↓ Skip to main content

Divergence in male cricket song and female preference functions in three allopatric sister species

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Comparative Physiology A, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Divergence in male cricket song and female preference functions in three allopatric sister species
Published in
Journal of Comparative Physiology A, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00359-016-1083-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ralf Matthias Hennig, Thomas Blankers, David A. Gray

Abstract

Multivariate female preference functions for male sexual signals have rarely been investigated, especially in a comparative context among sister species. Here we examined male signal and female preference co-variation in three closely related, but allopatric species of Gryllus crickets and quantified male song traits as well as female preferences. We show that males differ conspicuously in either one of two relatively static song traits, carrier frequency or pulse rate; female preference functions for these traits also differed, and would in combination enhance species discrimination. In contrast, the relatively dynamic song traits, chirp rate and chirp duty cycle, show minimal divergence among species and relatively greater conservation of female preference functions. Notably, among species we demonstrate similar mechanistic rules for the integration of pulse and chirp time scales, despite divergence in pulse rate preferences. As these are allopatric taxa, selection for species recognition per se is unlikely. More likely sexual selection combined with conserved properties of preference filters enabled divergent coevolution of male song and female preferences.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 21%
Student > Master 5 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Professor 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 41%
Environmental Science 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 7 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 April 2016.
All research outputs
#19,221,261
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#1,225
of 1,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,784
of 302,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,450 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 302,506 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.