Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Feb 4;20(1):21.
doi: 10.1186/s12862-020-1587-9.

Influence of female cuticular hydrocarbon (CHC) profile on male courtship behavior in two hybridizing field crickets Gryllus firmus and Gryllus pennsylvanicus

Affiliations

Influence of female cuticular hydrocarbon (CHC) profile on male courtship behavior in two hybridizing field crickets Gryllus firmus and Gryllus pennsylvanicus

Brianna Heggeseth et al. BMC Evol Biol. .

Abstract

Background: The hybridizing field crickets, Gryllus firmus and Gryllus pennsylvanicus have several barriers that prevent gene flow between species. The behavioral pre-zygotic mating barrier, where males court conspecifics more intensely than heterospecifics, is important because by acting earlier in the life cycle it has the potential to prevent a larger fraction of hybridization. The mechanism behind such male mate preference is unknown. Here we investigate if the female cuticular hydrocarbon (CHC) profile could be the signal behind male courtship.

Results: While males of the two species display nearly identical CHC profiles, females have different, albeit overlapping profiles and some females (between 15 and 45%) of both species display a male-like profile distinct from profiles of typical females. We classified CHC females profile into three categories: G. firmus-like (F; including mainly G. firmus females), G. pennsylvanicus-like (P; including mainly G. pennsylvanicus females), and male-like (ML; including females of both species). Gryllus firmus males courted ML and F females more often and faster than they courted P females (p < 0.05). Gryllus pennsylvanicus males were slower to court than G. firmus males, but courted ML females more often (p < 0.05) than their own conspecific P females (no difference between P and F). Both males courted heterospecific ML females more often than other heterospecific females (p < 0.05, significant only for G. firmus males).

Conclusions: Our results suggest that male mate preference is at least partially informed by female CHC profile and that ML females elicit high courtship behavior in both species. Since ML females exist in both species and are preferred over other heterospecific females, it is likely that this female type is responsible for most hybrid offspring production.

Keywords: Hybrid zone; Introgression; Mate choice; Pre-mating barrier; Speciation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Clustering of CHC for females. Principal components for relative peak proportion for all crickets, labeled by sex and female CHC categories generated through clustering analysis. Categories include cluster “F” (predominantly G. firmus females, n = 29), cluster “P” (only G. pennsylvanicus females, n = 23), and cluster “ML” (females with male-like CHC profiles, n = 32 for G. firmus and n = 40 for G. pennsylvanicus)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Courtship success by male species, crossing type and female CHC category. Estimated proportion of successful courtships by male species, crossing type (conspecific or heterospecific) and male-like female CHC category (ML, blue) or not (red) from mixed effects binomial logistic regression model with 95% confidence intervals
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Kaplan Meier (KM) curve of time to courtship for G. firmus males (a) and for G. pennsylvanicus males (b) by crossing type (Con = conspecific; Hetero = heterospecific) and male-like female CHC category. The KM curve estimates the probability of not yet successful courting at a given time. The time to courtship differs significantly by crossing type and male-like CHC category for G. firmus males (p < 0.0001), but not for G. pennsylvanicus males
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Principal component analysis of CHC for all individuals. a Relative peak proportion and b composition. Green represents G. pennsylvanicus and orange represents G. firmus. Sex is shown with male and female symbols

References

    1. Aitchison J. The statistical analysis of compositional data. J Royal Stat Soc Ser B. 1982;44(2):139–177.
    1. Bagine RKN, Brandl R, Kaib M. Species delimitation in macrotermes (isoptera, macrotermitidae) - evidence from epicuticular hydrocarbons, morphology, and ecology. Ann Entomol Soc Am. 1994;87:498–506. doi: 10.1093/aesa/87.5.498. - DOI
    1. Barry KL, Kokko H. Male mate choice: why sequential choice can make its evolution difficult. Anim Behav. 2010;80:163–169. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.04.020. - DOI
    1. Bateman PW, Fleming PA. Males are selective too: mating, but not courtship, with sequential females influences choosiness in male field crickets (Gryllus bimaculatus) Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2006;59:577–581. doi: 10.1007/s00265-005-0083-y. - DOI
    1. Byrne PG, Rice WR. Evidence for adaptive male mate choice in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Biol Sci. 2006;273:917–922. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3372. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources