Costly signals in a field cricket can indicate high- or low-quality direct benefits depending upon the environment

Evolution

Volumn 65, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 283-294

  Tolle, Amanda E ^a   Wagner, William E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA   (United States)

Author keywords

Direct benefits; Gryllus lineaticeps; Male signals; Phenotypic plasticity; Sexual selection; Signal reliability

Indexed keywords

CRICKET; GENOTYPE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; HANDICAP PRINCIPLE; MALE BEHAVIOR; MATE CHOICE; PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY; REPRODUCTIVE COST; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNAL;

ANIMAL; ANIMAL COMMUNICATION; ANIMAL FOOD; ARTICLE; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETICS; GENOTYPE; GRYLLIDAE; MALE; MATE CHOICE; PHYSIOLOGY; REPRODUCTION; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMAL COMMUNICATION; ANIMAL NUTRITIONAL PHYSIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA; ANIMALS; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; GENOTYPE; GRYLLIDAE; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; REPRODUCTION; SELECTION, GENETIC; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

GRYLLINAE; GRYLLUS LINEATICEPS;

EID: 78650936042     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01123.x     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ .
2. Bakker, T. C. M, R. Künzler, and D. Mazzi 1999. Condition-related mate choice in sticklebacks. Nature 401:234.
3. Balakrishnan, R., and G. Pollack 1997. The role of antennal sensory cues in female responses to courting males in the cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. J. Exp. Biol. 200:511-522.
4. Basolo, A. L. 1990. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 250:808-810.
5. Bradshaw, A. D. 1965. Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Adv. Genetics 13:115-155.
6. Bro-Jørgensen, J. 2009. Dynamics of multiple signalling systems: animal communication in a world in flux. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 25:292-300.
7. Bussière, L. F. 2002. A model of the interaction between "good genes" and direct benefits in courtship-feeding animals: when do males of high genetic quality invest less? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 357:309-317.
8. Bussière, L. F., H. A. Basit, and D. T. Gwynne 2005. Preferred males are not always good providers: female choice and male investment in tree crickets. Behav. Ecol. 16:223-231.
9. Cotton, S., K. Fowler, and A. Pomiankowski 2004. Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271:771-783.
10. Czesak, M. E., and C. W. Fox 2003. Genetic variation in male effects on female reproduction and the genetic covariance between the sexes. Evolution 57:1359-1366.
11. David, P., T. Bjorksten, K. Fowler, and A. Pomiankowski 2000. Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyed flies. Nature 406:186-188.
12. Dussourd, D. E., C. A. Harvis, J. Meinwald, and T. Eisner 1991. Pheromonal advertisement of a nuptial gift by a male moth (Utethesia ornatrix). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 88:9224-9227.
13. Eberhard, W. G. 1996. Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ .
14. Eberhard, W. G. 1998. Female roles in sperm competition. Pp. 91-116 in T. R. Birkhead and A. P. Møller, eds. Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, San Diego, CA .
15. Grafen, A. 1990. Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J. Theor. Biol. 144:475-518.
16. Greenfield, M. D., and R. L. Rodriguez 2004. Genotype-environment interaction and the reliability of mating signals. Anim. Behav. 68:1461-1468.
17. Guntrip, J., and R. M. Sibly 1998. Phenotypic plasticity, genotype-by-environment interaction and the analysis of generalism and specialization in Callosobruchus maculatus. Heredity 81:198-204.
18. Gwynne, D. T. 1988. Courtship feeding in katydids benefits the mating male's offspring. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 23:373-377.
19. Gwynne, D. T. 1993. Food quality controls sexual selection in Mormon crickets by altering male mating investment. Ecology 74:1406-1413.
20. Hebets, E. A., and D. R. Papaj 2005. Complex signal function: developing a framework for testable hypotheses. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 57:197-214.
21. Higginson, A. D., and T. Reader 2009. Environmental heterogeneity, genotype-by-environment interactions and the reliability of sexual traits as indicators of mate quality. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 276:1153-1159.
22. Hill, G. E. 1991. Plumage coloration is a sexually selected indicator of male quality. Nature 350:337-339.
23. Hingle, A., K. Fowler, and A. Pomiankowski 2001. The effect of transient food stress on female mate preference in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanii. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268:1239-1244.
24. Hoback, W. W., and W. E. Wagner 1997. The energetic cost of calling in the variable field cricket, Gryllus lineaticeps. Physiol. Entomol. 22:286-290.
25. Hunt, J., R. Brooks, and M. D. Jennions 2005. Female mate choice as a condition-dependent life-history trait. Am. Nat. 166:79-92.
26. Hunt, J., R. Brooks, M. D. Jennions, M. J. Smith, C. L. Bentsen, and L. F. Bussière 2004. High-quality male field crickets invest heavily in sexual display but die young. Nature 432:1024-1027.
27. Iwasa, Y., and A. Pomiankowski 1999. Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. J. Theor. Biol. 200:97-109.
28. Jia, F. Y., M. D. Greenfield, and R. D. Collins 2000. Genetic variance of sexually selected traits in waxmoths: maintenance by genotype x environment interaction. Evolution 54:953-967.
29. Johnstone, R. A.. 1995 Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence. Biol. Rev. 70:1-65.
30. Knapp, R. A., and J. T. Kovach 1991. Courtship as an honest indicator of male parental quality in the bicolor damselfish, Stegastes partitus. Behav. Ecol. 2:295-300.
31. Kokko, K., and K. Heubel 2008. Condition-dependence, genotype-by-environment interactions and the lek paradox. Genetica 134:55-62.
32. Mills, S. C., R. V. Alatalo, E. Koskela, J. Mappes, T. Mappes, and T. A. Oksanen 2007. Signal reliability compromised by genotype-by-environment interaction and potential mechanisms for its preservation. Evolution 61:1748-1757.
33. Møller, A. P., and F. de Lope 1994. Differential costs of a secondary sexual character: an experimental test of the handicap principle. Evolution 48:1676-1683.
34. Murakami, S., and M. T. Itoh 2003. Removal of both antennae influences the courtship and aggressive behaviors in male crickets. J. Neurobiol. 57:110-118.
35. Murray, A.-M., and W. H. Cade 1995. Differences in age structure among field cricket populations (Orthoptera, Gryllidae)-possible influence of a sex-biased parasitoid. Can. J. Zool. 73:1207-1213.
36. Nur, N., and O. Hasson 1984. Phenotypic plasticity and the handicap principle. J. Theor. Biol. 110:275-297.
37. Olvido, A. E., and W. E. Wagner 2004. Signal components, acoustic preference functions and sexual selection in a cricket. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 83:461-472.
38. Pampoulie, C., K. Lindström, and C. M. St. Mary 2004. Have your cake and eat it too: male sand gobies show more parental care in the presence of female partners. Behav. Ecol. 15:199-204.
39. Petrie, M. 1994. Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate trains. Nature 371:598-599.
40. Pigliucci, M. 2005. Evolution of phenotypic plasticity: where are we going now? Trends Ecol. Evol. 20:481-486.
41. Pomiankowski, A., and A. P. Møller 1995. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 260:21-29.
42. Pomiankowski, A., Y. Iwasa, and S. Nee 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences I. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution 45:1422-1430.
43. Price, T., D. Schluter, and N. E. Heckman 1993. Sexual selection when the female directly benefits. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 48:187-211.
44. Reynolds, J. D., and M. R. Gross 1990. Costs and benefits of female mate choice: is there a lek paradox? Am. Nat. 136:230-243.
45. Rodriguez, R. L., and M. D. Greenfield 2003. Genetic variance and phenotypic plasticity in a component of female mate choice in an ultrasonic moth. Evolution 57:1304-1313.
46. Rodriguez, R. L., L. M. Sullivan, R. L. Snyder, and R. B. Cocroft 2008. Host shifts and the beginning of signal divergence. Evolution 62:12-20.
47. Rooney, J., and S. M. Lewis 2002. Fitness advantage from nuptial gifts in female fireflies. Ecol. Entomol. 27:373-377.
48. Rowe, L., and D. Houle 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263:1415-1421.
49. Ryan, K. M., and S. K. Sakaluk 2009. Dulling the senses: the role of the antennae in mate recognition, copulation and mate guarding in decorated crickets. Anim. Behav. 77:1345-1350.
50. Sakaluk, S. K., and R. L. Smith 1988. Inheritance of male parental investment in an insect. Am. Nat. 132:594-601.
51. Savalli, U. M., and C. W. Fox 1998. Genetic variation in paternal investment in a seed beetle. Anim. Behav. 56:953-961.
52. Scheiner, S. M. 1993. Genetics and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24:35-68.
53. Searcy, W. A., and S. Nowicki 2005. The evolution of animal communication: reliability and deception in signaling systems. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ .
54. Simmons, L. W. 1988. The contribution of multiple mating and spermatophore consumption to the lifetime reproductive success of female field crickets (Gryllus bimaculatus). Ecol. Entomol. 13:57-69.
55. Simmons, L. W., and M. Zuk 1994. Age structure of parasitized and unparasitized populations of the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. Ethology 98:333-340.
56. Simmons, L. W., R. J. Teale, M. Maier, R. J. Standish, W. J. Bailey, and P. C. Withers 1992. Some costs of reproduction for male bushcrickets, Requena verticalis (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae): allocating resources to mate attraction and nuptial feeding. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 31:57-62.
57. StataCorp. 2007. Stata statistical software: release 10. StataCorp LP, College Station, TX .
58. Thornhill, R. 1983. Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpobitacus nigriceps. Am. Nat. 122:765-788.
59. Thornhill, R., and J. Alcock 1983. The evolution of insect mating systems. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA .
60. Vahed, K. 1998. The function of nuptial feeding in insects: a review of empirical studies. Biol. Rev. 73:43-78.
61. Via, S. 1984. The quantitative genetics of polyphagy in an insect herbivore. I. Genotype- environment interaction in larval performance on different host plant species. Evolution 38:881-895.
62. Via, S. 1994. The evolution of phenotypic plasticity: what do we really know? Pp. 35-57 in L. Real, ed. Ecological genetics. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ .
63. Wagner, W. E., Jr. 1996. Convergent song preferences between female field crickets and acoustically orienting parasitoid flies. Behav. Ecol. 7:279-285.
64. Wagner, W. E., Jr. 2005. Male field crickets that provide reproductive benefits to females incur higher costs. Ecol. Entomol. 30:350-357.
65. Wagner, W. E., Jr., and A. L. Basolo 2007a. The relative importance of different direct benefits in the mate choices of a field cricket. Evolution 61:617-622.
66. Wagner, W. E., Jr., and A. L. Basolo 2007b. Host preferences in a phonotactic parasitoid of field crickets: the relative importance of host song characters. Ecol. Entomol. 32:478-484.
67. Wagner, W. E., Jr., and M. G. Reiser 2000. The importance of calling song and courtship song in female mate choice in the variable field cricket. Anim. Behav. 59:1219-1226.
68. Wagner, W. E., Jr., and C. J. Harper 2003. Female life span and fertility are increased by the ejaculates of preferred males. Evolution 57:2054-2066.
69. Wagner, W. E., Jr. and A. L. Basolo 2008. Incidental sanctions and the evolution of direct benefits. Ethology 114:521-539.
70. Wagner, W. E., Jr., M. R. Smeds, and D. D. Wiegmann 2001a. Experience affects female responses to male song in the variable field cricket Gryllus lineaticeps (Orthoptera, Gryllidae). Ethology 107:769-776.
71. Wagner, W. E., Jr., R. J. Kelley, K. R. Tucker, and C. J. Harper 2001b. Females receive a life-span benefit from male ejaculates in a field cricket. Evolution 55:994-1001.
72. Wagner, W. E., Jr., A. R. Smith, and A. L. Basolo 2007. False promises: females spurn cheating males in a field cricket. Biol. Lett. 3:379-381.
73. Wedell, N. 2006. Male genotype affects female fitness in a paternally investing species. Evolution 60:1638-1645.
74. Weissman, D. B., D. C. F. Rentz, R. D. Alexander, and W. Loher 1980. Field crickets (Gryllus and Acheta) of California and Baja California, Mexico (Orthoptera: Gryllidae: Gryllinae). Trans. Am. Entomol. Soc. 106:327-356.
75. Weigensberg, I., Y. Carriere, and D. A. Roff 1998. Effects of male genetic contribution and paternal investment to egg and hatchling size in the cricket, Gryllus firmus. J. Evol. Biol. 11:135-146.
76. Welch, A. M., R. D. Semlitsch, and H. C. Gerhardt 1998. Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280:1928-1930.
77. West-Eberhard, M. J. 1989. Phenotypic plasticity and the origins of diversity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20:249-278.
78. Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53:205-214.
79. Zera, A. J., and A. Larsen 2001. The metabolic basis of life history variation: genetic and phenotypic differences in lipid reserves among life history morphs of the wing-polymorphic cricket, Gryllus firmus. J. Insect Physiol. 47:1147-1160.