Listening to the environment: hearing differences from an epigenetic effect in solitarious and gregarious locusts.

Shira D Gordon, Joseph C Jackson, Stephen M Rogers, James F C Windmill
Author Information
  1. Shira D Gordon: Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK shira.gordon@dartmouth.edu.
  2. Joseph C Jackson: Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
  3. Stephen M Rogers: Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
  4. James F C Windmill: Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.

Abstract

Locusts display a striking form of phenotypic plasticity, developing into either a lone-living solitarious phase or a swarming gregarious phase depending on population density. The two phases differ extensively in appearance, behaviour and physiology. We found that solitarious and gregarious locusts have clear differences in their hearing, both in their tympanal and neuronal responses. We identified significant differences in the shape of the tympana that may be responsible for the variations in hearing between locust phases. We measured the nanometre mechanical responses of the ear's tympanal membrane to sound, finding that solitarious animals exhibit greater displacement. Finally, neural experiments signified that solitarious locusts have a relatively stronger response to high frequencies. The enhanced response to high-frequency sounds in the nocturnally flying solitarious locusts suggests greater investment in detecting the ultrasonic echolocation calls of bats, to which they are more vulnerable than diurnally active gregarious locusts. This study highlights the importance of epigenetic effects set forth during development and begins to identify how animals are equipped to match their immediate environmental needs.

Keywords

References

  1. Proc Biol Sci. 2010 Oct 22;277(1697):3087-96 [PMID: 20507896]
  2. Cell Tissue Res. 1982;222(3):667-76 [PMID: 7060108]
  3. J Biol Rhythms. 2012 Jun;27(3):196-205 [PMID: 22653888]
  4. Epigenetics. 2011 Jul;6(7):791-7 [PMID: 21636976]
  5. J Insect Physiol. 2010 Aug;56(8):902-10 [PMID: 20416321]
  6. J Exp Biol. 2005 Jan;208(Pt 1):157-68 [PMID: 15601886]
  7. J Exp Biol. 1995;198(Pt 9):1817-27 [PMID: 9319725]
  8. J Neurophysiol. 2010 Feb;103(2):779-92 [PMID: 19955292]
  9. J R Soc Interface. 2008 Dec 6;5(29):1435-43 [PMID: 18522928]
  10. Cell Tissue Res. 1998 Mar;291(3):525-36 [PMID: 9477309]
  11. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2004 Jul;190(7):581-600 [PMID: 15127218]
  12. Biol Lett. 2013 Aug 14;9(5):20130319 [PMID: 23945205]
  13. J Exp Biol. 2003 Nov;206(Pt 22):3991-4002 [PMID: 14555739]

Grants

  1. BB/H002537/1/Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  2. BB/H004637/1/Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

MeSH Term

Animals
Auditory Perception
Cochlear Nerve
Ear, Middle
Epigenesis, Genetic
Female
Grasshoppers
Male
Population Density
Social Behavior

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0solitariouslocustsgregarioushearingphasedifferencesepigeneticphasestympanalresponseslocustmembraneanimalsgreaterresponseLocustsdisplaystrikingformphenotypicplasticitydevelopingeitherlone-livingswarmingdependingpopulationdensitytwodifferextensivelyappearancebehaviourphysiologyfoundclearneuronalidentifiedsignificantshapetympanamayresponsiblevariationsmeasurednanometremechanicalear'ssoundfindingexhibitdisplacementFinallyneuralexperimentssignifiedrelativelystrongerhighfrequenciesenhancedhigh-frequencysoundsnocturnallyflyingsuggestsinvestmentdetectingultrasonicecholocationcallsbatsvulnerablediurnallyactivestudyhighlightsimportanceeffectssetforthdevelopmentbeginsidentifyequippedmatchimmediateenvironmentalneedsListeningenvironment:effectinsectmechanicsneurophysiology

Similar Articles

Cited By (2)