Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 727–738 | Cite as

Intersexual niche segregation in Cepero’s Ground-hopper, Tetrix ceperoi

Original Paper

Abstract

Sexual differences in habitat preferences have been reported from a variety of animal taxa. However, the ultimate causes for this intersexual niche segregation remain poorly understood. It has been suggested that sexual dimorphism is a consequence of dimorphic niches based upon different reproductive costs and activities of the sexes. Here we provide evidence from field data to examine this hypothesis by studying the behavioral background of niche segregation in Tetrix ceperoi. Our data revealed distinct sexual differences in the substrates on which the insects perched and in the solar radiation of these locations. Males were found at brighter locations and more often on bare ground than females. Incorporation of behavioral data in our analysis showed that patches of bare ground were mainly utilized during mating behavior, in which males invested more time than females. In contrast, females spent more time resting and feeding in the vegetation. Intersexual differences in the proportion of autotomized individuals indicate that males might suffer higher predation risks. These patterns support the dimorphic niches hypothesis, which suggests that differential habitat utilization is caused by differences in the life history strategies of males and females, since males should accept a higher predation risk due to the benefits of multiple matings. Females should invest more time in gaining nutrients and energy for egg production and survival, whereas males should spend more time with searching for mates. We suggest that behavioral covariates should more often be implemented in ecological analyses, since these might have a strong explanatory power.

Keywords

Sexual dimorphism Microhabitat choice Intersexual competition Habitat preferences Sexual selection 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Judith Kochmann for help with collecting field data. The district government Weser-Ems (national park administration) kindly granted permission to access the study sites and perform the research. We are grateful to the Division of Ecology at the University of Osnabrück for providing research facilities and financial support. Till Eggers gave essential advice regarding statistics and valuable comments on a previous version of the manuscript. We also wish to thank Anselm Kratochwil for his constant support and encouragement throughout this project and the ecologists’ seminar group for helpful discussions on this topic. This study was supported by the Foundation of Gerhard ten Doornkaat-Kohlmann (grant to Sascha Krause) and the GradFöG (Graduiertenförderung des Landes Niedersachsen), a post graduate studentship to Julia Gröning.

References

  1. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJGoogle Scholar
  2. Ardia DR, Bildstein KL (1997) Sex-related differences in habitat selection in wintering American kestrels, Falco sparverius. Anim Behav 53:1305–1311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolnick DI, Doebeli M (2003) Sexual dimorphism and adaptive speciation: two sides of the same ecological coin. Evolution 57:2433–2449PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolnick DI, Svanbäck R, Fordyce JA, Yang LH, Davis JM, Hulsey CD, Forister ML (2003) The ecology of individuals: incidence and implications of individual specialization. Am Nat 161:1–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bon R, Rideau C, Villaret JC, Joachim J (2001) Segregation is not only a matter of sex in Alpine ibex, Capra ibex ibex. Anim Behav 62:495–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowyer RT (2004) Sexual segregation in ruminants: definitions, hypotheses, and implications for conservation and management. J Mammal 85:1039–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butler MA, Losos JB (2002) Multivariate sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in greater Antillean Anolis lizards. Ecol Monogr 72:541–559Google Scholar
  8. Butler MA, Schoener TW, Losos JB (2000) The relationship between sexual size dimorphism and habitat use in greater Antillean Anolis lizards. Evolution 54:259–272PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Calver MC, Bradley JS (1991) Can microhabitat selection explain sex-related colour morph frequencies in the grasshopper Acrida conica Fabricius? Anim Behav 41:1101–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carothers JH (1984) Sexual selection and sexual dimorphism in some herbivorous lizards. Am Nat 124:244–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapman SJ (1990) Food selection. In: Chapman RF, Joern A (eds) Biology of grasshoppers. Wiley, New York, pp 39–72Google Scholar
  12. Crawley MJ (2005) Statistical computing: an introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  13. Dixon KA (1989) Effect of leg type and sex on autotomy in the Texas bush katydid, Scudderia texensis. Can J Zool 67:1607–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Endler JA (1992) Signals, signal condition, and the direction of evolution. Am Nat 169:125–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forsman A, Appelqvist S (1999) Experimental manipulation reveals differential effects of color pattern on survival in male and female pygmy grasshopper. J Evol Biol 12:391–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gherardi F (2004) Resource partitioning between sexes in the “unconventional” hermit crab, Calcinus tubularis. Behav Ecol 15:742–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gröning J, Kochmann J, Hochkirch A (2005) Dornschrecken (Orthoptera, Tetrigidae) auf den Ostfriesischen Inseln—Verbreitung, Koexistenz und Ökologie. Entomologie heute 17:47–63Google Scholar
  18. Gröning J, Krause S, Hochkirch A (in press) Habitat preferences of an endangered insect species, Cepero’s Ground-hopper (Tetrix ceperoi). Ecol Res (in press)Google Scholar
  19. Hedrick AV, Temeles EJ (1989) The evolution of sexual dimorphism in animals: hypotheses and tests. Trends Ecol Evol 4:136–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hedrick PW (1993) Sex-dependent habitat selection and genetic polymorphism. Am Nat 141:491–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hochkirch A (1999) Leaf or stem?—Gender-specific differences in the whereabouts of Rhainopomma usambaricum (Orthoptera: Acridoidea: Lentulidae). Mitt dtsch Ges Allg Angew Entmol 12:459–462Google Scholar
  22. Hochkirch A, Deppermann J, Gröning J (2006) Visual communication behavior of three pygmy grasshoppers (Orthoptera, Tetrigidae). J Insect Behav 19:559–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hochkirch A, Folger M, Länder S, Meyer C, Papen M, Zimmermann M (1999) Habitatpräferenzen von Tetrix subulata (Linnaeus 1758) und Tetrix tenuicornis (Sahlberg 1893) in einer Sandkuhle bei Bremen (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae). Articulata 14:31–43Google Scholar
  24. Hochkirch A, Gröning J, Loos T, Metzing C, Reichelt M (2000) Specialized diet and feeding habits as key factors for the habitat requirements of the grasshopper species Tetrix subulata (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae). Entomol Gen 25:39–51Google Scholar
  25. Ingrisch S, Köhler G (1998) Die Heuschrecken Mitteleuropas. Westarp Wissenschaften, MagdeburgGoogle Scholar
  26. Jormalainen V, Tuomi J (1989) Sexual differences in habitat selection and activity of the colour polymorphic isopod Idotea baltica. Anim Behav 38:576–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kleukers R, van Nieukerken E, Odé B, Willemse L, van Wingerden W (1997) De Sprinkhanen en Krekels van Nederland (Orthoptera). Nederlandse Fauna I. KNNV Uitgeverij and EIS-Nederland, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  28. Lande R (1980) Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34:292–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewin R (1985) Why are male hawks so small? Science 228:1299–1300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindenfors P, Székely T, Reynolds JD (2003) Directional changes in sexual size dimorphism in shorebirds, gulls and alces. J Evol Biol 16:930–938PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Main MB, Weckerly FW, Bleich VC (1996) Sexual segregation in ungulates: new directions for research. J Mammal 77:449–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marshall JA, Haes ECM (1988) Grasshoppers and allied insects of Great Britain and Ireland. Harley books, Colchester EssexGoogle Scholar
  33. Merilaita S, Jormalainen V (1997) Evolution of sex differences in microhabitat choice and colour polymorphism in Idotea baltica. Anim Behav 54:769–778PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Merilaita S, Jormalainen V (2000) Different roles of feeding and protection in diel microhabitat choice of sexes in Idotea baltica. Oecologia 122:445–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nabours RK (1937) Methoden und Ergebnisse bei der Züchtung von Tetriginae. In: Abderhalden E (ed) Handbuch der biologischen Arbeitsmethoden, Abteilung 9, vol 3, Urban & Schwarzenberg, Berlin, pp 1309–1365Google Scholar
  36. Paul J (1988) Colour and pattern variation in Tetrix ceperoi Bolívar (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae): An aid to identification. Entomol Gaz 39:133–139Google Scholar
  37. R Development Core Team (2006) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Available via http://www.R-project.org
  38. Reeve JP, Fairbairn DJ (1999) Change in sexual size dimorphism as a correlated response to selection on fecundity. Heredity 83:697–706PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rowe L (1994) The costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. Anim Behav 48:1049–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ruckstuhl KE (1998) Foraging behaviour and sexual segregation in the bighorn sheep. Anim Behav 56:99–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ruckstuhl KE, Neuhaus P (2000) Sexual segregation in ungulates: a new approach. Behav 137:361–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ruckstuhl KE, Neuhaus P (2002) Sexual segregation in ungulates: a comparative test of three hypotheses. Biol Rev 77:77–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Schoener TW (1967) The ecological significance of sexual dimorphism in size in the lizard Anolis conspersus. Science 155:474–477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Selander RK (1966) Sexual dimorphism and differential niche utilization in birds. Condor 68:113–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shine R (1989) Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual dimorphism: a review of the evidence. Q Rev Biol 64:419–461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shine R (1991) Intersexual dietary divergence and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in snakes. Am Nat 138:103–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Slatkin M (1984) Ecological causes of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38:622–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Temeles EJ, Pan IL, Brennan JL, Horwitt JN (2000) Evidence for ecological causation of sexual dimorphism in a hummingbird. Science 289:441–443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Uvarov BP (1977) Grasshoppers and locusts: a handbook of general acridology, vol 2. University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology and Chemistry, Division of EcologyUniversity of OsnabrückOsnabrückGermany
  2. 2.Department of Biogeochemistry Max Planck Institute for Terrestrial MicrobiologyMarburgGermany

Personalised recommendations