4.1 Article

Pairing and insemination patterns in a giant weta (Deinacrida rugosa: Orthoptera; Anostostomatidae)

Journal

JOURNAL OF ETHOLOGY
Volume 28, Issue 3, Pages 483-489

Publisher

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s10164-010-0211-7

Keywords

Sexual size dimorphism; Assortative mating; Sperm competition risk; Spermatophore transfer; Scramble competition; Mate choice

Funding

  1. National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada
  2. National Geographic Society
  3. UNSW Faculty Research Grant
  4. Swiss Academy of Natural Sciences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Positive size assortative mating can arise if either one or both sexes prefer bigger mates or if the success of larger males in contests for larger females leaves smaller males to mate with smaller females. Moreover, body size could not only influence pairing patterns before copulation but also the covariance between female size and size of ejaculate (number of spermatophores) transferred to a mate. In this field study, we examine the pre-copulatory mate choice, as well as insemination, patterns in the Cook Strait giant weta (Deinacrida rugosa). D. rugosa is a large orthopteran insect that exhibits strong female-biased sexual dimorphism, with females being nearly twice as heavy as males. Contrary to the general expectation of male preference for large females in insects with female-biased size dimorphism, we found only weak support for positive size assortative mating based on size (tibia length). Interestingly, although there was no correlation between male body size and the number of spermatophores transferred, we did find that males pass more spermatophores to lighter females. This pattern of sperm transfer does not appear to be a consequence of those males that mate heavier females being sperm depleted. Instead, males may provide lighter females with more spermatophores perhaps because these females pose less of a sperm competition risk to mates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available