Aggressiveness recovers much faster in male crickets forced to fly after a defeat.
It is not fully understood what makes animals aggressive, although ancient Chinese gamblers, betting fortunes on the outcome of cricket fights, seemed to know a trick or two1. Inspired by their age-old wisdom, we found that we could restore aggressiveness in defeated crickets simply by activating their motor programme for flying. This behavioural effect on aggression highlights the impact of specific motor patterns on the operation of seemingly unrelated command centres. It may also provide an insight into the mechanisms underlying motivational processes and their evolution.
Fights between male crickets follow a stereotyped, escalating sequence. Unless one animal retreats immediately (level 1), the contestants initially fence with their antennae (level 2), and then display spread mandibles (level 3: unilateral; level 4: mutual), which later interlock (level 5) before the animals wrestle (level 6). The contest can be stopped at any level by one animal retreating. After defeat, losers avoid any more aggressive encounters (re-engagement frequency, REF, 8.2%, n=49) Their readiness to fight recovers to the same level as naive, isolated males (REF 78.2%, n=179) after about 24 hours (74.4%, n=219 ).
As originally claimed by Chinese gamblers1, defeated crickets regain their aggressiveness after being shaken in clasped hands and thrown into the air several times (REF 56.5%, n=23, P<0.001, χ2 comparison with untreated losers; Fig. 1a). It proved even more effective to induce flight behaviour in a windstream. After this, 80.0% (n=40, P=0.0001) of the losers re-engaged the previous opponent and their aggression escalated to the same level as naive animals.
Handling, sensory stimulation, and locomotion can all cause the release of amines, which affect the aggressive behaviour of arthropods2. However, the aggressiveness of subordinate crickets was not influenced by other stressful stimuli (for example, tumbling in a rotating tube), other locomotor behaviours such as 1-min episodes of wind-induced running (REF 18.2%, n=11, NS), or wind stimulation when the animals had ground contact and so did not fly (REF 13.3%, n=15, NS.).
The effect of flight on aggression was independent of its duration and appeared not to be transitory: a 10-s flight was as effective as a 15-min flight, and the influence of a 1-min flight was still evident hours later (Fig. 1b). The flight treatment could be repeated many times, whenever an animal lost, without losing its effectiveness.
Aggression is commanded by the brain3, and flight is produced by a thoracic central-pattern generator4. When the two connectives between these centres were severed, all animals still flew, and most showed the basic elements of aggression (antennal fencing and mandible spreading). However, flying did not restore aggression in losers with their connectives cut after defeat (REF 18.8%, n=16, P<0.001 , χ2 comparison with intact losers after flight). Severing only one connective had no influence on the flight effect (REF 75.0%, n=4, NS). This suggests that flying initiates a nervous rather than a humoral command which acts on the brain to ‘reset’ the aggressiveness of subordinate crickets.
The role of plasticity in behaviour and the nervous system is widely recognized5,6, but it is rare for socially mediated behaviour to modify the nervous system of the performing animal — most examples occur relatively slowly, with long-term effects7,8,9. The reset of aggression by flying is the only example we know of in which activation of a specific motor pattern immediately affects an unrelated subsequent behaviour.
This phenomenon may not be unique, in which case it may stimulate some rethinking of the antidepressant effects of sleep deprivation10, and the classic ethological concept of displacement activity11. Behavioural modulation of motivational aspects of brain function may yield new insight as to how and why evolutionary adaptation has connected behaviours that were previously unrelated.
References
Hofmann, H. A. Biol. Zentrbl. 115, 206–213 (1996).
Kravitz, E. A. Science 241, 1775–1781 ( 1988).
Huber, F. Z. Tierpsychol. 12, 12–48 (1955).
Stevenson, P. A. & Kutsch, W. J. Comp. Physiol. A 161, 115–129 ( 1987).
Buonomano, D. V. & Merzenich, M. M. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 21, 149–186 ( 1998).
Carew, T. J., Menzel, R. & Shatz, C. J. Mechanistic Relationships Between Development and Learning: Dahlem Workshops (Wiley, Chichester, 1998).
Yeh, S. R., Fricke, R. A. & Edwards, D. H. Science 271, 366– 369 (1996).
Francis, R. C., Soma, K. & Fernald, R. D. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 90, 7794–7798 (1993).
Cheng, M.-F Anim. Behav. 43, 1035–1044 (1992).
Wu, J. C. & Bunney, W. E. Am. J. Psychiatry 147, 14–21 (1990).
Lorenz, K. Z. The Foundations of Ethology (Springer, New York, 1981).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hofmann, H., Stevenson, P. Flight restores fight in crickets. Nature 403, 613 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1038/35001137
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/35001137
This article is cited by
-
Effects of eliminating interactions in multi-layer culture on survival, food utilization and growth of small sea urchins Strongylocentrotus intermedius at high temperatures
Scientific Reports (2021)
-
Leg amputation modifies coordinated activation of the middle leg muscles in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus
Scientific Reports (2021)
-
Winner and loser effects of juvenile cricket Gryllus bimaculatus
Journal of Ethology (2021)
-
Previous flight facilitates partner finding in female crickets
Scientific Reports (2020)
-
Fight outcome briefly affects the reproductive fitness of male crickets
Scientific Reports (2018)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.