Search for: All records

Abstract Sexual signals are often transmitted through multiple modalities (e.g., visual and chemical) and under selection from both intended and unintended receivers. Each component of a multimodal signal may be more or less conspicuous to receivers, and signals may evolve to take advantage of available private channels. We recently documented percussive substrate-borne vibrations in the Pacific field cricket (Teleogryllus oceanicus), a species that uses airborne acoustic and chemical signals to attract and secure mates. The airborne signals of Hawaiian T. oceanicus are currently undergoing rapid evolution; at least five novel male morphs have arisen in the past 20 years. Nothing is yet known about the newly discovered percussive substrate-borne vibrations, so we ask “how” they are produced, “who” produces them (e.g., population, morph), “when” they produce them (e.g., whether they are plastic), and “why” (e.g., do they play a role in mating). We show that the vibrations are produced exclusively by males during courtship via foreleg drumming. One novel morph, purring, produces quieter airborne songs and is more likely to drum than the ancestral morph. However, drumming behavior is also contextually plastic for some males; when we removed the ability of males to produce airborne song, ancestral males became more likely to drum, whereas two novel morphs were equally likely to drum regardless of their ability to produce song. Opposite our prediction, females were less likely to mate with males who drummed. We discuss why that might be and describe what we can learn about complex signal evolution from this newly discovered behavior. 

Abstract To forage efficiently, animals should selectively attend to and remember the cues of food that best predict future meals. One hypothesis is that animals with different foraging strategies should vary in their reliance on spatial versus feature cues. Specifically, animals that store food in dispersed caches or that feed on spatially stable food, such as fruits or flowers, should be relatively biased towards learning a meal’s location, whereas predators that hunt mobile prey should instead be relatively biased towards learning feature cues such as odor or sound. Several authors have predicted that nectar-feeding and fruit-feeding bats would rely relatively more on spatial cues, whereas closely related predatory bats would rely more on feature cues, yet no experiment has compared these two foraging strategies under the same conditions. To test this hypothesis, we compared learning in the frugivorous bat, Artibeus jamaicensis, and the predatory bat, Lophostoma silvicolum, which hunts katydids using acoustic cues. We trained bats to find food paired with a unique and novel odor, sound, and location. To assess which cues each bat had learned, we then dissociated these cues to create conflicting information. Rather than finding that the frugivore and predator clearly differ in their relative reliance on spatial versus feature cues, we found that both species used spatial cues over sounds or odors in subsequent foraging decisions. We interpret these results alongside past findings on how foraging animals use spatial cues versus feature cues, and explore why spatial cues may be fundamentally more rich, salient, or memorable. 

Abstract Behavior is shaped by genes, environment, and evolutionary history in different ways. Nest architecture is an extended phenotype that results from the interaction between the behavior of animals and their environment. Nests built by ants are extended phenotypes that differ in structure among species and among colonies within a species, but the source of these differences remains an open question. To investigate the impact of colony identity (genetics), evolutionary history (species), and the environment on nest architecture, we compared how two species of harvester ants, Pogonomyrmex californicus and Veromessor andrei, construct their nests under different environmental conditions. For each species, we allowed workers from four colonies to excavate nests in environments that differed in temperature and humidity for seven days. We then created casts of each nest to compare nest structures among colonies, between species, and across environmental conditions. We found differences in nest structure among colonies of the same species and between species. Interestingly, however, environmental conditions did not have a strong influence on nest structure in either species. Our results suggest that extended phenotypes are shaped more strongly by internal factors, such as genes and evolutionary history, and are less plastic in response to the abiotic environment, like many physical and physiological phenotypes.