Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 170–179 | Cite as

Strategic Investment in Sperm Removal Behaviour in a Bushcricket

  • Maike Foraita
  • Sophie Lehfeldt
  • Klaus Reinhold
  • Steven A. Ramm


Multiple mating by females is widespread and generates sperm competition among the ejaculates of rival males over fertilization. One way in which males can avoid or reduce sperm competition is by displacing or removing previous males’ sperm from female sperm stores. An apparent example of this occurs in the bushcricket Metaplastes ornatus. Males perform a specialised sperm removal behaviour (SRB), using their highly-derived subgenital plate, with which they remove sperm from the female’s spermatheca during the early phases of mating before transferring a spermatophore of their own. Here we investigated whether males strategically invest in SRB according to the amount of previously stored sperm present in females. Each male was tested twice, once with a female containing sperm (‘filled’ condition) and once with a female from whom most previously deposited sperm had recently been removed by another male (‘emptied’ condition). For comparison, a separate group of males was paired with virgin females. Males did not discriminate between non-virgin females in the ‘emptied’ or ‘filled’ conditions in terms of their investment in SRB, suggesting they may not able to perceive the amount of sperm present in the female’s spermatheca. By contrast, male investment in SRB was significantly reduced in pairings with virgin females, indicating that males are sensitive to some aspect of a female’s mating status. Our results thus suggest that males modulate SRB in response to female-mediated cues, possibly chemical cues left by previous males, which would not be present on virgin but would be on non-virgin females.


Insect reproduction sperm competition bush cricket cryptic mate choice 

Supplementary material

10905_2017_9608_MOESM1_ESM.docx (28 kb)
ESM 1Supplementary Material Table 1 (DOCX 27 kb)

(MP4 201147 kb)


  1. Andrés J, Cordero Rivera A (2000) Copulation duration and fertilization success in a damselfly: an example of cryptic female choice? Anim Behav 59:695–703. doi:10.1006/anbe.1999.1372 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Birkhead TR, Hosken DJ, Pitnick SS (2008) Sperm biology: an evolutionary perspective. Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Dewsbury DA (1982) Ejaculate cost and male choice. Am Nat 119(5):601–610Google Scholar
  5. Friberg U (2006) Male perception of female mating status: its effect on copulation duration, sperm defence and female fitness. Anim Behav 72(6):1259–1268Google Scholar
  6. Heller KG, Faltin S, Fleischmann P, von Helversen O (1998) The chemical composition of the spermatophore in some species of phaneropterid bushcrickets (Orthoptera: Tettigonioidea). J Insect Physiol 44:1001–1008. doi:10.1016/S0022-1910(97)00171-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Lane SM, Solino JH, Mitchell C, Blount JD, Okada K, Hunt J, House CM (2015) Rival male chemical cues evoke changes in male pre- and post-copulatory investment in a flour beetle. Behav Ecol 26:1021–1029. doi:10.1093/beheco/arv047 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Lehmann GU (2012) Weighing costs and benefits of mating in bushcrickets (Insecta: Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae), with an emphasis on nuptial gifts, protandry and mate density. Front Zool 9(1):19. doi:10.1186/1742-9994-9-19 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Parker GA (1970) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol Rev 45:525–567. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1970.tb01176.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Parker GA (1998) Sperm competition and the evolution of ejaculates: towards a theory base. In: Birkhead TR, Møller AP (eds) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, London, p 3–54Google Scholar
  11. Parker GA, Birkhead TR (2013). Polyandry: the history of a revolution. Phil Trans R Soc B 368(1613). doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0335
  12. Pavićević D, Ivković S, Horvat L (2014) New and rare species of orthopteroid insects in the fauna of Serbia. Fauna Balk 3:103–122Google Scholar
  13. Scharf I, Peter F, Martin OY (2013) Reproductive trade-offs and direct costs for males in arthropods. Evol Biol 40:169–184. doi:10.1007/s11692-012-9213-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Shuker DM, Simmons LW (2014) The evolution of insect mating systems. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Thomas ML (2011) Detection of female mating status using chemical signals and cues. Biol Rev 86:1–13. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00130.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Thomas ML, Simmons LW (2009) Male-derived cuticular hydrocarbons signal sperm competition intensity and affect ejaculate expenditure in crickets. Proc R Soc Lond [Biol] 276:383–388. doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.1206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. von Helversen D, von Helversen O (1991) Pre-mating sperm removal in the bushcricket Metaplastes ornatus Ramme 1931 (Orthoptera, Tettigonoidea, Phaneropteridae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28:391–396. doi:10.1007/BF00164120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wada T, Takegaki T, Mori T, Natsukari Y (2010) Sperm removal, ejaculation and their 391 behavioural interaction in male cuttlefish in response to female mating history. Anim Behav 79:613–619. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA (2002) Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm limited females. Trends Ecol Evol 17:313–320. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02533-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Evolutionary BiologyBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany
  2. 2.School of Biological, Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity College CorkCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations