Premium
Variation in singing behaviour among morphs of the sand field cricket, Gryllus firmus
Author(s) -
MITRA CHANDREYEE,
WAGNER WILLIAM E.,
ZERA ANTHONY J.,
TOLLE AMANDA E.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
ecological entomology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.865
H-Index - 81
eISSN - 1365-2311
pISSN - 0307-6946
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2311.2010.01254.x
Subject(s) - biology , cricket , field cricket , mating , biological dispersal , orthoptera , ecology , reproductive success , zoology , attraction , mate choice , singing , wing , demography , population , linguistics , philosophy , management , aerospace engineering , sociology , engineering , economics
1. Trade‐offs play a fundamental role in the evolution of many traits. 2. In wing‐polymorphic field crickets, the long‐winged morph can disperse from unfavourable environments, but has lower reproductive success than the short‐winged morph, because of costs associated with flight capability. 3. However, long‐winged individuals may minimise costs in favourable environments by histolysing their flight muscles and becoming flightless. 4. Few studies have examined how flight‐muscle histolysis affects male signalling and mate attraction. 5. We examined differences in singing activity and song characteristics among the flightless (short‐winged and histolysed long‐winged) and the flight‐capable male morphs, and female preferences for male song, in the sand field cricket. 6. We found: (i) both flightless morphs sang more than the flight‐capable morph, (ii) song characteristics varied among the three morphs, and (iii) females preferred songs characteristic of the long‐winged morphs. 7. Histolysis should increase mating success of long‐winged males because it increases singing activity. 8. Histolysed long‐winged males may have higher mating success than short‐winged males as they sing as frequently but produce more attractive songs. 9. Therefore, plasticity within the long‐winged morph may reduce costs of maturing in environments from which dispersal is not advantageous; non‐flying morphs may be pursuing different reproductive tactics.