IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v14y2003i1p135-140.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Female preference for male courtship flashes in Photinus ignitus fireflies

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher K. Cratsley
  • Sara M. Lewis

Abstract

In Photinus fireflies, males produce spontaneous bioluminescent courtship flashes. Females preferentially respond to particular male flashes with flashes of their own. This study explored variation in female flash responsiveness as a function of male flash duration, female condition, lantern size, and lantern distance, as well as the relationship between male characteristics and spermatophore mass in Photinus ignitus fireflies. We determined female preference by scoring female flash response to simulated male flashes and determined variation in overall female flash responsiveness for laboratory-mated, laboratory-fed, and control P. ignitus females. Flash duration, lantern size, and body mass were recorded for field-collected males. Males were then mated to determine spermatophore mass. Females exhibited greater preference for artificial flashes representing the upper range of conspecific male flash duration and lantern size as well as flashes produced at a closer distance. Both laboratory-mated and laboratory-fed P. ignitus females showed lower overall responsiveness across all flash durations relative to control females that did not mate or feed in the laboratory. Male flash duration predicted a significant proportion of the variation in spermatophore mass for early-season males. These results suggest that female Photinus ignitus may prefer long flashes in order to obtain the direct benefit of larger spermatophores and may adjust their overall flash responsiveness as the relative importance of this benefit varieswith changing female condition. Copyright 2003.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher K. Cratsley & Sara M. Lewis, 2003. "Female preference for male courtship flashes in Photinus ignitus fireflies," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 14(1), pages 135-140, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:14:y:2003:i:1:p:135-140
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:14:y:2003:i:1:p:135-140. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.