4.5 Article

Experimentally induced spermatophore production and immune responses reveal a trade-off in crickets

Journal

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages 647-654

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arq035

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [IOS-0543254, IOS-0718140]
  2. Orthopterists' Society
  3. Program of Excellence in Neuroscience and Behavior at Illinois State University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The energetic demands of the immune system and reproduction are often high and can lead to trade-offs between these 2 life-history traits. In decorated crickets, Glyllodes sigillatus, much of a male's reproductive effort is devoted to calling, and to the synthesis of a spermatophylax, a large, gelatinous, non sperm-containing mass forming part of the spermatophore and consumed by the female after mating. We employed a reciprocal design in which we experimentally induced an immune response in some males by injecting them with lipopolysaccharides and experimentally induced increased spermatophore production in others to determine if male G. sigillatus trade off immunity and reproduction. Immune-challenged males produced significantly smaller spermatophores, although they did not call less than controls. We also found that males that synthesized more spermatophores exhibited lower immunity. These results reveal a fundamental trade-off between immunity and reproductive effort in male G. sigillatus, specifically with respect to a male's ability to synthesize a costly nuptial food gift. However, we found no correlation between the mass of a male's gift and his ability to survive an acute bacterial infection; this result, coupled with the trade-off identified above, raises the possibility that the spermatophylax serves as a Zahavian handicap. Key words: crickets, Gryllodes sigillatus, immunity, life-history trade-offs, nuptial food gifts, spermatophore. [Behav Ecol 21:647-654 (2010)]

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available