Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 62, Issue 4, pp 569–578 | Cite as

Bushcricket song as a clue for spermatophore size?

Original Paper

Abstract

Bushcricket males of Poecilimon zimmeri transfer large and protein-rich spermatophores during mating, which females directly ingest. There is correlational evidence that heavier males transfer larger nuptial gifts. In no-choice mating trials, females mated randomly with respect to male’s body weight. In contrast, in two-choice mating trials, female bushcrickets exhibit clear choice for the heavier male. This heavier male advantage was also found in pre-mating choice during phonotaxis. With manipulated mute males, females mated at random with regard to body weight of the competitors. The number of physical encounters between a female and males was low in all tests with a single male (no choice) and greater in choice-tests with two competing males. The latencies to mate also differed significantly between treatments. The time mating pairs spent in precopula was short in experiments where the males could hear rivals and significantly longer in all other tests using either a single male or mute males. Thus, acoustic signalling in male bushcrickets seems to signal male body weight. A preference for heavier males may reflect a female’s preference for a larger spermatophore and therefore a greater direct benefit.

Keywords

Sexual selection Mate choice Bioacoustics Spermatophore Poecilimon 

References

  1. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav 60:145–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey WJ (1991) Acoustic behaviour of insects. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman PW, Gilson LN, Ferguson JWH (2001) Male size and sequential mate preferences in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Anim Behav 61:631–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateman PW, Ferguson JWH, Ferreira M (2004) The influence of physical and acoustic experience . on sequential mate preference in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Is song important? J Ins Behav 17:843–855Google Scholar
  6. Bateson M, Healy SD (2005) Comparative evaluation and its implications for mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol. 20:659–664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown WD, Wideman J, Andrade MCB, Mason AC, Gwynne DT (1996) Female choice for an indicator of male size in the song of the black-horned tree cricket, Oecanthus nigricornis (Orthoptera: Gryllidae: Oecanthinae). Evolution 50:2400–2411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burley N (1986) Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care. Am Nat 127:415–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burpee DM, Sakaluk SK (1993) Repeated matings offset costs of reproduction in female crickets. Evol Ecol 7:240–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bush SL, Gerhardt HC, Schul J (2002) Pattern recognition and call preferences in treefrogs (Anura: Hylidae): a quantitative analysis using a no-choice paradigm. Anim Behav 63:7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bussière LF (2002) A model of the interaction between ‘good genes’ and direct benefits in courtship-feeding animals: when do males of high genetic quality invest less. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 357:309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bussière LF, Basit HA, Gwynne DT (2005) Preferred males are not always good providers: female mate choice and male investment in tree crickets. Behav Ecol 16:223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cotton S, Small J, Pomiankowski A (2006) Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr Biol 16:R755–R765PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Galliart PL, Shaw KC (1991) Effect of intermale distance and female presence on the nature of chorusing by males of the katydid Amblycorypha parvipennis (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) males. Fla Entomol 74:559–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerhardt HC, Huber F (2002) Acoustic communication in insects and anurans – common problems and diverse solutions. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  17. Grafen A (1990) Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol 144:517–546PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gwynne DT (1982) Mate selection by female katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae, Conocephalus nigropleurum). Anim Behav 30:734–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gwynne DT (2001) Katydids and bush-crickets: reproductive behavior and the evolution of the Tettigoniidae. Cornell University Press, IthakaGoogle Scholar
  20. Heller K-G (1988) Zur Bioakustik der europäischen Laubheuschrecken. Margraf, WeikersheimGoogle Scholar
  21. Heller K-G (1997) Geld oder Leben—die unterschiedlichen Kosten des Gesangs bei Laubheuschrecken. Jb Akad Wiss Göttingen 1997:132–152Google Scholar
  22. Heller K-G, Reinhold K (1994) Mating effort function of the spermatophore in the bushcricket Poecilimon veluchianus (Orthoptera, Phaneropteridae): support from a comparison of the mating behaviour of two subspecies. Biol J Linn Soc 53:153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heller K-G, von Helversen D (1991) Operational sex ratio and individual mating frequencies in two bushcricket species (Orthoptera, Tettigonioidea, Poecilimon). Ethology 89:211–228Google Scholar
  24. Heller K-G, von Helversen D (1993) Calling behaviour in bushcrickets of the genus Poecilimon with differing communication system (Orthoptera: Tettigonioidea, Phaneropteridae). J Insect Behav 6:361–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heywood JS (1989) Sexual selection by the handicap mechanism. Evolution 43:1387–1397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoelzer GA (1989) The good parent process of sexual selection. Anim Behav 38:1067–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Houle D, Kondrashov AS (2002) Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 269:97–104Google Scholar
  28. Huber F, Kleindienst HU, Weber T, Thorson J (1984) Auditory behavior of the cricket. 3. Tracking of male calling song by surgically and developmentally one-eared females, and the curious role of the anterior tympanum. J Comp Physiol A 155:725–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A (1999) Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. J Theor Biol 200:97–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kirkpatrick M (1996) Good genes and direct selection in the evolution of mating preferences. Evolution 50:2125–2140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kirkpatrick M, Barton NH (1997) The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94:1282–1286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kirkpatrick M, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2006) Mate choice rules in animals. Anim Behav 71:1215–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kokko H (1998) Should advertising parental care be honest. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1871–1878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kokko H, Rankin DJ (2006) Lonely hearts or sex in the city? Density-dependent effects in mating systems. Phil Trans R Soc B 361:319–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kokko H, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Morley J (2003) The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:653–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kvarnemo C, Simmons LW (1999) Variance in female quality, operational sex ratio and male mate choice in a bushcricket. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lehmann AW (1998) Artbildung, akustische Kommunikation und sexuelle Selektion bei griechischen Laubheuschrecken der Poecilimon propinquus-Gruppe (Orthoptera: Phaneropteridae). Ph.D. Dissertation, University Erlangen-Nürnberg; 134 ppGoogle Scholar
  38. Lehmann AW, Heller K-G (1998) Aspekte des Artbegriffs und die Entstehung reproduktiver Isolation im Poecilimon propinquus-Artenkreis (Insecta: Orthoptera: Phaneropteridae). Zool Abh 50:139–144Google Scholar
  39. Lehmann GUC, Lehmann AW (2000a) Spermatophore characteristics in bushcrickets vary with parasitism and remating interval. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 47:393–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lehmann GUC, Lehmann AW (2000b) Female bushcrickets mated with parasitized males show rapid remating and reduced fecundity (Orthoptera: Phaneropteridae: Poecilimon mariannae). Naturwissenschaften 87:404–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lehmann GUC, Lehmann AW (2007) Sex differences in “time out” from reproductive activity and sexual selection in male bushcrickets (Orthoptera: Zaprochilinae: Kawanaphila mirla). J Insect Behav 20:215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lehmann AW, Willemse F, Heller K-G (2006) Poecilimon gerlindae spec. nov.—a new bushcricket of the Poecilimon propinquus-group (Orthoptera: Phaneropteridae) from Greece. Articulata 21:109–119Google Scholar
  43. Lyons C, Barnard CJ (2006) A learned response to sperm competition in the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (de Geer). Anim Behav 72:673–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Møller AP (1994) Sexual selection and the barn swallow. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Møller AP, Jennions MD (2001) How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection. Naturwissenschaften 88:401–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Møller AP, Thornhill R (1998) Male parental care, differential paternal investment by females and sexual selection. Anim Behav 55:1507–1515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moore AJ, Moore PJ (1999) Balancing sexual selection through opposing mate choice and male competition. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:711–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Parker G (1983) Mate quality and mating decisions. In: Bateson P (ed) Mate choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 141–166Google Scholar
  49. Price T, Schluter D, Heckman NE (1993) Sexual selection when the female directly benefits. Biol J Linn Soc 48:187–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reinhold K (1994) Inheritance of body and testis size in the bushcricket Poecilimon veluchianus Ramme (Orthoptera; Tettigoniidae) examined by means of subspecies hybrids. Biol J Linn Soc 52:305–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Reinhold K (1998) Paternal investment in Poecilimon veluchianus bushcrickets: beneficial effects of nuptial feeding on offspring viability. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:293–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Reinhold K, Heller K-G (1993) The ultimate function of nuptial feeding in the bushcricket Poecilimon veluchianus (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae: Phaneropterinae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:55–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reinhold K, von Helversen D (1997) Sperm number, spermatophore weight and remating in the bushcricket Poecilimon veluchianus. Ethology 103:12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Robinson DJ, Hall MJ (2002) Sound signalling in Orthoptera. Adv Ins Physiol 29:151–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schatral A (1990) Interspecific acoustic behaviour among bushcrickets. In: Bailey WJ, Rentz DCF (eds) The Tettigoniidae: biology, systematics and evolution. Crawford House Press, Bathurst, pp 150–165Google Scholar
  56. Schmitz B (1985) Phonotaxis in Gryllus campestris L. (Orthoptera, Gryllidae): III. Intensity dependence of the behavioural performance and relative importance of tympana and spiracles in directional hearing. J Comp Physiol A 156:165–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shackleton MA, Jennions MD, Hunt J (2005) Fighting success and attractiveness as predictors of male mating success in the black field cricket, Teleogryllus commodus: the effectiveness of no-choice tests. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Simmons LW (1988) The contribution of multiple mating and spermatophore consumption to the lifetime reproductive success of female field crickets (Gryllus bimaculatus). Ecol Entom 13:57–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Simmons LW (1995) Male bushcrickets tailor spermatophores in relation to their remating intervals. Funct Ecol 9:881–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Simmons LW, Teale RJ, Maier M, Standish RJ, Bailey WJ, Withers PC (1992) Some costs of reproduction for male bushcrickets, Requena verticalis (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae): allocating resources to mate attraction and nuptial feeding. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:57–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Simmons LW, Beesley L, Lindhjem P, Newbound D, Norris J, Wayne A (1999) Nuptial feeding by male bushcrickets: an indicator of male quality. Behav Ecol 10:263–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tregenza T, Wedell N (1998) Benefits of multiple mates in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Evolution 52:1726–1730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tuckerman JF, Gwynne DT, Morris GK (1993) Reliable acoustic cues for female mate preference in a katydid (Scudderia curvicauda, Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae). Behav Ecol 4:106–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vahed K (1998) The function of nuptial feeding in insects: review of empirical-studies. Biol Rev 73:43–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vahed K (2006) Larger ejaculate volumes are associated with a lower degree of polyandry across bushcricket taxa. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:2387–2394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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
  67. Vahed K, Gilbert FS (1996) Differences across taxa in nuptial gift size correlate with differences in sperm number and ejaculate volume in bushcrickets (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1255–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Voigt CC, Lehmann GUC, Michener RH, Joachimski MM (2006) Nuptial feeding is reflected in tissue nitrogen isotope ratios of female katydids. Funct Ecol 20:656–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wagner WE Jr (1998) Measuring female preferences. Anim Behav 55:1029–1042PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wagner WE Jr, Harper CJ (2003) Female life span and fertility are increased by the ejaculates of preferred males. Evolution 57:2054–2066PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Wagner WE Jr, Reiser MG (2000) The importance of calling song and courtship song in female mate choice in the variable field cricket. Anim Behav 59:1219–1226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wagner WE Jr, Kelley RJ, Tucker KR, Harper CJ (2001) Females receive a life-span benefit from male ejaculates in a field cricket. Evolution 55:994–1001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wedell N (1993) Spermatophore size in bushcrickets: comparative evidence for nuptial gifts as a sperm protection device. Evolution 47:1203–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wedell N, Ritchie MG (2004) Male age, mating status and nuptial gift quality in a bushcricket. Anim Behav 67:1059–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wedell N, Sandberg T (1995) Female preference for large males in the bushcricket Requena sp. 5 (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). J Ins Behav 8:513–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Systematische ZoologieHumboldt UniversitätBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Institut für Zoologie, Abteilung EvolutionsbiologieFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.StahnsdorfGermany

Personalised recommendations