Food fight: sexual conflict over free amino acids in the nuptial gifts of male decorated crickets

In decorated crickets, Gryllodes sigillatus, the spermatophore that a male transfers at mating includes a gelatinous spermatophylax that the female consumes, delaying her removal of the sperm‐filled ampulla. Male fertilization success increases with the length of time females spend feeding on the spermatophylax, while females may benefit by prematurely discarding the spermatophylaxes of undesirable males. This sexual conflict should favour males that produce increasingly appealing spermatophylaxes, and females that resist this manipulation. To determine the genetic basis of female spermatophylax feeding behaviour, we fed spermatophylaxes to females of nine inbred lines and found that female genotype had a major influence on spermatophylax feeding duration. The amino acid composition of the spermatophylax was also significantly heritable. There was a positive genetic correlation between spermatophylax feeding duration and the gustatory appeal of the spermatophylax. This correlation suggests that genes expressed in males that produce more manipulative spermatophylaxes are positively linked to genes expressed in females that make them more vulnerable to manipulation. Outbred females spent less time feeding on spermatophylaxes than inbred females, and thus showed greater resistance to male manipulation. Further, in a nonspermatophylax producing cricket (Acheta domesticus), females were significantly more prone to feeding on spermatophylaxes than outbred female Gryllodes. Collectively, these results suggest a history of sexually antagonistic coevolution over the consumption of nuptial food gifts.

[1]  J. Hunt,et al.  Biting off more than you can chew: sexual selection on the free amino acid composition of the spermatophylax in decorated crickets , 2012, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[2]  D. G. Gordon,et al.  Glycine in nuptial food gifts of decorated crickets decreases female sexual receptivity when ingested, but not when injected , 2012, Animal Behaviour.

[3]  T. Tregenza,et al.  The genetic architecture of sexual conflict: male harm and female resistance in Callosobruchus maculatus , 2011, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[4]  S. Sakaluk,et al.  Experimentally induced spermatophore production and immune responses reveal a trade-off in crickets , 2010 .

[5]  J. Hunt,et al.  Give ‘til it hurts: trade‐offs between immunity and male reproductive effort in the decorated cricket, Gryllodes sigillatus , 2010, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[6]  K. Shaw,et al.  Elaborate courtship enhances sperm transfer in the Hawaiian swordtail cricket, Laupala cerasina , 2010, Animal Behaviour.

[7]  S. Simpson,et al.  Free amino acids as phagostimulants in cricket nuptial gifts: support for the ‘Candymaker’ hypothesis , 2009, Biology Letters.

[8]  L. Vogel,et al.  Lovesick: immunological costs of mating to male sagebrush crickets , 2009, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[9]  T. M. Ivy Good genes, genetic compatibility and the evolution of polyandry: use of the diallel cross to address competing hypotheses , 2007, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[10]  K. Vahed All that Glisters is not Gold: Sensory Bias, Sexual Conflict and Nuptial Feeding in Insects and Spiders , 2007 .

[11]  L. Rowe,et al.  Detecting sexual conflict and sexually antagonistic coevolution , 2006, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[12]  S. Sakaluk,et al.  Females use self-referent cues to avoid mating with previous mates , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[13]  S. Sakaluk,et al.  Cryptic Sexual Conflict in Gift‐Giving Insects: Chasing the Chase‐Away , 2005, The American Naturalist.

[14]  W. Rice,et al.  Natural selection and genetic variation for female resistance to harm from males , 2005, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[15]  S. Sakaluk,et al.  POLYANDRY PROMOTES ENHANCED OFFSPRING SURVIVAL IN DECORATED CRICKETS , 2005, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[16]  Timothy A Mousseau,et al.  IMMUNE SUPPRESSION AND THE COST OF REPRODUCTION IN THE GROUND CRICKET, ALLONEMOBIUS SOCIUS , 2004, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[17]  J. C. Johnson,et al.  Hemolymph loss during nuptial feeding constrains male mating success in sagebrush crickets , 2004 .

[18]  T. Chapman,et al.  FEMALE RESISTANCE TO MALE HARM EVOLVES IN RESPONSE TO MANIPULATION OF SEXUAL CONFLICT , 2004, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[19]  Soichi Kugimiya,et al.  Nutritional phagostimulants function as male courtship pheromone in the German cockroach, Blattella germanica , 2003, CHEMOECOLOGY.

[20]  K. Reinhardt,et al.  LINEAR MODELS FOR ASSESSING MECHANISMS OF SPERM COMPETITION: THE TROUBLE WITH TRANSFORMATIONS , 2003, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[21]  W. A. Snedden,et al.  POLYANDRY AND FITNESS OF OFFSPRING REARED UNDER VARYING NUTRITIONAL STRESS IN DECORATED CRICKETS , 2002, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[22]  J. Hamon,et al.  Role of single amino acids in phagostimulation, growth, and development of the cassava mealybug Phenacoccus herreni , 2002 .

[23]  Timothy A Mousseau,et al.  TIBIAL SPUR FEEDING IN GROUND CRICKETS: LARGER MALES CONTRIBUTE LARGER GIFTS (ORTHOPTERA: GRYLLIDAE) , 2002 .

[24]  A. Clark,et al.  Correlated effects of sperm competition and postmating female mortality. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  M. Siva-jothy,et al.  Genital damage, kicking and early death , 2000, Nature.

[26]  G. Arnqvist,et al.  The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects , 2000, Animal Behaviour.

[27]  S. Sakaluk,et al.  Sensory exploitation as an evolutionary origin to nuptial food gifts in insects , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[28]  S. Sakaluk,et al.  Hydration benefits to courtship feeding in crickets , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[29]  S. Sakaluk,et al.  Paternity of offspring in multiply–mated, female crickets: the effect of nuptial food gifts and the advantage of mating first , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[30]  M. Ebbert The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids , 1998 .

[31]  K. Vahed The function of nuptial feeding in insects: a review of empirical studies , 1998 .

[32]  W. Rice,et al.  PERSPECTIVE: CHASE‐AWAY SEXUAL SELECTION: ANTAGONISTIC SEDUCTION VERSUS RESISTANCE , 1998, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[33]  Michael D Greenfield,et al.  When are good genes good? Variable outcomes of female choice in wax moths , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[34]  S. Sakaluk,et al.  FEMALE CONTROL OF SPERM TRANSFER AND INTRASPECIFIC VARIATION IN SPERM PRECEDENCE: ANTECEDENTS TO THE EVOLUTION OF A COURTSHIP FOOD GIFT , 1996, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[35]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  Sexual coercion in animal societies , 1995, Animal Behaviour.

[36]  L. Partridge,et al.  Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products , 1995, Nature.

[37]  S. Sakaluk,et al.  Courtship feeding in decorated crickets: is the spermatophylax a sham? , 1994, Animal Behaviour.

[38]  Richard Preziosi,et al.  The estimation of the genetic correlation: the use of the jackknife , 1994, Heredity.

[39]  S. Sakaluk,et al.  Sexual cannibalism and its relation to male mating success in sagebrush crickets, Cyphoderris strepitans (Haglidae: Orthoptera) , 1994, Animal Behaviour.

[40]  P. Parsons,et al.  The analysis of quantitative variation in natural populations with isofemale strains , 1988, Génétique, sélection, évolution.

[41]  G. K. Morris,et al.  Mating and its effect on acoustic signalling behaviour in a primitive orthopteran, Cyphoderris strepitans (Haglidae): the cost of feeding females , 1987, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[42]  S. Sakaluk SPERM COMPETITION AND THE EVOLUTION OF NUPTIAL FEEDING BEHAVIOR IN THE CRICKET, GRYLLODES SUPPLICANS (WALKER) , 1986, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[43]  S. Sakaluk Spermatophore size and its role in the reproductive behaviour of the cricket, Gryllodes supplicans (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) , 1985 .

[44]  S. Sakaluk Male Crickets Feed Females to Ensure Complete Sperm Transfer , 1984, Science.

[45]  A. G. Cook Nutrient chemicals as phagostimulants for Locusta migratoria (L.) , 1977 .

[46]  R. Chapman,et al.  Deterrent chemicals as a basis of oligophagy in Locusta migratoria (L.) , 1977 .

[47]  Randy Thornhill,et al.  Sexual Selection and Paternal Investment in Insects , 1976, The American Naturalist.

[48]  M. Llewellyn,et al.  The rŏle of amino acids in diet intake and selection and the utilization of dipeptides by Aphis fabae. , 1974, Journal of insect physiology.

[49]  P. Srivastava,et al.  EFFECT OF AMINO ACID CONCENTRATION ON DIET UPTAKE AND PERFORMANCE BY THE PEA APHID, ACYRTHOSIPHON PISUM (HOMOPTERA: APHIDIDAE) , 1974, The Canadian Entomologist.

[50]  S. Lewis,et al.  The Evolution of Animal Nuptial Gifts , 2012 .

[51]  J. David,et al.  Isofemale lines in Drosophila: an empirical approach to quantitative trait analysis in natural populations , 2005, Heredity.

[52]  D. Gwynne,et al.  Preferred males are not always good providers: female choice and male investment in tree crickets , 2005 .

[53]  D. Gwynne,et al.  Preferred Males Are Not Always Good Providers: Female Choice and Male Investment in Tree Crickets , 2004 .

[54]  L. Simmons,et al.  Reproductive strategies of the crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) , 1997 .

[55]  D. Gwynne The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids: The evolution of edible ‘sperm sacs’ and other forms of courtship feeding in crickets, katydids and their kin (Orthoptera: Ensifera) , 1997 .

[56]  S. Sakaluk Reproductive Behaviour of the Decorated Cricket, Gryllodes Supplicans (Orthoptera: Gryllidae): Calling Schedules, Spatial Distribution, and Mating , 1987 .

[57]  D. Falconer Introduction to quantitative genetics. 1. ed. , 1984 .

[58]  W. Rice,et al.  Experimental Removal of Sexual Selection Reverses Intersexual Antagonistic Coevolution and Removes a Reproductive Load Materials and Methods , 2022 .

[59]  G. Fox Reproductive Strategies , 2022, eLS.