Advertisement

Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 787–797 | Cite as

Environmentally driven variability in size-selective females’ mating frequency of bush-cricket Pholidoptera griseoaptera

  • Peter Kaňuch
  • Benjamín Jarčuška
  • Ludvík Kovács
  • Anton Krištín
Original Paper

Abstract

Reproduction in less favourable conditions requires genetic adaptation and/or behavioural plasticity of the organism. In order to determine the effects of these mechanisms on environment-associated variability in polyandry, a phenomenon related to reproductive success, we explored the frequency of copulations in females of nuptial gift-giving bush-cricket Pholidoptera griseoaptera (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) using a laboratory experiment. In a factorial design, we reared two populations originating from contrasting altitudes in two temperature treatment conditions. After 3 weeks for possible copulations in established mating groups, females (n = 108) contained between 0 and 15 spermatodoses (a proxy for the number of copulations) in their spermatheca. The mean number of spermatodoses per female did not differ either between lowland and highland populations or between warm and cold treatments. Thus, we did not observe main effects of these two factors on adaptation or plasticity. In contrast, the frequency of copulations was significantly affected by female size as log(number of spermatodoses) increased by 0.41 ± 0.27 per each 0.1 mm of pronotum length. However, interactions between the body size (the trait that predicts females’ quality for reproduction) with environmental factors revealed that larger females originating from the highland population and larger females reared in cold treatment copulated more often than smaller ones, whereas females’ size did not affect copulation frequency in the lowland population or in warm treatment. It suggests stronger competition among females in harsher environmental conditions, whereas effect sizes of interaction terms showed that observed mating behaviour expressed a similar extent of genetic and plastic responses to female size. This first observation of environment-associated body size-dependent mating behaviour suggests the interplay of sexual and natural selection in a nuptial gift-giving species.

Keywords

Evolution Behaviour Polyandry Habitat Spermatophore Sexual conflict 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Karim Vahed, Tom Reader and two anonymous reviewers for providing us with valuable comments on a previous version of the manuscript. This study was funded by the Slovak Scientific Grant Agency VEGA (Grant number 2/0061/15).

Supplementary material

10682_2015_9784_MOESM1_ESM.doc (31 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 31 kb)

References

  1. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav 60:145–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates B, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-6. http://cran.r-project.org/package=lme4
  3. Baur B, Baur H, Roesti C, Roesti D (2006) Die Heuschrecken der Schweiz. Haupt, BernGoogle Scholar
  4. Berner D, Körner C, Blanckenhorn WU (2004) Grasshopper populations across 2000 m of altitude: is there life history adaptation? Ecography 27:733–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Best AR, Lewis Z, Hurst GDD, Lizé A (2012) Thermal environment during and outside courtship jointly determine female remating rate in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim Behav 83:1483–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birkhead TR, Hunter FM (1990) Mechanisms of sperm competition. Trends Ecol Evol 5:48–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bretman A, Tregenza T (2005) Measuring polyandry in wild populations: a case study using promiscuous crickets. Mol Ecol 14:2169–2179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Colwell RK, Brehm G, Cardelús CL, Gilman AC, Longino JT (2008) Global warming, elevational range shifts, and lowland biotic attrition in the wet tropics. Science 322:258–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cornwallis CK, Uller T (2010) Towards an evolutionary ecology of sexual traits. Trends Ecol Evol 25:145–152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Detzel P (1998) Die Heuschrecken Baden-Württembergs. Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle 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. Landscape Ecol 25:449–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fedorka KM, Mousseau TA (2002) Material and genetic benefits of female multiple mating and polyandry. Anim Behav 64:361–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fisher DN, Doff RJ, Price TAR (2013) True polyandry and pseudopolyandry: Why does a monandrous fly remate? BMC Evol Biol 13:157PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gowaty PA (2013) Adaptively flexible polyandry. Anim Behav 86:877–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grazer VM, Martin OY (2012) Elevated temperature changes female costs and benefits of reproduction. Evol Ecol 26:625–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gwynne DT (1984) Sexual selection and sexual differences in Mormon crickets (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae, Anabrus simplex). Evolution 38:1011–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gwynne DT (2001) Katydids and bush-crickets: reproductive behavior and evolution of the Tettigoniidae. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Gwynne DT (2008) Sexual conflict over nuptial gifts in insects. Ann Rev Entomol 53:83–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25:1965–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Honěk A (1993) Intraspecific variation in body size and fecundity in insects: a general relationship. Oikos 66:483–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hosken DJ, Garner TWJ, Tregenza T, Wedell N, Ward PI (2003) Superior sperm competitors sire higher-quality young. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci 270:1933–1938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ingrisch S, Köhler G (1998) Die Heuschrecken Mitteleuropas. Die Neue Brehm Bücherei 629. Westarp Wissenschaften, MagdeburgGoogle Scholar
  24. Jarčuška B, Kaňuch P (2014) Female bush-crickets, Pholidoptera griseoaptera, that have received smaller ejaculates show a higher mating rate in the field. J Insect Behav 27:411–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaňuch P, Jarčuška B, Schlosserová D, Sliacka A, Paule L, Krištín A (2012) Landscape configuration determines gene flow and phenotype in a flightless forest-edge ground-dwelling bush-cricket, Pholidoptera griseoaptera. Evol Ecol 26:1331–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaňuch P, Kiehl B, Low M, Cassel-Lundhagen A (2013) On variation of polyandry in the bush-cricket Metrioptera roeselii in northern Europe. J Insect Sci 13:16PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Katsuki M, Miyatake T (2009) Effects of temperature on mating duration, sperm transfer and remating frequency in Callosobruchus chinensis. J Insect Physiol 55:113–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kemp DJ (2012) Costly copulation in the wild: mating increases the risk of parasitoid-mediated death in swarming locusts. Behav Ecol 23:191–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kingsolver JG, Diamond SE, Siepielski AM, Carlson SM (2012) Synthetic analyses of phenotypic selection in natural populations: lessons, limitations and future directions. Evol Ecol 26:1101–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Knell RJ, Webberley KM (2004) Sexually transmitted diseases of insects: distribution, evolution, ecology and host behaviour. Biol Rev 79:557–581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kvarnemo C, Simmons LW (2013) Polyandry as a mediator of sexual selection before and after mating. Phil Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci 368(1613):20120042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lehmann GU (2012) Weighing costs and benefits of mating in bushcrickets (Insecta: Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae), with an emphasis on nuptial gifts, protandry and mate density. Frontiers Zool 9(1):9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lewis SM, Vahed K, Koene JM, Engqvist L, Bussière LF, Perry JC, Gwynne D, Lehmann GUC (2014) Emerging issues in the evolution of animal nuptial gifts. Biol Lett 10:20140336PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Mani MS (1968) Ecology and biogeography of high altitude insects. Dr. W. Jung N. V Publishers, The HagueCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Møller AP (1992) Frequency of female copulation with multiple mates and sexual selection. Am Nat 139:1089–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R 2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Parker GA, Simmons LW (1989) Nuptial feeding in insects: theoretical models of male and female interests. Ethology 82:3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pigliucci M (2001) Phenotypic plasticity: beyond nature and nurture. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Pinzone CA, Dyer KA (2013) Association of polyandry and sex-ratio drive prevalence in natural populations of Drosophila neotestacea. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 280(1769):20131397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Plesnar-Bielak A, Skrzynecka AM, Prokop ZM, Radwan J (2012) Mating system affects population performance and extinction risk under environmental challenge. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci 279:4661–4667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Price TA, Bretman A, Gradilla AC, Reger J, Taylor ML, Giraldo-Perez P, Campbell A, Hurst GDD, Wedell N (2014) Does polyandry control population sex ratio via regulation of a selfish gene? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 281(1783):20133259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. R Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
  44. Samietz J, Salser MA, Dingle H (2005) Altitudinal variation in behavioural thermoregulation: local adaptation vs. plasticity in California grasshoppers. J Evol Biol 18:1087–1096CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Sexton JP, Hangartner SB, Hoffmann AA (2014) Genetic isolation by environment or distance: which pattern of gene flow is most common? Evolution 68:1–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Simmons LW, Beveridge M, Kennington WJ (2007) Polyandry in the wild: temporal changes in female mating frequency and sperm competition intensity in natural populations of the tettigoniid Requena verticalis. Mol Ecol 16:4613–4623CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Snook RR (2014) The evolution of polyandry. In: Shuker DM, Simmons LW (eds) The evolution of insect mating systems. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, pp 159–180Google Scholar
  48. Taylor ML, Price TA, Wedell N (2014) Polyandry in nature: a global analysis. Trends Ecol Evol 29:376–383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Tregenza T, Wedell N (1998) Benefits of multiple mates in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Evolution 52:1726–1730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Uma R, Sevgili H (2015) Spermatophore allocation strategy over successive matings in the bushcricket Isophya sikorai (Orthoptera Phaneropterinae). Ethol Ecol Evol 27:129–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vahed K (1998) The function of nuptial feeding in insects: a review of empirical studies. Biol Rev 73:43–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vahed K (2003) Structure of spermatodoses in shield-back bushcrickets (Tettigoniidae, Tettigoniinae). J Morphol 257:45–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Vahed K (2006) Larger ejaculate volumes are associated with a lower degree of polyandry across bushcricket taxa. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci 273:2387–2394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Välimäki P, Kaitala A (2010) Properties of male ejaculates do not generate geographical variation in female mating tactics in a butterfly Pieris napi. Anim Behav 79:1173–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wedell N (1993) Spermatophore size in bushcrickets: comparative evidence for nuptial gifts as sperm protection devices. Evolution 47:1203–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wedell N, Ritchie MG (2004) Male age, mating status and nuptial gift quality in a bushcricket. Anim Behav 67:1059–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Whitman DW (2008) The significance of body size in the Orthoptera: a review. J Orthop Res 17:117–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Winkler JD, Van Buskirk J (2012) Influence of experimental venue on phenotype: multiple traits reveal multiple answers. Funct Ecol 26:513–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Kaňuch
    • 1
  • Benjamín Jarčuška
    • 1
  • Ludvík Kovács
    • 1
  • Anton Krištín
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Forest EcologySlovak Academy of SciencesZvolenSlovakia

Personalised recommendations