Quantitative genetic variation in courtship song and its covariation with immune function and sperm quality in the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 1330-1336

  Simmons, Leigh W ^a   Tinghitella, Robin M ^b,c   Zuk, Marlene ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

courtship song; ejaculate investment; heritability; immunity; trade off

Indexed keywords

BIOACOUSTICS; COURTSHIP; COVARIANCE ANALYSIS; CRICKET; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC VARIATION; HANDICAP PRINCIPLE; HERITABILITY; IMMUNE RESPONSE; IMMUNITY; IMMUNOCOMPETENCE; MATE CHOICE; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; REPRODUCTIVE COST; SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERISTICS; SIGNALING; SONG; SPERM COMPETITION; TRADE-OFF;

GRYLLIDAE; GRYLLINAE; TELEOGRYLLUS OCEANICUS;

EID: 78649386116     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arq154     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Alatalo RV, Glynn C, Lundberg A. 1990. Singing rate and female attraction in the pied flycatcher: an experiment. Anim Behav. 39:601-603.
2. Alexander RD. 1961. Aggressiveness, territoriality, and sexual behavior in field crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Behaviour. 17:130-223.
3. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
4. Aspi J, Hoikkala A. 1993. Laboratory and natural heritabilities of male courtship song characters in Drosophila montana and D. littoralis. Heredity. 70:400-406.
5. Astles PA, Moore AJ, Preziosi RF. 2006. A comparison of methods to estimate cross-environment genetic correlations. J Evol Biol. 19: 114-122.
6. Bentsen CL, Hunt J, Jennions MD, Brooks R. 2006. Complex multi-variate sexual selection on male acoustic signaling in a wild population of Teleogryllus commodus. Am Nat. 167:E102-E116.
7. Brooks R, Hunt J, Blows MW, Smith MJ, Bussiére LF, Jennions MD. 2005. Experimental evidence for multivariate stabilizing sexual selection. Evolution. 59:871-880.
8. Fedorka KM, Mousseau TA. 2007. Immune system activation affects male sexual signal and reproductive potential in crickets. Behav Ecol. 18:231-235.
9. Folstad I, Karter AJ. 1992. Parasites, bright males, and the immuno-competence handicap. Am Nat. 139:603-622.
10. Forstmeier W, Burger C, Temnow K, Derégnaucourt S. 2009. The genetic basis of zebra finch vocalizations. Evolution. 63:2114-2130.
11. Forstmeier W, Kempenaers B, Meyer A, Leisler B. 2002. A novel song parameter correlates with extra-pair paternity and male longevity. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 269:1479-1485.
12. Fry CL. 2006. Juvenile hormone mediates a trade-off between primary and secondary sexual traits in stalk-eyed flies. Evol Develop. 8: 191-201.
13. Garamszegi LZ, Møller AP, Török J, Michl G, Péczely P, Richard M. 2004. Immune challenge mediates vocal communication in a passer ine bird: an experiment. Behav Ecol. 15:148-157.
14. Gerhardt HC, Huber F. 2002. Acoustic communication in insects and anurans. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
15. Gray D, Eckhardt G. 2001. Is cricket courtship song condition dependent? Anim Behav. 62:871-877.
16. Gray DA, Cade WH. 1999. Quantitative genetics of sexual selection in the field cricket, Gryllus integer. Evolution. 53:848-854.
17. Gray DA, Cade WH. 2000. Sexual selection and speciation in field crickets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 97:14449-14454.
18. Hack MA. 1998. The energetics of male mating strategies in field crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllinae: Gryllidae). J Insect Behav. 11:853-868.
19. Hall MD, Bussiére LF, Hunt J, Brooks R. 2008. Experimental evidence that sexual conflict influences the opportunity, form and intensity of sexual selection. Evolution. 62:2305-2315.
20. Head ML, Hunt J, Jennions MD, Brooks R. 2005. The indirect benefits of mating with attractive males outweigh the direct costs. PLoS Biol. 3:e33.
21. Hedrick AV. 1986. Female preferences for male calling bout duration in a field cricket. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 19:73-77.
22. Hedrick AV. 1988. Female choice and the heritability of attractive male traits: an empirical study. Am Nat. 132:267-276.
23. Helfenstein F, Losdat S, Møller AP, Blout JD, Richner H. 2010. Sperm of colourful males are better protected against oxidative stress. Ecol Lett. 13:213-222.
24. Hennig RM, Weber T. 1997. Filtering of temporal parameters of the calling song by females of two closely related species: a behavioral analysis. J Comp Physiol A. 180:621-630.
25. Honda-Sumi E. 2005. Difference in calling song of three field crickets of the genus Teleogryllus: the role in premating isolation. Anim Behav. 69:881-889.
26. Houle D. 1992. Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics. 130:195-204.
27. Hunt J, Blows MW, Zajitschek F, Jennions MD, Brooks R. 2007. Reconciling strong stabilizing selection with the maintenance of genetic variation in a natural population of black field crickets (Teleogryllus commodus). Genetics. 177:875-880.
28. Hunt J, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Smith MJ, Bentsen CL, Bussiére LF. 2005. High-quality male field crickets invest heavily in sexual display but die young. Nature. 432:1024-1027.
29. Jacot A, Scheuber H, Brinkhof MWG. 2004. Costs of an induced immune response on sexual display and longevity in field crickets. Evolution. 58:2280-2286.
30. Koch UT, Elliot CJH, Scaffner K-H, Kleindienst H-U. 1988. The mechanics of stridulation of the cricket Gryllus campestris. J Comp Physiol A. 162:213-223.
31. Kokko H, Jennions MD, Brooks R. 2006. Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 37:43-66.
32. Locatello L, Rasotto MB, Evans JP, Pilastro A. 2006. Colourful male guppies produce faster and more viable sperm. J Evol Biol. 19: 1595-1602.
33. Lynch M, Walsh B. 1998. Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer.
34. Malo AF, Roldan ERS, Garde J, Soler AJ, Gomendio M. 2005. Antlers honestly advertise sperm production and quality. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 272:149-157.
35. Parker GA. 1998. Sperm competition and the evolution of ejaculates: towards a theory base. In: Birkhead TR, Møller AP, editors. Sperm competition and sexual selection. London: Academic Press. p. 3-54.
36. Peters A, Denk AG, Delhey K, Kempenaers B. 2004. Carotenoid-based bill colour as an indicator of immunocompetence and sperm performance in male mallards. J Evol Biol. 17:1111-1120.
37. Pike TW, Blount JD, Lindström J, Metcalf NB. 2010. Dietary caroten-oid availability, sexual signalling and functional fertility in sticklebacks. Biol Lett, doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.0815.
38. Pitcher TE, Doucet SM, Beausoleil J-MJ, Hanley D. 2009. Secondary sexual characters and sperm traits in coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch. J Fish Biol. 74:1450-1461.
39. Pitcher TE, Rodd FH, Rowe L. 2007. Sexual colouration and sperm traits in guppies. J Fish Biol. 70:165-177.
40. Pollack GS, Hoy RR. 1981. Phonotaxis to individual rythmic components of a complex cricket calling song. J Comp Physiol. 144:367-373.
41. Pomiankowski A, Møller AP. 1995. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 260:21-29.
42. Prestwich KN, Walker TJ. 1981. Energetics of singing in crickets: effect of temperature in three trilling species (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). J Comp Physiol B. 143:199-212.
43. Rantala MJ, Kortet R. 2003. Courtship song and immune function in the field cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Biol J Linn Soc. 79:503-510.
44. Rebar D, Bailey NW, Zuk M. 2009. Courtship song's role during female mate choice in the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. Behav Ecol. 20:1307-1314.
45. Ritchie M, Kyriacou CP. 1994. Genetic variability in courtship song in a population of Drosophila melanogaster. Anim Behav. 48:425-434.
46. Roff DA. 2008. Comparing sire and dam estimates of heritability: jackknife and likelihood approaches. Heredity. 100:32-38.
47. Ryder JJ, Siva-Jothy MT. 2000. Male calling song provides a reliable signal of immune function in a cricket. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 267:1171-1175.
48. Scheuber H, Jacot A, Brinkhof MWG. 2003. Condition dependence of a multicomponent sexual signal in the field cricket Gryllus campestris. Anim Behav. 65:721-727.
49. Sheldon BC. 1994. Male phenotype, fertility, and the pursuit of extra-pair copulations by female birds. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 257:25-30.
50. Sheldon BC, Verhulst S. 1996. Ecological immunology: costly parasite defences and trade-offs in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol Evol. 11:317-321.
51. Simmons LW. 2004. Genotypic variation in calling song and female preferences of the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. Anim Behav. 68:313-322.
52. Simmons LW, Beveridge M. 2010. The strength of postcopulatory sexual selection within natural populations of field crickets. Behav Ecol. 21:1179-1185.
53. Simmons LW, Denholm A, Jackson C, Levy E, Madon E. 2007. Male crickets adjust ejaculate quality with both risk and intensity of sperm competition. Biol Lett. 3:520-522.
54. Simmons LW, Ritchie MG. 1996. Symmetry in the songs of crickets. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 263:1305-1311.
55. Simmons LW, Roberts B. 2005. Bacterial immunity traded for sperm viability in male crickets. Science. 309:2031.
56. Simmons LW, Zuk M, Rotenberry JT. 2005. Immune function reflected in calling song characteristics in a natural population of the cricket Teleogryllus commodus. Anim Behav. 69:1235-1241.
57. Thomas ML, Simmons LW. 2007. Male crickets adjust the viability of their sperm in response to female mating status. Am Nat. 170: 190-195.
58. Thomas ML, Simmons LW. 2008. Male-derived cuticular hydrocarbons signal sperm competition intensity and affect ejaculate expenditure in crickets. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 276:383-388.
59. Thomas ML, Simmons LW. 2009. Male dominance influences phero-mone expression, ejaculate quality, and fertilization success in the Australian field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus. Behav Ecol. 20: 1118-1124.
60. Tregenza T, Simmons LW, Wedell N, Zuk M. 2006. Female preference for male courtship and its role as a signal of immune function and condition. Anim Behav. 72:809-818.
61. Via S. 1984. The quantitative genetics of polyphagy in an insect herbivore. II. Genetic correlations in larval performance within and among host plants. Evolution. 38:896-905. (Pubitemid 16277098)
62. Wagner WE Jr, Hoback WW. 1999. Nutritional effects on male calling behaviour in the variable cricket. Anim Behav. 57:89-95.
63. Wagner WE, Reiser MG. 2000. The importance of calling song and courtship song in female mate choice in the variable field cricket. Anim Behav. 59:1219-1226.
64. Webb KL, Roff DA. 1992. The quantitative genetics of sound production in Gryllus firmus. Anim Behav. 44:823-832.
65. Weber T, Thorson J. 1989. Phonotactic behavior of walking crickets. In: Huber F, Moore TE, Loher W, editors. Cricket behavior and neurobiology. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University press. p. 310-339.
66. Wedell N, Tregenza T. 1999. Successful fathers sire successful sons. Evolution. 53:620-625.
67. Zuk M, Rebar D, Scott SP. 2008. Courtship song is more variable than calling song in the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. Anim Behav. 76:1065-1071.