Behaviour-structure interplay drives acoustic signal divergence: emergence of multiple mechanisms in closely related crickets


Abstract

Acoustic communication is a major driver in reproductive isolation, but the mechanisms underlying signal divergence between closely related species remain unclear. In male crickets, calling song properties result from an interplay between the morphological characteristics of the stridulatory apparatus and the behavioural characteristics controlling forewing movements. The genus Agnothecous, whose morphologically similar species produce high-frequency songs ranging from 10 to 20 kHz, provides an ideal framework for studying this interplay. We analysed 15 species using acoustic recordings, morphological measurements of the stridulatory apparatus, behavioural estimates of forewing kinematics, and comparative phylogenetic methods. Two distinct high-frequency song production mechanisms were identified. Most species use a harmonic amplification model, in which the frequency produced by the stridulatory apparatus generates the fundamental frequency of the song, but the resonant forewings amplify one of its harmonics. In contrast, A. robustus and A. tapinopus have independently evolved towards a high-frequency stridulation model, producing dominant fundamental frequencies directly through accelerated forewing closure. Although they produce similar acoustic results, these mechanisms differ fundamentally in their biomechanics. Phylogenetic analyses indicate that harmonic amplification is ancestral, with high-frequency stridulation having evolved convergently in larger species. Correlation analyses reveal that morphology and behaviour jointly shape acoustic diversity, with body size, forewing kinematics, and the presence of silent intervals in the syllable determining the dominant frequency and temporal parameters of the song. These results highlight the energetic trade-offs and possible irreversibility of high-frequency communication in crickets, illustrating how morphological and behavioural plasticity generate diverse acoustic strategies throughout the evolutionary history of closely related species.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].