Advertisement

The effect of nuptial gift number on fertilization success in a Hawaiian swordtail cricket

  • Qionghua GaoEmail author
  • Biz R. Turnell
  • Baozhen Hua
  • Kerry L. Shaw
Original Article

Abstract

In many insects, males transfer nuptial gifts to females prior to, during, or after copulation. Nuptial gifts comprise any form of non-gametic material transfer, such as glandular secretions, prey items, and spermatophores. These gifts can increase male fitness by facilitating copulation or sperm transfer or by promoting the female’s use of the focal male’s sperm. However, when a female mates with multiple males, the relationships between the relative size, number, or quality of nuptial gifts that each male donates and the proportion of offspring that each male sires are unknown in many cases. Here, we assessed these relationships in the Hawaiian swordtail cricket Laupala cerasina. We experimentally manipulated the number of gifts a female received from two male mating partners in sequence, with the first male giving either more, fewer, or an equal number of gifts relative to the second male. We found that there was a significant positive relationship between nuptial gift number and paternity share. In addition, we found considerable first-male sperm precedence, regardless of gift contribution. Finally, offspring from second males tended to be produced later and to be part of larger families. These results show that both nuptial gift number and mating order play important roles in sperm use patterns and fertilization success in this species.

Significance statement

In many insects, males transfer nuptial gifts (a token, often nutritional, gift) to females prior to, during, or after copulation. In the Hawaiian swordtail cricket Laupala cerasina, males transfer a series of nuptial gifts in the form of spermless spermatophores, to females during courtship. Moreover, males experience sperm competition as females of this species are known to mate multiply. By manipulating the number of gifts transferred, we tested the hypothesis that males who transfer more nuptial gifts achieve higher fitness by fathering more offspring. We found a significant positive relationship between gift number and the proportion of offspring a male sires. In addition, controlling for gift number, the first male to mate with a female achieves more paternity. These results show that both nuptial gift number and mating order affect sperm use patterns and fertilization success in this species.

Keywords

Crickets Laupala Nuptial gifts Paternity share Sperm use pattern 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Nick Ratterman for valuable comments on the early draft of this manuscript. Special thanks go to Stephen Parry, Françoise Vermeylen, Ziyi Song, and Bo Xu for helping with statistical analyses. Thanks are also due to the members of Shaw lab and of the NBB Lunch Bunch for their feedback.

Author contributions

QG and KLS conceived and designed the study; QG conducted the experiments; QG and BRT performed the statistical analysis. All authors wrote the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (IOS-0843528 to KLS) and the China Scholarship Council (fellowship to QG).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

265_2019_2705_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (395 kb)
Supplementary Figure S1 Micro production interval and macro production time in matings where the experimental female replaced a non-experimental female, compared to matings where the experimental female was present for the entire courtship (A, B); micro production interval and macro production time in females’ first vs. second matings (C, D). Micro production interval was calculated as the average number of minutes a male took to produce each of the final three micros; macro production time was calculated as the number of minutes before lights off that the macro was produced. (PDF 394 kb)
265_2019_2705_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (143 kb)
ESM 2 (XLSX 142 kb)

References

  1. Albo MJ, Costa FG (2010) Nuptial gift-giving behaviour and male mating effort in the Neotropical spider Paratrechalea ornata (Trechaleidae). Anim Behav 79:1031–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcock J (1979) Selective mate choice by females of Harpobittacus Australis (Mecoptera: Bittacidae). Psyche 86:213–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown WD (1997) Courtship feeding in tree crickets increases insemination and female reproductive life span. Anim Behav 54:1369–1382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. deCarvalho TN, Shaw KL (2010) Elaborate courtship enhances sperm transfer in the Hawaiian swordtail cricket, Laupala cerasina. Anim Behav 79:819–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. deCarvalho TN, Fergus DJ, Bell RC, Shaw KL (2012) Rhythmic male reproductive behavior controls timing of courtship and mating in Laupala cerasina. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:1333–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DiRienzo N, Marshall JL (2013) Function of the hemolymph nuptial gift in the ground cricket, Allonemobius socius. Ethology 119:104–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dodson G, Morris G, Gwynne D (1983) Mating behavior of the primitive orthopteran genus Cyphoderris (Haglidae). Orthopteran mating systems: sexual competition in a diverse group of insects/edited by DT Gwynnw and GK MorrisGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellison CK, Shaw KL (2010) Mining non-model genomic libraries for microsatellites: BAC versus EST libraries and the generation of allelic richness. BMC Genomics 11:428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Engqvist L, Sauer KP (2001) Strategic male mating effort and cryptic male choice in a scorpionfly. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 268:729–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Engqvist L, Sauer KP (2003) Determinants of sperm transfer in the scorpionfly Panorpa cognata: male variation, female condition and copulation duration. J Evolution Biol 16:1196–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engqvist L, Dekomien G, Lippmann T, Epplen JT, Sauer KP (2007) Sperm transfer and paternity in the scorpionfly Panorpa cognata: large variance in traits favoured by post-copulatory episodes of sexual selection. Evol Ecol 21:801–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fedorka KM, Mousseau TA (2002a) Nuptial gifts and the evolution of male body size. Evolution 56:590–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fedorka KM, Mousseau TA (2002b) Tibial spur feeding in ground crickets: larger males contribute larger gifts (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Fla Entomol 85:317–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gao QH, Hua BZ (2013) Co-evolution of the mating position and male genitalia in insects: a case study of a hangingfly. PLoS One 8:e80651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gwynne DT (1984) Nuptial feeding behavior and female choice of mates in Harpobittacus similis (Mecoptera, Bittacidae). J Aust Entomol Soc 23:271–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gwynne DT (1986) Courtship feeding in katydids (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae): investment in offspring or in obtaining fertilizations. Am Nat 128:342–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gwynne DT, Snedden AW (1995) Paternity and female remating in Requena verticalis (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Ecol Entomol 20:191–194Google Scholar
  18. Gwynne DT (1997) The evolution of edible ‘sperm sacs’ and other forms of courtship feeding in crickets, katydids and their kin (Orthoptera: Ensifera). The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids 110:129Google Scholar
  19. Gwynne DT (2008) Sexual conflict over nuptial gifts in insects. Annu Rev Entomol 53:83–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gwynne DT, Bowen BJ, Codd CG (1984) The function of the katydid spermatophore and its role in fecundity and insemination (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae). Aust J Zool 32:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC (2007) Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol Ecol 16:1099–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lehmann GUC, Lehmann AW (2016) Material benefit of mating: the bushcricket spermatophylax as a fast uptake nuptial gift. Anim Behav 112:267–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lemons PR, Marshall TC, McCloskey SE, Sethi SA, Schmutz JA, Sedinger JS (2015) A likelihood-based approach for assessment of extra-pair paternity and conspecific brood parasitism in natural populations. Mol Ecol Resour 15:107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewis S, South A (2012) The evolution of animal nuptial gifts. Adv Stud Behav 44:53–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewis SM, Vahed K, Koene JM, Engqvist L, Bussiere LF, Perry JC, Gwynne D, Lehmann GUC (2014) Emerging issues in the evolution of animal nuptial gifts. Biol Lett 10:20140336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maxwell MR, Prokop P (2018) Fitness effects of nuptial gifts in the spider Pisaura mirabilis: examination under an alternative feeding regime. J Arachnol 46:404–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sakaluk SK (1984) Male crickets feed females to ensure complete sperm transfer. Science 223:609–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sakaluk SK, Campbell MTH, Clark AP, Chadwick-Johnson J, Keorpes PA (2004) Hemolymph loss during nuptial feeding constrains male mating success in sagebrush crickets. Behav Ecol 15:845–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shaw KL, Khine AH (2004) Courtship behavior in the Hawaiian cricket Laupala cerasina: males provide spermless spermatophores as nuptial gifts. Ethology 110:81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Simmons LW, Achmann R (2000) Microsatellite analysis of sperm-use patterns in the bushcricket Requena verticalis. Evolution 54:942–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Simmons LW, Parker GA (1989) Nuptial feeding in insects: mating effort versus paternal investment. Ethology 81:332–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. South A, Lewis SM (2012) Determinants of reproductive success across sequential episodes of sexual selection in a firefly. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 279:3201–3208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Svensson BG, Petersson E, Frisk M (1990) Nuptial gift size prolongs copulation duration in the dance fly Empis borealis. Ecol Entomol 15:225–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Team RC (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computingGoogle Scholar
  35. Thornhill R (1976) Sexual selection and nuptial feeding behavior in Bittacus apicalis (Insecta: Mecoptera). Am Nat 110:529–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thornhill R (1983) Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps. Am Nat 122:765–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Turnell BR, Shaw KL (2015a) High opportunity for postcopulatory sexual selection under field conditions. Evolution 69:2094–2104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Turnell BR, Shaw KL (2015b) Polyandry and postcopulatory sexual selection in a wild population. Mol Ecol 24:6278–6288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vahed K (1998) The function of nuptial feeding in insects: review of empirical studies. Biol Rev 73:43–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vahed K (2007) All that glisters is not gold: sensory bias, sexual conflict and nuptial feeding in insects and spiders. Ethology 113:105–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wedell N (1991) Sperm competition selects for nuptial feeding in a bushcricket. Evolution 45:1975–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neurobiology and BehaviorCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Crop Stress Biology for Arid Areas, Entomological MuseumNorthwest A&F UniversityYanglingChina
  3. 3.State Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Kunming Institute of ZoologyChinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)KunmingChina
  4. 4.Applied Zoology, Faculty BiologyTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations