Mutual Behavioral Adjustment in Vibrational Duetting

Part of the Animal Signals and Communication book series (ANISIGCOM, volume 3)


Animal communication often involves a back-and-forth of influence between the sexes. Not only do males produce signals to court females–females often reply back, as is the case in many plant-feeding insects. Here, we explore the behavioral complexity that arises from these interactions. We examine the potential for substrate-borne vibrational duetting insects to serve as case studies of the evolution and evolutionary consequences of mutual influence between the sexes, including mutual mate choice. Female mate choice on the basis of male signals has been documented in several species of insects that communicate via substrate-borne vibration, but it is less clear how often males modify their behavior (up to and including male mate choice) on the basis of variation in female vibrational signals. We assessed the potential for the signals of one sex to influence the behavior of the other sex with a literature review in which we compared the signals used by males and females in vibrational duetting. We found that female signals were at least as long and variable as male signals, although male signals often had more components than female signals. Thus, it seems likely that female vibrational duetting behavior is involved in proximate and evolutionary dynamics involving mutual influence and stimulation between the sexes.



We thank Rex Cocroft and Gerlinde Höbel for discussion and constructive comments to the manuscript. Funding was provided in part by NSF grant IOS–1120790 to RLR and KD Fowler-Finn, and by University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Research Grant Initiative grant 101x197 to Gerlinde Höbel.


  1. Amundsen T (2000) Why are female birds ornamented? Trends Ecol Evol 15:149–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey WJ (2003) Insect duets: underlying mechanisms and their evolution. Physiol Entomol 28:157–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey WJ, Hammond TJ (2003) Duetting in insects—does call length influence reply latency? J Zool 260:267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belwood JJ, Morris GK (1987) Bat predation and its influence on calling behavior in neotropical katydids. Science 238:64–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonduriansky R (2001) The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol Rev 76:305–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Catania KC (2008) Worm grunting, fiddling, and charming—humans unknowingly mimic a predator to harvest bait. PLoS ONE 3:e3472PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cator LJ, Arthur BJ, Harrington LC, Hoy RR (2009) Harmonic convergence in the love songs of the dengue vector mosquito. Science 323:1077–1079PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clutton-Brock TH (2007) Sexual selection in males and females. Science 318:1882–1885PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clutton-Brock TH (2009) Sexual selection in females. Anim Behav 77:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clutton-Brock TH, Hodge SJ, Spong G, Russell AF, Jordan NR, Bennett NC, Sharpe LL, Manser MB (2006) Intrasexual competition and sexual selection in cooperative mammals. Nature 444:1065–1068PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cocroft RB (2003) The social environment of an aggregating, ant-tended treehopper (Hemiptera: Membracidae: Vanduzea arquata). J Insect Behav 16:79–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cocroft RB (2011) The public world of insect vibrational communication. Mol Ecol 20:2041–2043PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cocroft RB, De Luca P (2006) Size–frequency relationships in insect vibratory signals. In: Drosopoulos S, Claridge MF (eds) Insect sounds and communication: physiology, behaviour, ecology and evolution. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, pp 99–110Google Scholar
  15. Cocroft RB, Rodríguez RL (2005) The behavioral ecology of insect vibrational communication. Bioscience 55:323–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cocroft RB, Rodríguez RL, Hunt RE (2008) Host shifts, the evolution of communication and speciation in the Enchenopa binotata complex of treehoppers. In: Tilmon K (ed) Specialization, speciation, and radiation: the evolutionary biology of herbivorous insects. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 88–100Google Scholar
  17. Cocroft RB, Rodríguez RL, Hunt RE (2010) Host shifts and signal divergence: mating signals covary with host use in a complex of specialized plant-feeding insects. Biol J Linn Soc 99:60–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cokl A, Virant-Doberlet M, Stritih N (2000) Temporal and spectral properties of the songs of the southern green stink bug Nezara viridula (L.) from Slovenia. Eur J Physiol 439:R168–R170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Čokl A, McBrien HL, Millar JG (2001) Comparison of substrate-borne vibrational signals of two stink bug species, Acrosternum hilare and Nezara viridula (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 94:471–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cokl A, Virant-Doberlet M (2003) Communication with substrate-borne signals in small plant-dwelling insects. Annu Rev Entomol 48:29–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Conner WE, Corcoran AJ (2012) Sound strategies: the 65-million-year-old battle between bats and insects. Annu Rev Entomol 57:21–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. de Groot M, Čokl A, Virant-Doberlet M (2011) Search behaviour of two hemipteran species using vibrational communication. Cent Eur J Biol 8:756–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Djemai I, Casas J, Magal C (2004) Parasitoid foraging decisions mediated by artificial vibrations. Anim Behav 67:567–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eberhard WG (1994) Evidence for widespread courtship during copulation in 131 species of insects and spiders, and implications for cryptic female choice. Evolution 48:711–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eberhard WG (2007) Miniaturized orb–weaving spiders: behavioural precision is not limited by small size. Proc R Soc B 274:2203–2209PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Elias DO, Botero CA, Andrade MCB, Mason A, Kasumovic MM (2010) High resource valuation fuels “desperado” fighting tactics in female jumping spiders. Behav Ecol 21:868–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Evans TA, Inta R, Lai JCS, Prueger S, Foo NW, Fu EW, Lenz M (2009) Termites eavesdrop to avoid competitors. Proc R Soc B 276:4035–4041PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Field LH, Bailey WJ (1997) Sound production in primitive Orthoptera from Western Australia: sounds used in defence and social communication in Ametrus sp. and Hadrogryllacris sp. (Gryllacrididae: Orthoptera). J Nat Hist 31:1127–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fletcher NH (1992) Acoustic systems in biology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Freckleton RP, Harvey PH, Pagel M (2002) Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence. Am Nat 160:712–726PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greenfield MD (2002) Signalers and receivers. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Gwynne DT (1991) Sexual competition among females: what causes courtship–role reversal? Trends Ecol Evol 6:118–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Healy SD, Rowe C (2007) A critique of comparative studies of brain size. Proc R Soc B 274:453–464PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Henry CS (1994) Singing and cryptic speciation in insects. Trends Ecol Evol 9:388–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Henry CS, Wells MLM (2006) Testing the ability of males and females to respond to altered songs in the dueting green lacewing, Chrysoperla plorabunda (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Henry CS, Mochizuki A, Nakahira K, Haruyama N, Nomura M (2009) Courtship songs of Chrysoperla nipponensis (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) delineate two distinct biological species in eastern Asia. Ann Entomol Soc America 102:747–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Henry CS, Brooks SJ, Duelli P, Johnson JB, Wells MM, Mochizuki A (2013) Obligatory duetting behaviour in the Chrysoperla carnea-group of cryptic species (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae): its role in shaping evolutionary history. Biol Rev 88:787–808Google Scholar
  38. Hill PSM (2008) Vibrational communication in animals. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Hirschberger P, Rohrseitz K (1995) Stridulation in the adult dung beetle Aphodius ater (Coleoptera: Aphodiidae). Zoology (Jena) 99:97–102Google Scholar
  40. Kanmiya K, Sonobe R (2002) Records of two citrus pest whiteflies in Japan with special reference to their mating sounds (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Appl Entomol Zool 37:487–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kozak G, Reisland M, Boughman JW (2009) Sex differences in mate recognition and conspecific preference in species with mutual mate choice. Evolution 63:353–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Laumann RA, Moraes MCB, Cokl A, Borges M (2007) Eavesdropping on sexual vibratory signals of stink bugs (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) by the egg parasitoid Telenomus podisi. Anim Behav 73:637–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mann NI, Dingess KA, Barker FK, Graves JA, Slater PJB (2009) A comparative study of song form and duetting in neotropical Thryothorus wrens. Behaviour 146:1–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mazzoni V, Prešern J, Lucchi A, Virant-Doberlet M (2009) Reproductive strategy of the Nearctic leafhopper Scaphoideus titanus Ball (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae). Bull Entomol Res 99:401–413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mazzoni V, Lucchi A, Ioriatti C, Doberlet-Virant M, Anfora G (2010) Mating behavior of Hyalesthes obsoletus. Ann Entomol Soc Am 103:813–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McBrien HL, Çokl A, Millar JG (2002) Comparison of substrate-borne vibrational signals of two congeneric stink bug species, Thyanta pallidovirens and T. custator accerra (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). J Insect Behav 15:715–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mitra O, Callaham MA Jr, Smith ML, Yack JE (2009) Grunting for worms: seismic vibrations cause Diplocardia earthworms to emerge from the soil. Biol Lett 5:16–19PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moraes MCB, Laumann RA, Cokl A, Borges M (2005) Vibratory signals of four Neotropical stink bug species. Physiol Entomol 30:175–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Noh S, Henry CS (2010) Sexually monomorphic mating preferences contribute to premating isolation based on song in European green lacewings. Evolution 64:261–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Patricelli GL, Uy JAC, Walsh G, Borgia G (2002) Male displays adjusted to female’s response. Nature 415:279–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Percy DM, Taylor GS, Kennedy M (2006) Psyllid communication: acoustic diversity, mate recognition and phylogenetic signal. Invertebr Syst 20:431–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Percy DM, Boyd EA, Hoodle MS (2008) Observations of acoustic signaling in three sharpshooters: Homalodisca vitripennis, Homalodisca liturata, and Graphocephala atropunctata (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 101:253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Peretti A, Eberhard WG, Briceño RD (2006) Copulatory dialogue: female spiders sing during copulation to influence male genitalic movements. Anim Behav 72:413–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reinhold K (2011) Variation in acoustic signalling traits exhibits footprints of sexual selection. Evolution 65:738–745PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rillich J, Buhl E, Schildberger K, Stevenson PA (2009) Female crickets are driven to fight by the male courting and calling songs. Anim Behav 77:737–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rodríguez RL (1998) Possible female choice during copulation in Ozophora baranowskii (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae). J Insect Behav 11:725–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rodríguez RL, Cocroft RB (2006) Divergence in female duetting signals in the Enchenopa binotata species complex of treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae). Ethology 112:1231–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rodríguez RL, Sullivan LE, Cocroft RB (2004) Vibrational communication and reproductive isolation in the Enchenopa binotata species complex of treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae). Evolution 58:571–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rodríguez RL, Ramaswamy K, Cocroft RB (2006) Evidence that female preferences have shaped male signal evolution in a clade of specialized plant–feeding insects. Proc R Soc B 273:2585–2593PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rodríguez RL, Haen C, Cocroft RB, Fowler-Finn KD (2012) Males adjust signaling effort based on female mate–preference cues. Behav Ecol 23:1218–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rodríguez RL, Boughman JW, Gray DA, Hebets EA, Höbel G, Symes LB (2013) Diversification under sexual selection: the relative roles of mate preference strength and the degree of divergence in mate preferences. Ecol Lett 16:964–974Google Scholar
  62. Rubenstein DR, Lovette IJ (2009) Reproductive skew and selection on female ornamentation in social species. Nature 462:786–790PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sæther SA, Fiske P, Kålås JA (2001) Male mate choice, sexual conflict and strategic allocation of copulations in a lekking bird. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:2097–2102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shuster SM, Wade MJ (2003) Mating systems and strategies. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  65. Slater PJB, Mann NI (2004) Why do the females of many bird species sing in the tropics? J Avian Biol 35:289–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sullivan-Beckers L, Cocroft RB (2010) The importance of female choice, male–male competition, and signal transmission as causes of selection on male mating signals. Evolution 64:3158–3171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sullivan-Beckers L, Hebets EA (2011) Modality-specific experience with female feedback increases the efficacy of courtship signalling in male wolf spiders. Anim Behav 82:1051–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Uhl G, Elias DO (2011) Communication. In: Herberstein ME (ed) Spider behaviour: flexibility and versatility. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 127–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Virant-Doberlet M, Cokl A (2004) Vibrational communication in insects. Neotrop Entomol 33:121–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Virant-Doberlet M, Žežlina I (2007) Vibrational communication of Metcalfa pruinosa (Say) (Hemiptera: Fulgoroidea: Flatidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 100:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Virant-Doberlet M, King RA, Polajnar J, Symondson WOC (2011) Molecular diagnostics reveal spiders that exploit prey vibrational signals used in sexual communication. Mol Ecol 20:2204–2216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wells MLM, Henry CS (1998) Songs, reproductive isolation, and speciation in cryptic species of insects. In: Howard DJ, Berlocher SH (eds) Endless forms. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 217–233Google Scholar
  73. West-Eberhard MJ (1983) Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Q Rev Biol 58:155–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wood TK (1993) Speciation of the Enchenopa binotata complex (Insecta: Homoptera: Membracidae). In: Lees DR, Edwards D (eds) Evolutionary patterns and processes. Academic Press, New York, pp 299–317Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Behavioral and Molecular Ecology Group, Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Wisconsin–MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations