Cuticular hydrocarbons influence female attractiveness to males in the Australian field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 707-714

  Thomas, Melissa L ^a   Simmons, Leigh W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Cuticular hydrocarbons; Disruptive selection; Mate choice; Sexual dimorphism; Sexual selection; Stabilizing selection

Indexed keywords

HYDROCARBON;

CRICKET; EVOLUTIONARY THEORY; HYDROCARBON; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATE CHOICE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SEXUAL SELECTION; STABILIZATION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; DRUG EFFECT; FEMALE; GRYLLIDAE; INTEGUMENT; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALS; FEMALE; GRYLLIDAE; HYDROCARBONS; INTEGUMENTARY SYSTEM; MALE; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

GRYLLINAE; HEXAPODA; TELEOGRYLLUS OCEANICUS;

EID: 77952491232     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.01943.x     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Amundsen T. Why are female birds ornamented? Trends Ecol. Evol. 2000, 15:149-155.
2. Bateman AJ. Intrasexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 1948, 2:349-368.
3. Bateman PW, Gilson LN, Ferguson JWH. Male size and sequential mate preference in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Anim. Behav. 2001, 61:631-637.
4. Blows MW, Brooks R. Measuring nonlinear selection. Am. Nat. 2003, 162:815-820.
5. Bonduriansky R. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol. Rev. 2001, 76:305-339.
6. Brodie ED, Moore AJ, Janzen FJ. Visualizing and quantifying natural selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1995, 10:313-318.
7. Chenoweth SF, Blows MW. Signal trait sexual dimorphism and mutual sexual selection in Drosophila serrata. Evolution 2003, 57:2326-2334.
8. Chenoweth SF, Blows MW. Contrasting mutual sexual selection on homologous signal traits in Drosophila serrata. Am. Nat. 2005, 165:281-289.
9. Chenoweth SF, Petfield D, Doughty P, Blows MW. Male choice generates stabilizing sexual selection on a female fecundity correlate. J. Evol. Biol. 2007, 20:1745-1750.
10. Cox Rthomampersand, Calsbeek R. Sexually antagonistic selection, sexual dimorphism, and the resolution of intralocus sexual conflict. Am. Nat. 2009, 173:176-187.
11. García-González F, Simmons LW. The evolution of polyandry: intrinsic sire effects contribute to embryo viability. J. Evol. Biol. 2005, 18:1097-1103.
12. García-González F, Simmons LW. Paternal indirect genetic effects on offspring viability and the benefits of polyandry. Curr. Biol. 2007, 17:32-36.
13. Härdling R, Gosden T, Aguilée R. Male mating constraints affect mutual mate choice: prudent male courting and sperm-limited females. Am. Nat. 2008, 172:259-271.
14. Kingsolver JG, Hoekstra HE, Hoekstra JM, Berrigan D, Vignieri SN, Hill CE, Hoang A, Gibert P, Beerli P. The strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations. Am. Nat. 2001, 157:245-261.
15. Kraaijeveld K, Kraaijeveld-Smit FJL, Komdeur J. The evolution of mutual ornamentation. Anim. Behav. 2007, 74:657-677.
16. Lande R. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 1980, 34:292-305.
17. Lande R, Arnold SJ. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 1983, 37:1210-1226.
18. Libersat F, Murray JA, Hoy RR. Frequency as a releaser in the courtship song of two crickets, Gryllus bimaculatus (de Geer) and Teleogryllus oceanicus: a neuroethological analysis. J. Comp. Physiol. 1994, 174:485-494.
19. Mardia KV, Kent JT, Bibby JM. Multivariate Analysis 1979, Academic Press, London
20. Mitchell-Olds T, Shaw RG. Regression analysis of natural selection: statistical inference and biological interpretation. Evolution 1987, 41:1149-1161.
21. Norman GR, Streiner DL. Biostatistics: The Bare Essentials 1994, Mosby, St Louis
22. Otte D, Cade W. On the role of olfaction in sexual and interspecies recognition in crickets (Acheta and Gryllus). Anim. Behav. 1976, 24:1-6.
23. Phillips PC, Arnold SJ. Visualizing multivariate selection. Evolution 1989, 43:1209-1222.
24. Rence B, Loher W. Contact chemoreceptive sex recognition in the male cricket, Teleogryllus commodus. Physiol. Entomol. 1977, 2:225-236.
25. Shuster SM, Wade MJ. Mating Systems and Strategies 2003, Princeton University Press, Princeton
26. Simmons LW. The evolution of polyandry: an examination of the genetic incompatibility and good-sperm hypotheses. J. Evol. Biol. 2001, 14:585-594.
27. Stinchcombe JR, Agrawal AF, Hohenlohe PA, Arnold SJ, Blows MW. Estimating nonlinear selection gradients using quadratic regression coefficients: double or nothing? Evolution 2008, 62:2435-2440.
28. Thomas ML, Simmons LW. Male crickets adjust the viability of their sperm in response to female mating status. Am. Nat. 2007, 170:190-195.
29. Thomas ML, Simmons LW. Cuticular hydrocarbons are heritable in the cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. J. Evol. Biol. 2008a, 21:801-806.
30. Thomas ML, Simmons LW. Sexual dimorphism in cuticular hydrocarbons of the Australian field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). J. Insect Physiol. 2008b, 54:1081-1089.
31. Thomas ML, Simmons LW. Male derived cuticular hydrocarbons signal sperm competition intensity and affect ejaculate expenditure in crickets. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2009a, 276:383-388.
32. Thomas ML, Simmons LW. Sexual selection on cuticular hydrocarbons in the Australian field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus. BMC Evol. Biol. 2009b, 9:162-174.
33. Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA. Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2002, 17:313-320.