Author
Listed:
- Arne K.D. Schmidt
- Klaus Riede
- Heiner Römer
Abstract
Efficient acoustic communication in multispecies assemblages is challenging due to the presence of heterospecific signals. Masking interference and signal confusion of similarly structured signals can impose fitness costs and, thus, drive evolutionary processes that shape acoustic signals to reduce their overlap in signal space. Although the partitioning of signal space has been frequently studied in frog and bird communities, this topic has received much less attention with reference to insects that communicate acoustically. In this study, we examined the role of acoustic competition in a tropical cricket community and tested the following hypotheses: 1) cosignaling species are expected to exhibit more dissimilar calling songs as compared with species that are spatially and/or temporally separated and 2) species signaling with similar song frequencies, who are thereby subject to energetic masking, are more likely to differ in the temporal domain of their calling songs. Using non-metric multidimensional scaling and pairwise comparison methods to measure acoustic dissimilarity, we found no evidence for either hypothesis: the acoustic signals of species pairs that cosignaled or used similar calling frequencies did not significantly differ from those of species that were spatially/temporally segregated or had large song frequency differences. In conclusion, for the acoustically communicating cricket community investigated, no supportive evidence for the partitioning hypothesis and the widespread belief that acoustic competition has led to divergent selection pressures on signal structure to avoid masking interference was found. Instead, we argue that selection pressures on sensory/neuronal mechanisms seem to more strongly drive reliable communication.
Suggested Citation
Arne K.D. Schmidt & Klaus Riede & Heiner Römer, 2016.
"No phenotypic signature of acoustic competition in songs of a tropical cricket assemblage,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 27(1), pages 211-218.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:27:y:2016:i:1:p:211-218.
Download full text from publisher
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:27:y:2016:i:1:p:211-218.. 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.