Population Ecology

, Volume 58, Issue 1, pp 147–153 | Cite as

Social isolation increases male aggression toward females in the field cricket Gryllus bimaculatus

  • Takashi KuriwadaEmail author
Original article


Social isolation has often been reported to facilitate male aggressiveness in various animal species. If social isolation also escalates male aggressive behavior towards females, the mating success of the aggressive males will be low. This study evaluated the effect of social isolation on mating behavior in the field cricket Gryllus bimaculatus, which has traditionally been considered to be an asocial species. The results showed that social isolation from same-sex individuals enhanced male aggressiveness to females, and the mating success of aggressive males was reduced under the experimental conditions. More aggressive males exhibited a longer latency to court than less aggressive males. These results suggest that because male aggressiveness causes a delay in courtship, aggressive males may have reduced mating success. This demonstrated that social relationships are a critical factor affecting male mating success, even if the species is normally considered solitary.


Female preference Male–male contest Mating behavior Social experience 



I am grateful to Dr. Hiroyuki Hirayama for comments on my experimental design. I also thank Dr. Sho Furuichi, and Dr. Yuya Fukano for the reference collection. Dr. Gadi V. P. Reddy provided helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. The manuscript was greatly improved by the valuable comments of three anonymous reviewers.


  1. Adamo SA, Hoy RR (1995) Agonistic behavior in male and female field crickets, Gryllus bimaculatus, and how behavioural context influences its expression. Anim Behav 4:1491–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander RD (1961) Aggressiveness, territoriality, and sexual behavior in field crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Behaviour 17:130–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ballen C, Shine R, Olsson M (2014) Effects of early social isolation on the behaviour and performance of juvenile lizards, Chamaeleo calyptratus. Anim Behav 88:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell AM (2007) Future directions in behavioural syndromes research. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:755–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White JSS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bretman A, Westmancoat JD, Gage MJ, Chapman T (2013) Costs and benefits of lifetime exposure to mating rivals in male Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 67:2413–2422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cacioppo JT, Hawkley LC (2009) Perceived social isolation and cognition. Trends Cogn Sci 13:447–454PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark PJ, Evans FC (1954) Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology 35:445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Core Team R (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  10. Dalgaard P (2002) Introductory statistics with R. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Dukas R (2004) Male fruit flies learn to avoid interspecific courtship. Behav Ecol 15:695–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dukas R (2005) Experience improves courtship in male fruit flies. Anim Behav 69:1203–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eldakar OT, Wilson DS, Dlugos MJ, Pepper JW (2010) The role of multilevel selection in the evolution of sexual conflict in the water strider Aquarius remigis. Evolution 64:3183–3189PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gailey DA, Jackson FR, Siegel RW (1982) Male courtship in Drosophila: the conditioned response to immature males and its genetic control. Genetics 102:771–782PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biomet J 50:346–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Iba M, Nagao T, Urano A (1995) Effects of population density on growth, behavior and levels of biogenic amines in the cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus. Zool Sci 12:695–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson O, Becnel J, Nichols CD (2009) Serotonin 5-HT(2) and 5-HT(1A)-like receptors differentially modulate aggressive behaviors in Drosophila melanogaster. Neuroscience 158:1292–1300PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kasumovic MM, Hall MD, Brooks RC (2012) The juvenile social environment introduces variation in the choice and expression of sexually selected traits. Ecol Evol 2:1036–1047PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuriwada T, Kasuya E (2011) Age-dependent changes in calling effort in the bell cricket Meloimorpha japonica. J Ethol 29:99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuriwada T, Kumano N, Shiromoto K, Haraguchi D (2011) Inbreeding avoidance or tolerance? Comparison of mating behavior between mass-reared and wild strains of the sweet potato weevil. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:1483–1489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McNamara KB, McKenzie JL, Elgar MA, Jones TM (2012) A female preference for experienced males in the almond moth, Cadra cautella. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:1141–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nagamoto J, Aonuma H, Hisada M (2005) Discrimination of conspecific individuals via cuticular pheromones by males of the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Zool Sci 22:1079–1088PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nakayama S, Sasaki K, Matsumura K, Lewis Z, Miyatake T (2012) Dopaminergic system as the mechanism underlying personality in a beetle. J Insect Physiol 58:750–755PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nishi Y, Sasaki K, Miyatake T (2010) Biogenic amines, caffeine and tonic immobility in Tribolium castaneum. J Insect Physiol 56:622–628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pfennig DW, Reeve HK (1989) Neighbor recognition and context-dependent aggression in a solitary wasp, Sphecius speciosus (Hymenoptera, Sphecidae). Ethology 80:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ręk P (2012) Does mating experience of male house crickets affect their behavior to subsequent females and female choice? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:1629–1637PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ruan H, Wu CF (2008) Social interaction-mediated lifespan extension of Drosophila Cu/Zn superoxide dismutase mutants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:7506–7510PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sih A, Bell AM, Johnson CJ (2004a) Behavioral syndromes: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends Ecol Evol 19:372–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sih A, Bell AM, Johnson JC, Ziemba RE (2004b) Behavioral syndromes: an integrative overview. Quart Rev Biol 79:241–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Simmons LW (1986) Inter-male competition and mating success in the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (De Geer). Anim Behav 34:567–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Simmons LW (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 36:380–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simmons LW (1988b) Male size, mating potential and lifetime reproductive success in the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (De Geer). Anim Behav 36:372–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stevenson PA, Rillich J (2013) Isolation associated aggression: a consequence of recovery from defeat in a territorial animal. PLoS One 8:e74965PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA (2002) Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm limited females. Trends Ecol Evol 17:313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zur T, Nemny-Lavy E, Papadopoulos NT, Nestel D (2009) Social interactions regulate resource utilization in a Tephritidae fruit fly. J Insect Physiol 55:890–897PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology and Springer Japan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education, Laboratory of ZoologyKagoshima UniversityKagoshimaJapan

Personalised recommendations