Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Journal of Insect Be...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Journal of Insect Behavior
Article . 1991 . Peer-reviewed
License: Springer TDM
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 1 versions
addClaim

Reproductive isolation inProkelisia planthoppers (Homoptera: Delphacidae): Acoustic differentiation and hybridization failure

Authors: Susan E. Heady; Robert F. Denno;

Reproductive isolation inProkelisia planthoppers (Homoptera: Delphacidae): Acoustic differentiation and hybridization failure

Abstract

Males and females of Prokelisia marginata (Van Duzee) and Prokelisia dolusWilson communicate through substrate-transmitted vibrations. The acoustic signals (attraction and courtship calls) of these planthoppers are effective in mate location, attraction, and mate choice. Attraction calls are structurally distinct for both species and differ in pulse type, pulse repetition rate, and pulse duration. Using playback of prerecorded calls, individuals discriminated between conspecific and heterospecific signals. Depending on the sex and species, response calls were produced three to eight times more frequently to conspecifics than to heterospecifics. However, acoustic signals alone did not explain reproductive isolation and hybridization failure in these two congeners. Some heterospecific pairs called, courted, and attempted to join genitalia, but no connections were successful and no progeny were produced. Thus, acoustic behavior is not a guaranteed premating isolating mechanism in no-choice situations. Other courtship behaviors and possibly morphological differences in genitalia also contributed to their isolation. Females displayed a variety of rejection behaviors to conspecific and heterospecific males, suggesting that sexual selection (female choice), in addition to species recognition, may be an important force in the evolution of the acoustic signals of planthoppers. Although signal structure was not dependent on wing form (planthoppers exhibit wing dimorphism), the age when females first began to call was related to wing form. Brachypterous (flightless) females of both species began calling early in adult life (day 2), whereas macropterous (migratory) females began calling later in adult life (day 6). This pattern is consistent with the oogenesis-flight syndrome, in which reproductive maturity is delayed until after migration occurs.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    25
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
25
Average
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!