Cited by 93Neurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchInsect Pheromone Research and ControlAnimal Behavior and Reproduction

The relative roles of vision and chemosensation in mate recognition of Drosophila.

Open access
Agrawal, Sweta, Safarik, Steve, Dickinson, Michael H.·2014·Journal of Experimental Biology

Abstract

Animals rely on sensory cues to classify objects in their environment and respond appropriately. However, the spatial structure of those sensory cues can greatly impact when, where, and how they are perceived. In this study, we examined the relative roles of visual and chemosensory cues in the mate recognition behavior of fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) by using a robotic fly dummy that was programmed to interact with individual males. By pairing male flies with dummies of various shapes, sizes, and speeds, or coated with different pheromones, we determined that visual and chemical cues play specific roles at different points in the courtship sequence. Vision is essential for determining whether to approach a moving object and initiate courtship, and males were more likely to begin chasing objects with the same approximate dimensions as another fly. However, whereas males were less likely to begin chasing larger dummies, once started, they would continue chasing for a similar length of time regardless of the dummy's shape. The presence of female pheromones on the moving dummy did not affect the probability that males would initiate a chase, but it did influence how long they would continue chasing. Male pheromone both inhibits chase initiation and shortens chase duration. Collectively, these results suggest that male Drosophila use different sensory cues to progress through the courtship sequence: visual cues are dominant when deciding whether to approach an object whereas chemosensory cues determine how long the male pursues its target.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1242/jeb.105817

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 55 · Cited by 93

Authors
Agrawal, S., Safarik, S., & Dickinson, M. H.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Agrawal, Sweta
Venue
Journal of Experimental Biology
Published
2014-01-01
Volume
217
Issue
Pt 15
Pages
2796-805
ISSN
  • 0022-0949 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-9145
OpenAlex
W2141462505
Cited by
93
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2013: 1
FWCI
4.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (DGE-0-718124, 0718124)
  • Paul G. Allen Family Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect Pheromone Research and Control
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
Keywords
mate recognition, courtship behavior, Drosophila melanogaster, vision, chemosensation, male pheromones, female pheromones, sensory cue integration
MeSH terms
Animals, Cues, Drosophila melanogaster, Female, Flight, Animal, Male, Pheromones, Sexual Behavior, Animal, Time Factors, Vision, Ocular, Body Size

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review