Advertisement

Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 513–522 | Cite as

Female preference for large males in the bushcricketRequena sp. 5 (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae)

  • Nina Wedell
  • Tove Sandberg
Article

Abstract

Receptive females of the bushcricketRequena sp. 5 (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) are attracted to male calls. In this experiment we investigate whether females discriminate between males on the basis of their calls. When virgin females were presented with two males of different size, they preferred the larger male. Larger males produce calls with a lower carrier frequency compared to smaller males, suggesting that females may use male carrier frequency as a predictor of male size. Furthermore, larger males produce heavier spermatophores. This suggests that females may prefer to mate with larger males to receive large nuptial gifts.

Key words

female choice spermatophores acoustics Tettigoniidae body size nuptial gift 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arak, A. (1983). Sexual selection through male-male competition in natterjack toad choruses.Nature 306: 261–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arak, A. (1988). Female mate selection in the natterjack toad: Active choice or passive attraction.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 22: 317–327.Google Scholar
  3. Arak, A., Eiríksson, T., and Radesäter, T. (1990). The adaptive significance of acoustic spacing in male bushcricketsTettigonia viridissima: A perturbation experiment.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 26: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey, W. J. (1985). Acoustic cues for female choice in bushcrickets (Tettigoniidae). In Kalmring, K., and Elsner, N. (eds.),Acoustic Cues and Vibrational Communication in Insects. Paul Pary, Berlin, pp. 101–110.Google Scholar
  5. Bailey, W. J., Cunningham, R. J., and Lebel, L. (1990). Song power, spectral distribution and female phonotaxis in the bushcricketRequena verticalis (Tettigoniidae: Orthoptera): Active female choice or passive attraction.Anim. Behav. 40: 33–42.Google Scholar
  6. Bailey, W. J., and Thiele, D. (1983). Male specing behaviour in the Tettigoniidae: An experimental approach. In Gwynne, D. T., and Morris, G. K. (eds.),Orthopteran Mating Systems: Sexual Competition in a Diverse Group of Insects, Boulder, CO, pp. 163–184.Google Scholar
  7. Bailey, W. J., and Yeoh, P. B. (1989). Female phonotaxis and frequency discrimination in the bushcricketRequena verticalis (Tettigoniidae: Listrocelidinae).J. Physiol. Entomol. 13: 363–372.Google Scholar
  8. Borgia, G. (1980). Sexual competition inScatophaga stercoraria: Size- and density related changes in male ability to capture females.Behaviour 75: 185–206.Google Scholar
  9. Crankshaw, O. S. (1979). Female choice in relation to calling and courtship songs inAcheta domesticus.Anim. Behav. 27: 1274–1275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisher, R. A. (1930).The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  11. Forrest, T. G. (1983). Calling song and mate choice in mole crickets. In Gwynne, D. T., and Morris, G. K. (eds.),Orthopteran Mating Systems: Competition in a Diverse Group of Insects, Boulder, CO, pp. 185–204.Google Scholar
  12. Gilburn, A. S., Foster, S. P., and Day, T. H. (1992). Female mating preferences for large size.Heredity 69: 209–216.Google Scholar
  13. Grafen, A. (1990). Biological signals as handicaps.J. Theoret. Biol. 144: 517–546.Google Scholar
  14. Greenfield, M. D., and Roizen, I. (1993). Katydid synchronous chorusing is an evolutionary stable outcome of female choice.Nature 364: 618–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gwynne, D. T. (1982). Mate selection by female katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae,Conocephalus nigropleurum).Anim. Behav. 30: 734–738.Google Scholar
  16. Gwynne, D. T. (1984). Courtship feeding increases female reproductive success in bushcrickets.Nature 307: 361–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gwynne, D. T. (1988). Courtship feeding and the fitness of female katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae).Evolution 42: 545–555.Google Scholar
  18. Gwynne, D. T., and Bailey, W. J. (1988). Mating system, mate choice and ultrasonic calling in a zaprochiline katydid (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae).Behaviour 105: 202–223.Google Scholar
  19. Gwynne, D. T., Brown, B. J., and Codd, C. G. (1984). The function of the katydid spermatophore and its role in fecundity and insemination (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae).Aust. J. Zool. 32: 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hedrick, A. V. (1986). Female preferences for calling bout duration in a field cricket.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 19: 73–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Iwasa, Y., Pomiankowski, A., and Nee, S. (1991). The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The “handicap” principle.Evolution 45: 1431–1442.Google Scholar
  22. Latimer, W. (1981). Variation in the song of the bushcricketPlatycleis albopunctata (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae).J. Nat. Hist. 15: 245–263.Google Scholar
  23. Latimer, W., and Schatral, A. (1986). Information cues used in male competition byTettigonia cantans (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae).Anim. Behav. 34: 162–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Latimer, W., and Sippel, M. (1987). Acoustic cues for female choice and male competition inTettigonia cantans.Anim. Behav. 35: 887–900.Google Scholar
  25. Maynard Smith, J. (1991). Theories of sexual selection.Trends Ecol. Evol. 6: 146–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morris, G. K., Kerr, G. K., and Fullard, J. H. (1978). Phonotactic preferences of female meadow katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae.Conocephalus nigropleurum).Can. J. Zool. 102: 1479–1487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parker, G. A. (1982). Phenotype limited evolutionary stable strategy. In King's College Sociobiology Group (eds.),Current Problems in Sociobiology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 173–201.Google Scholar
  28. Parker, G. A. (1983). Mate quality and mating decision. In Bateson, P. (ed.),Mate Choice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 141–166.Google Scholar
  29. Partridge, L., Hoffmann, A., and Jones, J. S. (1987). Male size and mating success inDrosophila melanogaster andD. pseudoobscura under field conditions.Anim. Behav. 35: 468–476.Google Scholar
  30. Robertson, J. G. M. (1986). Female mate choice, male strategies and the role of vocalization in the Australian frogUperlopeia rugosa.Anim. Behav. 34: 773–784.Google Scholar
  31. Ryan, M. J. (1985).The Túngara Frog, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  32. Sakaluk, S. K., and Snedden, W. A. (1990). Nightly calling durations of male sagebrush crickets,Cyphoderris strepitans: Size, mating and seasonal effects.Oikos 57: 153–160.Google Scholar
  33. Schatral, A. (1990). Body size, song frequency and mating success of male bushcricketsRequena verticalis (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae, Listrocelidinae) in the field.Anim. Behav. 40: 982–984.Google Scholar
  34. Searcy, W. A., and Andersson, M. (1986). Sexual selection and the evolution of song.Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 17: 507–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sigurjónsdóttir, H., and Parker, G. A. (1981). Dung fly struggles: Evidence for assessment strategy.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 8: 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Simmons, L. W. (1986). Female choice in the field cricket,Gryllus bimaculatus (De Geer). Anim. Behav.34: 1463–1470.Google Scholar
  37. Simmons, L. W. (1988a). The calling song of the field cricket,Gryllus bimaculatus (De Geer): Constraints on transmission and its role in intermale competition and female choice.Anim. Behav. 36: 380–394.Google Scholar
  38. Simmons, L. W. (1988b). Male size, mating potential and lifetime reproductive success in the field cricket,Gryllus bimaculatus (De Geer).Anim. Behav. 36: 372–379.Google Scholar
  39. Simmons, L. W. (1990). Nuptial feeding in tettigoniids: Male costs and the rates of fecundity increase.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 27: 43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simmons, L. W., and Gwynne, D. T. (1993). Reproductive investment in bushcrickets: the allocation of male and female nutrients to offspring.Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 252: 1–5.Google Scholar
  41. Souroukis, K., and Cade, W. H. (1993). Reproductive competition and selection on male traits at varying sex ratios in the field cricket,Gryllus pennsylvanicus.Behaviour 126: 45–62.Google Scholar
  42. Tuckerman, J. F., Gwynne, D. T., and Morris, G. K. (1993). Reliable acoustic cues for female mate preference in a katydid (Scudderia curvicauda, Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae).Behav. Ecol. 4: 106–113.Google Scholar
  43. Watt, W. B., Carter, P. A., and Donohue, K. (1986). Females' choice of “good genotypes” as mates is promoted by an insect mating system.Science 233: 1187–1190.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Wedell, N. (1994). Variation in nuptial gift quality in bushcrickets.Behav. Ecol. 5: 418–425.Google Scholar
  45. Wedell, N. (1993). Spermatophore size in bushcrickets: Comparative evidence for nuptial gifts as a sperm protection device.Evolution 47: 1203–1212.Google Scholar
  46. Wedell, N., and Arak, A. (1989). The wartbiter spermatophore and its effect on female reproductive output inDecticus verrucivorus (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae).Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 24: 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zahavi, A. (1977). The cost of honesty (Further remarks on the handicap principle).J. Theoret. Biol. 67: 603–605.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nina Wedell
    • 1
  • Tove Sandberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of StockholmStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations