Acoustic cues alter perceived sperm competition risk in the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 982-986

  Gray, Brian ^a   Simmons, Leigh W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

acoustic cues; paternity; sperm competition.

Indexed keywords

AUDITORY CUE; BIOACOUSTICS; CONSPECIFIC; CRICKET; FERTILIZATION (REPRODUCTION); FITNESS; PATERNITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SIGNALING; SPERM COMPETITION;

GRYLLINAE; TELEOGRYLLUS OCEANICUS;

EID: 84879086125     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/art009     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Allen LE, Barry KL, Holwell GI, Herberstein ME. 2011. Perceived risk of sperm competition affects juvenile development and ejaculate expenditure in male praying mantids. Anim Behav. 82:1201-1206.
2. Bailey NW, Gray B, Zuk M. 2010. Acoustic experience shapes alternative mating tactics and reproductive investment in male field crickets. Curr Biol. 20:845-849.
3. Bailey NW, Gray B, Zuk M. 2011. Exposure to sexual signals during rearing increases immune defence in adult field crickets. Biol Lett. 7:217-220.
4. Bailey NW, McNabb JR, Zuk M. 2008. Preexisting behaviour facilitated the loss of a sexual signal in the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. Behav Ecol. 19:202-207.
5. Bailey NW, Zuk M. 2008. Acoustic experience shapes female mate choice in field crickets. Proc R Soc Lond B. 275:2645-2650.
6. Barbosa F. 2012. Males responding to sperm competition cues have higher fertilization success in a soldier fly. Behav Ecol. 23:815-819.
7. Bretman A, Fricke C, Chapman T. 2009. Plastic responses of male Drosophila melanogaster to the level of sperm competition increase male reproductive fitness. Proc R Soc Lond B. 276:1705-1711.
8. Bretman A, Fricke C, Hetherington P, Stone R, Chapman T. 2010.
9. Exposure to rivals and plastic responses to sperm competition in Drosophila melanogaster. Behav Ecol. 21:317-321.
10. Bretman A, Gage MJG, Chapman T. 2011. Quick-change artists: male plastic behavioural responses to rivals. Trends Ecol Evol. 26:467-473.
11. Bretman A, Newcombe D, Tregenza T. 2009. Promiscuous females avoid inbreeding by controlling sperm storage. Mol Ecol. 18:3340-3345.
12. Bretman A, Westmancoat JD, Gage MJG, Chapman T. 2011. Males use multiple, redundant cues to detect mating rivals. Curr Biol. 21:617-622.
13. Burk T. 1983. Male aggression and female choice in a field cricket (Teleogryllus oceanicus): the importance of courtship song. In: Gwynne DT, Morris GK, editors. Orthopteran mating systems: sexual competition in a diverse group of insects. Boulder (CO): Westview Press. p. 97-119.
14. Crawley MJ. 1993. GLIM for ecologists. Cambridge (MA): Blackwell. delbarco-Trillo J. 2011. Adjustment of sperm allocation under high risk of sperm competition across taxa: a meta-analysis. J Evol Biol. 24:1706-1714.
15. delbarco-Trillo J, Ferkin MH. 2004. Male mammals respond to a risk of sperm competition conveyed by odours of conspecific males. Nature. 431:446-449.
16. delBarco-Trillo J, Ferkin MH. 2006. Male meadow voles respond differently to risk and intensity of sperm competition. Behav Ecol. 17:581-585.
17. Dewsbury DA. 1982. Ejaculate cost and male choice. Am Nat. 119:601-610.
18. DiRienzo N, Pruitt JN, Hedrick AV. 2012. Juvenile exposure to acoustic signals from conspecifics alters growth trajectory and an adult personality trait. Anim Behav. 84:861-868.
19. Eberhard WG. 1996. Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
20. García-González F. 2008. The relative nature of fertilization success: implications for the study of post-copulatory sexual selection. BMC Evol Biol. 8:140.
21. García-González F, Simmons LW. 2005a. Sperm viability matters in insect sperm competition. Curr Biol. 15:271-275.
22. García-González F, Simmons LW. 2005b. The evolution of polyandry: intrinsic sire effects contribute to embryo viability. J Evol Biol. 18:1097-1103.
23. Hall MD, Bussiére LF, Demont M, Ward PI, Brooks RC. 2010. Competitive PCR reveals the complexity of postcopulatory sexual selection in Teleogryllus commodus. Mol Ecol. 19:610-619.
24. Kasumovic MM, Brooks RC. 2011. It's all who you know: the evolution of socially cued anticipatory plasticity as a mating strategy. Q Rev Biol. 86:181-197.
25. Kasumovic MM, Hall MD, Brooks RC. 2012. The juvenile social environment introduces variation in the choice and expression of sexually selected traits. Ecol Evol. 2:1036-1047.
26. Kasumovic MM, Hall MD, Try H, Brooks RC. 2011. The importance of listening: allocation shifts in response to the juvenile acoustic environment. J Evol Biol. 24:1325-1334.
27. Kelly CD, Jennions MD. 2011. Sexual selection and sperm quantity: metaanalyses of strategic ejaculation. Biol Rev. 86:863-884.
28. Kilgallon SJ, Simmons LW. 2005. Image content influences men's semen quality. Biol Lett. 1:253-255.
29. Larsdotter Mellström H, Wiklund C. 2009. Males use sex pheromone assessment to tailor ejaculates to risk of sperm competition in a butterfly. Behav Ecol. 20:1148-1151.
30. Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC. 2007. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev. 82:591-605.
31. Parker GA. 1970. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol Rev. 45:525-567.
32. Parker GA, Lessells CM, Simmons LW. 2013. Sperm competition games: a general model for pre-copulatory male-male competition. Evolution. 67:95-109.
33. Parker GA, Pizzari T. 2010. Sperm competition and ejaculate economics. Biol Rev. 85:897-934.
34. Ramm SA, Stockley P. 2007. Ejaculate allocation under varying sperm competition risk in the house mouse, Mus musculus domesticus. Behav Ecol. 18:491-495.
35. Ramm SA, Stockley P. 2009. Male house mice do not adjust sperm allocation in response to odours from related or unrelated rivals. Anim Behav. 78:685-690.
36. Simmons LW. 2001. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
37. Simmons LW. 2012. Resource allocation trade-off between sperm quality and immunity in the field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus. Behav Ecol. 23:168-173.
38. Simmons LW, Beveridge M. 2010. The strength of postcopulatory sexual selection within natural populations of field crickets. Behav Ecol. 21:1179-1185.
39. Simmons LW, Beveridge M. 2011. Seminal fluid affects sperm viability in a cricket. PLoS ONE. 6:e17975.
40. Simmons LW, Beveridge M, Wedell N, Tregenza T. 2006. Postcopulatory inbreeding avoidance by female crickets only revealed by molecular markers. Mol Ecol. 15:3817-3824.
41. 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.
42. Simmons LW, Roberts B. 2005. Bacterial immunity traded for sperm viability in male crickets. Science. 309:2031.
43. Simmons LW, Tan Y-F, Millar AH. 2013. Sperm and seminal fluid proteomes of the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus: identification of novel proteins transferred to females at mating. Insect Mol Biol. 22:115-130.
44. Simmons LW, Wernham J, García-González F, Kamien D. 2003. Variation in paternity in the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus: no detectable influence of sperm numbers or sperm length. Behav Ecol. 14:539-545.
45. Sirot LK, Buehner N, Fiumera AC, Wolfner MF. 2009. Seminal fluid protein depletion and replenishment in the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster: an ELISA-based method for tracking individual ejaculates. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 63:1505-1513.
46. Sirot LK, Wolfner MF, Wigby S. 2011. Protein-specific manipulation of ejaculate composition in response to female mating status in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 108:9922-9926.
47. Thomas ML, Gray B, Simmons LW. 2011. Male crickets alter the relative expression of cuticular hydrocarbons when exposed to different acoustic environments. Anim Behav. 82:49-53.
48. Thomas ML, Simmons LW. 2007. Male crickets adjust the viability of their sperm in response to female mating status. Am Nat. 170:190-195.
49. Thomas ML, Simmons LW. 2009a. Male-derived cuticular hydrocarbons signal sperm competition intensity and affect ejaculate expenditure in crickets. Proc R Soc Lond B. 276:383-388.
50. Thomas ML, Simmons LW. 2009b. Male dominance influences pheromone expression, ejaculate quality, and fertilization success in the Australian field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus. Behav Ecol. 20:1118-1124.
51. Thomas ML, Simmons LW. 2011. Short-term phenotypic plasticity in longchain cuticular hydrocarbons. Proc R Soc Lond B. 278:3123-3128.
52. Tuni C, Beveridge M, Simmons LW. 2013. Female crickets assess relatedness during mate guarding and bias storage of sperm toward unrelated males. J Evol Biol. doi:10.111/jeb.12118.
53. Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA. 2002. Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol Evol. 17:313-320.
54. Zuk M, Rotenberry JT, Tinghitella RM. 2006. Silent night: adaptive disappearance of a sexual signal in a parasitized population of field crickets. Biol Lett. 2:521-524.