Hemolymph loss during nuptial feeding constrains male mating success in sagebrush crickets

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 15, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 845-849

  Sakaluk, Scott K ^a   Campbell, Mark T H ^a   Clark, Andrew P ^b   Johnson, J Chadwick ^a,c   Keorpes, Peter A ^a  

^a ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Costs of mating; Cyphoderris strepitans; Mating success; Nuptial food gift; Sagebrush crickets; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

COPULATION; FEEDING; MATING BEHAVIOR; MATING SUCCESS; NUPTIAL GIFT;

ARTEMISIA TRIDENTATA; CYPHODERRIS; GRYLLIDAE; HAGLIDAE; ORTHOPTERA;

EID: 4344643976     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arh113     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Bonduriansky R, 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol Rev 76:305-339.
2. Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L, 2003. Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol 18:41-47.
3. Dewsbury DA, 1982. Ejaculate cost and male choice. Am Nat 119:601-610.
4. Dodson G, Morris GK, Gwynne DT, 1983. Mating behavior in the primitive orthopteran genus Cyphoderris (Haglidae). In: Orthopteran mating systems: sexual competition in a diverse group of insects, (Gwynne DT, Morris GK, eds). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press; 305-318.
5. Eggert A-K, Sakaluk SK, 1994. Sexual cannibalism and its relation to male mating success in sagebrush crickets, Cyphoderris strepitans (Orthoptera: Haglidae). Anim Behav 47:1171-1177.
6. Engqvist L, Sauer KP, 2001. Strategic male mating effort and cryptic male choice in a scorpionfly. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:729-735.
7. Fox GA, 1993. Failure-time analysis: emergence, flowering, survivorship and other waiting times. In: Design and analysis of ecological experiments, (Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J, eds). New York: Chapman & Hall; 253-289.
8. Gilg MR, Kruse KC, 2003. Reproduction decreases lifespan in the giant waterbug (Belostoma flumineum). Am Midl Nat 149:306-319.
9. Gwynne DT, 1981. Sexual difference theory: mormon crickets show role reversal in mate choice. Science 213:779-780.
10. Gwynne DT, Simmons LW, 1990. Experimental reversal of courtship roles in an insect. Nature 346:172-174.
11. Jia Z, Jiang Z, Sakaluk SK, 2000. Nutritional condition influences investment by male katydids in nuptial food gifts. Ecol Entomol 25:115-118.
12. Johnson JC, Ivy TM, Sakaluk SK, 1999. Female remating propensity contingent on sexual cannibalism in sagebrush crickets, Cyphoderris strepitans: a mechanism of cryptic female choice. Behav Ecol 10:227-233.
13. Johnstone RA, Keller L, 2000. How males can gain by harming their mates: sexual conflict, seminal toxins, and the cost of mating. Am Nat 156:368-377.
14. Lehmann GUC, Lehmann AW, 2000. Spermatophore characteristics in bushcrickets vary with parasitism and remating interval. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 47:393-399.
15. Martin OY, Hosken DJ, 2004. Copulation reduces male but not female longevity in Saltella sphondylli (Diptera: Sepsidae). J Evol Biol 17:357-362.
16. Morris GK, 1979. Mating systems. paternal investment and aggressive behavior of acoustic Orthoptera. Fla Entomol 62:9-17.
17. Morris GK, Gwynne DT, 1978. Geographical distribution and biological observations of Cyphoderris (Orthoptera: Haglidae) with a description of a new species. Psyche 85:147-167.
18. Morris GK, Gwynne DT, Klimas DE, Sakaluk SK, 1989. Virgin male mating advantage in a primitive acoustic insect (Orthoptera: Haglidae). J Insect Behav 2:173-185.
19. Sakaluk SK, 1984. Male crickets feed females to ensure complete sperm transfer. Science 223:609-610.
20. Sakaluk SK, Bangert PJ, Eggert A-K, Gack C, Swanson LV, 1995a. The gin trap as a device facilitating coercive mating in sagebrush crickets. Proc R Soc Lond B 261:65-71.
21. Sakaluk SK, Ivy TM, 1999. Virgin-male mating advantage in sagebrush crickets: differential male competitiveness or non-independent female mate choice? Behaviour 136:1335-1346.
22. Sakaluk SK, Morris GK, Snedden WA, 1987. Mating and its effect on acoustic signalling behavior in a primitive orthopteran, Cyphoderris strepitans (Haglidae): the cost of feeding females. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21:173-178.
23. Sakaluk SK, Snedden WA, 1990. Nightly calling durations of male sagebrush crickets, Cyphoderris strepitans: size, mating and seasonal effects. Oikos 57:153-160.
24. Sakaluk SK, Snedden WA, Jacobson KA, Eggert A-K, 1995b. Sexual competition in sagebrush crickets: must males hear calling rivals? Behav Ecol 6:250-257.
25. SAS Institute, 2000. SAS/STAT user's guide, version 8. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute.
26. Snedden WA, 1995. Correlates of male mating success and their implications for sexual selection in a primitive orthopteran insect (PhD dissertation). Toronto: University of Toronto.
27. Snedden WA, 1996. Lifetime mating success in male sagebrush crickets: sexual selection constrained by a virgin male mating advantage. Anim Behav 51:1119-1125.
28. Snedden WA, Irazuzta S, 1994. Attraction of female sagebrush crickets to male song: the importance of field bioassays. J Insect Behav 7:233-236.
29. Snedden WA, Sakaluk SK, 1992. Acoustical signalling and its relation to male mating success in sagebrush crickets. Anim Behav 44:633-639.
30. Sparkes TC, Keogh DP, Orsburn TH, 2002. Female resistance and mating outcomes in a stream-dwelling isopod: effects of male energy reserves and mating history. Behaviour 139:875-895.
31. Thornhill R, 1976. Sexual selection and nuptial feeding behavior in Bittacus apicalis (Insecta: Mecoptera). Am Nat 110:529-548.
32. Trivers RL, 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971 (Campbell B, ed). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton; 136-179.
33. Vahed K, 1998. The function of nuptial feeding in insects: a review of empirical studies. Biol Rev 73:43-78.
34. Weddle CB, Sakaluk SK, 2003. Ingestion of male hemolymph and mating propensity of female sagebrush crickets: no evidence of a male-derived anti-aphrodisiac. Anim Behav 65:83-88.
35. Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA, 2002. Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol Evol 17:313-320.
36. Wolfner MF, 2002. The gifts that keep on giving: physiological functions and evolutionary dynamics of male seminal proteins in Drosophila. Heredity 88:85-93.
37. Woods WA Jr, Stevenson RD, 1996. Time and energy costs of copulation for the sphinx moth, Manduca sexta. Physiol Zool 69:682-700.