Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 176–190 | Cite as

Immune Challenge and Pre- and Post-copulatory Female Choice in the Cricket Teleogryllus commodus

  • Jean M. Drayton
  • J. E. Kobus Boeke
  • Michael D. Jennions


Life history theory predicts a trade off between the expression of male sexual traits and the immune system. To test for this trade off, male crickets Teleogryllus commodus were injected with bacterial lipopolysaccharides (LPS) to induce an immune response and their subsequent pre- and post-copulatory sexual attractiveness to virgin and non-virgin females was assessed. Pre-copulatory attractiveness was quantified based on the time taken for males to court and mate with a female. Post-copulatory attractiveness was measured as the time that elapsed between mating and a female interrupting sperm transfer by removing the externally attached spermatophore. We found no difference in pre- or post-copulatory attractiveness between LPS and control males. In contrast, virgin females retained spermatophores for almost twice as long as non-virgins, presumably to enhance fertilization and begin egg-laying. Finally, we note that although LPS is a widely used immune elicitor in insects, its effect might be transitory. After 24 h there was no detectable elevation in haemolymph antibacterial activity of LPS injected crickets compared to that of controls.


Immunocompetence LPS male attractiveness trade off pre-copulatory choice cryptic female choice 



We are grateful to J. Davies for excellent assistance during the mating trials and maintenance of the crickets, and to D. Gordon for much appreciated advice and the use of equipment during the lysozyme assays. This research was supported by a grant from the Australian Research Council to MDJ.


  1. Adamo SA, Jensen M, Younger M (2001) Changes in lifetime immunocompetence in male and female Gryllus texensis (formerly G. integer): trade-offs between immunity and reproduction. Anim Behav 62:417–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed AM, Baggott SL, Maingon R, Hurd H (2002) The costs of mounting an immune response are reflected in the reproductive fitness of the mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Oikos 97:371–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahtiainen JJ, Alatalo RV, Kortet R, Rantala MJ (2005) A trade-off between sexual signalling and immune function in a natural population of the drumming wolf spider Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata. J Evol Biol 18:985–991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey NW, Gray B, Zuk M (2011) Exposure to sexual signals during rearing increases immune defence in adult field crickets. Biol Lett 7:217–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateman PW, Gilson LN, Ferguson JW (2001) Male size and sequential mate preference in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Anim Behav 61:631–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bentsen CL, Hunt J, Jennions MD, Brooks R (2006) Complex multivariate sexual selection on male acoustic signaling in a wild population of Teleogryllus commodus. Am Nat 167:E102–E116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brooks R, Hunt J, Blows MW, Smith MJ, Bussière LF, Jennions MD (2005) Experimental evidence for multivariate stabilizing sexual selection. Evolution 59:871–880PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bussière LF, Hunt J, Jennions MD, Brooks R (2006) Sexual conflict and cryptic female choice in the black field cricket, Teleogryllus commodus. Evolution 60:792–800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell DJ, Shipp E (1979) Regulation of spatial pattern in populations of the field cricket Teleogryllus commodus (Walker). Z Tierpsychol 51:260–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crawley MJ (2002) Statistical computing: An introduction to data-analysis using S-Plus. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  11. Drayton JM, Jennions MD (2011) Inbreeding and measures of immune function in the cricket Teleogryllus commodus. Behav Ecol 22:486–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans AR (1988) Mating systems and reproductive strategies in three Australian gryllid crickets: Bobilla victoriae Otte, Balamara gidya Otte and Telleogryllus commodus (Walker) (Orthoptera; Gryllidae; Nemobiinae; Trigonidiinae; Gryllinae). Ethology 78:21–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feder D, Mello CB, Garcia ES, Azambuja P (1997) Immune response in Rhodnius prolixus: Influence of nutrition and ecdysone. J Insect Physiol 43:513–519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fedorka KM, Mousseau TA (2007) Immune system activation affects male sexual signal and reproductive potential in crickets. Behav Ecol 18:231–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fedorka KM, Zuk M, Mousseau TA (2004) Immune suppression and the cost of reproduction in the ground cricket, Allonemobius socius. Evolution 58:2478–2485PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Folstad I, Karter AJ (1992) Parasites, bright males and the immunocompetence handicap. Am Nat 139:603–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freitak D, Ots I, Vanatoa A, Hõrak P (2003) Immune response is energetically costly in white cabbage butterfly pupae. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:S220–S222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gershman SN, Barnett CA, Pettinger AM, Weddle CB, Hunt J, Sakaluk SK (2010) Give ‘til it hurts: trade-offs between immunity and male reproductive effort in the decorated cricket, Gryllodes sigillatus. J Evol Biol 23:829–839PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hack MA (1998) The energetics of male mating strategies in field crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllinae: Gryllidae). J Insect Behav 11:853–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hall MD, Bussiere LF, Hunt J, Brooks R (2008) Experimental evidence that sexual conflict influences the opportunity, form and intensity of sexual selection. Evolution 62:2305–2315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall MD, Bussière LF, Demont M, Ward PI, Brooks R (2010) Competitive PCR reveals the complexity of post-copulatory sexual selection in Teleogryllus commodus. Mol Ecol 19:610–619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hedrick A (2005) Environmental condition-dependent effects on a heritable, preferred male trait. Anim Behav 70:1121–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holzer B, Jacot A, Brinkhof MWG (2003) Condition-dependent signalling affects male sexual attractiveness in field crickets, Gryllus campestris. Behav Ecol 14:353–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hunt J, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Smith MJ, Bentsen CL, Bussiere LF (2004) High-quality male field crickets invest heavily in sexual display but die young. Nature 432:1024–1027PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacot A, Scheuber H, Brinkhof MWG (2004) Costs of an induced immune response on sexual display and longevity in field crickets. Evolution 58:2280–2286PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Jacot A, Scheuber H, Kurtz J, Brinkhof MWG (2005a) Juvenile immune system activation induces a costly upregulation of adult immunity in field crickets Gryllus campestris. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 272:63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jacot A, Scheuber H, Kurtz J, Brinkhof MWG (2005b) Juvenile immune status affects the expression of a sexually selected trait in field crickets. J Evol Biol 18:1060–1068PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jennions MD, Lortie C, Rosenberg M, Rothstein H (2012) Publication and related biases. In: Koricheva J, Gurevitch J, Mengersen K (eds) Handbook of meta-analysis in ecology and evolution. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  29. Kavanagh MW (1987) The efficiency of sound production in two cricket species, Gryllotalpa australis and Teleogryllus commodus (Orthoptera, Grylloidea). J Exp Biol 130:107–119Google Scholar
  30. Kerr AM, Gershman SN, Sakaluk SK (2010) Experimentally induced spermatophore production and immune responses reveal a trade-off in crickets. Behav Ecol 21:647–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kivleniece I, Krams I, Daukste J, Krama T, Rantala MJ (2010) Sexual attractiveness of immune-challenged male mealworm beetles suggests terminal investment in reproduction. Anim Behav 80:1015–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kokko H, Mappes J (2005) Sexual selection when fertilisation is not guaranteed. Evolution 59:1876–1885PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kolluru GR, Zuk M, Chappel MA (2002) Reduced reproductive effort in male field crickets infested with parasitoid fly larvae. Behav Ecol 13:607–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Korner P, Schmid-Hempel P (2004) In vivo dynamics of an immune response in the bumble bee Bombus terrestris. J Invertebr Pathol 87:59–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krams I, Daukste J, Kivleniece I, Krama T, Rantala MJ, Ramey G, Sausa L (2011) Female choice reveals terminal investment in male mealworm beetles, Tenebrio molitor, after a repeated activation of the immune system. J Insect Sci 11:56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leman JC, Weddle CB, Gershman SN, Kerr AM, Ower GD, St John JM, Vogel LA, Sakaluk SK (2009) Lovesick: immunological costs of mating to male sagebrush crickets. J Evol Biol 22:163–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Loher W (1981) The effect of mating on female sexual behaviour of Teleogryllus commodus Walker. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:219–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Loher W, Rence B (1978) The mating behaviour of Telleogryllus commodus (Walker) and its central and peripheral control. Z Tierpsychol 46:225–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Luong LT, Kaya HK (2005) Sexually transmitted nematodes affect spermatophylax production in the cricket, Gryllodes sigillatus. Behav Ecol 16:153–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mckean KA, Nunney L (2001) Increased sexual activity reduces male immune function in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:7904–7909PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moret Y, Schmid-Hempel P (2000) Survival for immunity: the price of immune system activation for bumblebee workers. Science 290:1166–1168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Prestwich KN, Walker TJ (1981) Energetics of singing in crickets: effect of temperature in three trilling species (Orthoptera, Gryllidae). J Comp Physiol 143:199–212Google Scholar
  43. Rantala MJ, Kortet R (2003) Courtship song and immune function in the field cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Biol J Linn Soc 79:503–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rantala MJ, Koskimaki J, Taskinen J, Tynkkynen K, Suhonen J (2000) Immunocompetence, developmental stability and wingspot size in the damselfly Calopteryx splendens L. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 267:2453–2457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rantala MJ, Jokinen I, Kortet R, Vainikka A, Suhonen J (2002) Do pheromones reveal male immunocompetence? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 269:1681–1685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rantala MJ, Kortet R, Kotiaho JS, Vainikka A, Suhonen J (2003a) Condition dependence of pheromones and immune function in the grain beetle Tenebrio molitor. Funct Ecol 17:534–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rantala MJ, Vainikka A, Kortet R (2003b) The role of juvenile hormone in immune function and pheromone production trade-offs: a test of the immunocompetence handicap principle. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:2257–2261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Reaney LT, Knell RJ (2010) Immune activation but not male quality affects female current reproductive investment in a dung beetle. Behav Ecol 21:1367–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rolff J, Siva-Jothy MT (2002) Copulation corrupts immunity: A mechanism for a cost of mating in insects. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:9916–9918PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rowe L, Houle D (1996) The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1415–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ryder JJ, Siva-Jothy MT (2000) Male calling song provides a reliable signal of immune function in a cricket. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 267:1171–1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scheuber H, Jacot A, Brinkhof MWG (2003) Condition dependence of a multicomponent sexual signal in the field cricket Gryllus campestris. Anim Behav 65:721–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schmid-Hempel P (2005) Evolutionary ecology of insect immune defences. Annu Rev Entomol 50:529–551PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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 58:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sheldon BC, Verhulst S (1996) Ecological immunology: costly parasite defences and trade-offs in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 11:317–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shoemaker KL, Adamo SA (2007) Adult female crickets, Gryllus texensis, maintain reproductive output after repeated immune challenges. Physiol Entomol 32:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Simmons LW (2012) Resource allocation trade-off between sperm quality and immunity in the field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus. Behav Ecol 23:168–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Simmons LW, Roberts B (2005) Bacterial immunity traded for sperm viability in male crickets. Science 309:2031PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Simmons LW, Zuk M, Rotenberry JT (2004) Immune function reflected in calling song characteristics in a natural population of the cricket Teleogryllus commodus. Anim Behav 69:1235–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Siva-Jothy MT, Thompson JJW (2002) Short-term nutrient deprivation affects immune function. Physiol Entomol 27:206–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tregenza T, Simmons LW, Wedell N, Zuk M (2006) Female preference for male courtship song and its role as a signal of immune function and condition. Anim Behav 72:809–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vainikka A, Rantala MJ, Seppälä O, Suhonen J (2007) Do male mealworm beetles, Tenebrio molitor, sustain the honesty of pheromone signals under immune challenge? Acta Ethology 10:63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wagner WE Jr, Hoback W (1999) Nutritional effects on male calling behaviour in the variable field cricket. Anim Behav 57:89–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Worden BD, Parker PG, Pappas PW (2000) Parasites reduce attractiveness and reproduce success in male grain beetles. Anim Behav 59:543–550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean M. Drayton
    • 1
  • J. E. Kobus Boeke
    • 2
  • Michael D. Jennions
    • 1
  1. 1.Evolution, Ecology & Genetics, Research School of BiologyThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary StudiesUniversity of GroningenHarenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations