks. In: McGregor PK (ed) Animal communication networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 451–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Luther D (2009) The influence of the acoustic community on songs of birds in a neotropical rain forest. Behav Ecol 20:864–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCullagh P, Nelder J (1989) Generalized linear models. Chapman & Hall, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nityananda V, Balakrishnan R (2006) A diversity of songs among morphologically indistinguishable katydids of the genus Mecopoda (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) from Southern India. Bioacoustics 15:223–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Planqué R, Slabbekoorn H (2008) Spectral overlap in songs and temporal avoidance in a Peruvian bird assemblage. Ethology 114:262–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Popp JW, Ficken RW, Reinartz JA (1985) Short-term temporal avoidance of interspecific acoustic interference among forest birds. Auk 102:744–748Google Scholar
  29. Römer H (1998) The sensory ecology of acoustic communication in insects. In: Hoy RR, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) Comparative hearing: insects. Springer, New York, pp 63–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Römer H, Bailey W, Dadour I (1989) Insect hearing in the field. III. Masking by noise. J Comp Physiol A164:609–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A (1992) Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am Nat 139:S4–S35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schmidt AKD, Römer H (2011) Solutions to the cocktail party problem in insects: selective filters, spatial release from masking and gain control in tropical crickets. PLoS ONE 6:e28593PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schmidt AKD, Riede K, Römer H (2011) High background noise shapes selective auditory filters in a tropical cricket. J Exp Biol 214:1754–1762PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schmidt AKD, Römer H, Riede K (2013) Spectral niche segregation and community organization in a tropical cricket assemblage. Behav Ecol 24:470–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sueur J (2002) Cicada acoustic communication: potential sound partitioning in a multispecies community from Mexico (Hemiptera: Cicadomorpha: Cicadidae). Biol J Linn Soc 75:379–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wehner R (1989) “Matched filters”—neural models of the external world. J Comp Physiol A 161:511–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wollerman L, Wiley H (2002) Possibilities for error during communication by neotropical frogs in a complex acoustic environment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:465–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wong S, Parada H, Narins PM (2009) Heterospecific acoustic interference: effects on calling in the frog Oophaga pumilio in Nicaragua. Biotropica 41:74–80PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manjari Jain
    • 1
  • Swati Diwakar
    • 2
  • Jimmy Bahuleyan
    • 3
  • Rittik Deb
    • 1
  • Rohini Balakrishnan
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Ecological SciencesIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Department of Environmental StudiesUniversity of DelhiDelhiIndia
  3. 3.Department of Computer Science and AutomationIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations