Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 411–418 | Cite as

Female Bush-Crickets, Pholidoptera griseoaptera, that have Received Smaller Ejaculates Show a Higher Mating Rate in the Field

Article

Abstract

Females of numerous insect species are known to be polyandrous, but there have been relatively few studies of factors associated with the degree of polyandry in females in the field. Number of copulations by females is negatively associated with ejaculate size across bush-cricket species. Assessing intraspecific variability is important when looking for and interpreting trait evolution. Therefore the aim of this study was to test the association between ejaculate size (i.e. volume of spermatodose–spermatophore-like structure formed within the spermatheca) and mating rate (i.e. number of spermatodoses) of females of Pholidoptera griseoaptera, while accounting for female body size (pronotum length) and age (number of hind leg’s cuticular bands). The results based on field-caught individuals suggested that there were statistically significant negative association between smallest and mean spermatodose volume, respectively, and number of copulations in this nuptial gift-giving bush-cricket species. This is in accordance with interspecific associations between ejaculate size and polyandry. However, lower slope of the intraspecific relationship may suggest lower importance of the ejaculate size in explaining females’ mating rate variability in this nuptial gift-giving species.

Keywords

Mating sex spermatophore Orthoptera 

References

  1. Albert CH, Grassein F, Schurr FM, Vieilledent G, Violle C (2011) When and how should intraspecific variability be considered in trait-based plant ecology? Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 13:217–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav 60:145–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartoń K (2013) MuMIn: multi-model inference. URL: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MuMIn/index.html. Accessed 15 October 2013
  4. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B (2013) Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. URL: http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/. Accessed 15 October 2013
  5. Bergström J, Wiklund C, Kaitala A (2002) Natural variation in female mating frequency in a polyandrous butterfly: effects of size and age. Anim Behav 64:49–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolnick DI, Amarasekare P, Araújo MS, Bürger R, Levine JM, Novak M et al (2011) Why intraspecific trait variation matters in community ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 26:183–192PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonduriansky R (2001) The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol Rev 76:305–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bretman A, Tregenza T (2005) Measuring polyandry in wild populations: a case study using promiscuous crickets. Mol Ecol 14:2169–2179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown WD (2008) Size-biased mating in both sexes of the black-horned tree cricket, Oecanthus nigricornis Walker (Orthoptera: Gryllidae: Oecanthinae). J Insect Behav 21:130–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Detzel P (1998) Die Heuschrecken Baden Württembergs. Verlag Eugen Ulmer GmbH and Co, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  11. Diekötter T, Csencsics D, Rothenbühler C, Billeter R, Edwards PJ (2005) Movement and dispersal patterns in the bush cricket Pholidoptera griseoaptera: the role of developmental stage and sex. Ecol Entomol 30:419–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diekötter T, Baveco H, Arens P, Rothenbuhler C, Billeter R, Csencsics D, De Filippi R, Hendrickx F, Speelmans M, Opdam P, Smulders MJM (2010) Patterns of habitat occupancy, genetic variation and predicted movement of a flightless bush cricket, Pholidoptera griseoaptera, in an agricultural mosaic landscape. Evol Ecol 25:449–461Google Scholar
  13. Gwynne DT (2008) Sexual conflict over nuptial gifts in insects. Annu Rev Entomol 53:83–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hayes EJ, Wall R (1999) Age-grading adult insects: a review of techniques. Physiol Entomol 24:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ivy TM, Sakaluk SK (2005) Polyandry promotes enhanced offspring survival in decorated crickets. Evolution 59:152–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaňuch P, Kiehl B, Low M, Cassel-Lundhagen A (2013) On variation of polyandry in a bush-cricket, Metrioptera roeselii, in northern Europe. J Insect Sci 13:16. Available online: http://www.insectscience.org/13.16
  17. Katvala M, Rönn JL, Arnqvist G (2008) Correlated evolution between male ejaculate allocation and female remating behaviour in seed beetles (Bruchidae). J Evol Biol 21:471–479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kindvall O, Vessby K, Berggren A (1998) Individual mobility prevents an Allee effect in sparse populations of the bush cricket Metrioptera roeseli: an experimental study. Oikos 81:449–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Neville AC (1963) Daily growth layers for determining the age of grasshopper populations. Oikos 14:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Parker GA, Ball MA (2005) Sperm competition, mating rate and the evolution of testis and ejaculate sizes: a population model. Biol Lett 1:235–238PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pizzari T, Wedell N (2013) The polyandry revolution. Phil Trans R Soc B 368(1613). doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0041
  23. R Development Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: http://www.R-project.org/
  24. Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW (2012) NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9:671–675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sevgili H, Reinhold K (2007) No evidence for strategic male mating effort in response to female weight in a bushcricket. Behaviour 144:1179–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Simmons LW (2005) The evolution of polyandry: sperm competition, sperm selection, and offspring viability. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:125–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Simmons LW, Gwynne DT (1991) The refractory period of female katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae): sexual conflict over the re-mating interval? Behav Ecol 2:276–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Svärd L, Wiklund C (1989) Mass and production rate of ejaculates in relation to monandry/polyandry in butterflies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:395–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vahed K (2003) Structure of spermatodoses in shield-back bushcrickets (Tettigoniidae, Tettigoniinae). J Morphol 257:45–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vahed K (2006) Larger ejaculate volumes are associated with a lower degree of polyandry across bushcricket taxa. Proc R Soc B 273:2387–2394PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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 B 263:1257–1265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vahed K, Parker DJ (2012) The evolution of large testes: sperm competition or male mating rate? Ethology 118:107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vahed K, Parker DJ, Gilbert JDJ (2011) Larger testes are associated with a higher level of polyandry, but a smaller ejaculate volume, across bushcricket species (Tettigoniidae). Biol Lett 7:261–264PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wedell N, Ritchie MG (2004) Male age, mating status and nuptial gift quality in a bushcricket. Anim Behav 67:1059–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Whitman DW (2008) The significance of body size in the Orthoptera: a review. J Orthop Res 17:117–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zuk M (1987) Age determination of adult field crickets: methodology and field applications. Can J Zool 65:1564–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Forest EcologySlovak Academy of SciencesZvolenSlovakia

Personalised recommendations