Within host acoustic signal preference of frog‐biting mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) and midges (Diptera: Corethrellidae) on Iriomote Island, Japan

Abstract

Haematophagous insects can rely on specialized host‐seeking behaviors to locate hosts. Some frog‐biting flies, for example, eavesdrop on the conspicuous acoustic signals produced by male frogs and toads. Using such auditory cues to locate a host imposes an additional challenge: how to recognize appropriate sounds when different frog species produce calls with varying acoustic properties. The limited knowledge of antennal hearing in dipteran insects hinders our ability to understand how eavesdropping flies detect and recognize frog calls. Behavioral studies suggest that frog‐biting flies use broad acoustic templates to detect and recognize their victims. Here, we use within‐species call variation to examine the acoustic preferences in frog‐biting flies. Specifically, we examine the attraction of frog‐biting mosquitoes (Uranotaenia spp.) and midges (Corethrella nippon) to the calls of a Japanese treefrog, the Ryukyu Kajika frog (Buergeria japonica), on Iriomote Island, Japan. Male Ryukyu Kajika frogs produce two call types. While both calls have a high frequency peak (3 kHz), the first call type (Type I) also contains a lower frequency peak (1.8 kHz) absent in the second call type (Type II). Using field phonotaxis experiments we found that Type I calls are more attractive to both frog‐biting mosquitoes and midges. Thus, our results suggest that the frog‐biting Nematoceran flies in this community are biased towards the acoustic properties of Type I calls. We discuss this finding in the context of the evolution of antennal hearing in flies.

Chapter 26: The role of hearing in mosquito behaviour

“…However, the following frog-biting mosquitoes have been shown to be attracted to the sound of frogs: Cx. territans, Uranotaenia macfarlanei (Bartlett-Healy et al, 2008;Legett et al, 2021;Toma et al, 2019). Similar phonotaxis behaviours are reported in station-keeping swarming midges, which also blood feed on frogs, such as the Corethrella midges (Toma et al, 2019).…”

“…• How female Uranotaenia lowii and Cx. territans mosquitoes can hear high-pitch frog calls (Bartlett-Healy et al, 2008;Legett et al, 2021;Toma et al, 2019). • How swarming males can avoid each other, and why males diverge their WBF in a swarm, possibly to hear each other with the low frequency di erence tones (Aldersley et al, 2017;Pantoja-Sanchez et al, 2019a).…”

The dual benefits of synchronized mating signals in a Japanese treefrog: attracting mates and manipulating predators

“…In addition, B. japonica produce two calls types, a synchronized call type (the focus of our study) and a call type that is produced in alternation between neighbouring males [37]. When both call types are broadcast without overlap, both eavesdropping midges and mosquitoes prefer the alternating call type [71]. If signal synchrony functions to avoid eavesdroppers, why would male B. japonica synchronize the call type that is less attractive to those eavesdroppers?…”

Incidental invertebrate‐derived DNA detection of invasive and threatened species in temperate dry Southeast Australian forest

“…If frog‐biting flies do occur in the study area, it is possible that they are not closely related to those collected by Cutajar and Rowley (2020), given the distinct habitat types. If so, they may differ in sensory ecology and not have been attracted to the frog calls used, although this seems unlikely; Litoria nudidigitus is presumed to be a local species and Mixophyes balbus ' call is acoustically complex and low in frequency – traits associated with high attractiveness to unrelated lineages of frog‐biting flies in multiple regions (Aihara et al, 2016; Bernal et al, 2006; Legett et al, 2021; Virgo et al, 2019). Additionally, the two species' calls used together represents a large frequency range (~600–2700 Hz).…”