IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v16y2005i1p223-231.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferred males are not always good providers: female choice and male investment in tree crickets

Author

Listed:
  • Luc F. Bussière
  • Hassaan Abdul Basit
  • Darryl T. Gwynne

Abstract

Female tree crickets (Oecanthus nigricornis) prefer large males but do not receive larger glandular courtship gifts from these males. This finding is puzzling from both the male and female perspectives, because females should prefer males providing more direct benefits, and because males who provide larger gifts achieve higher insemination success. We tested for differences in the quality of male secretions and found that larger males provided more proteinaceous food gifts than did rivals, which could explain why they are preferred by females. The preference in turn could cause depletion of food gift reserves in favored males, because natural remating rates are high and because even a single feeding bout negatively affects glandular stores. Most intriguingly, we showed that preferred males can adaptively decrease the size of courtship food-gifts provided (in order to conserve gifts for future mating events) when they perceive that the probability of multiple future mating opportunities is high. Thus, the elevated mating rates of preferred males (both before and after a focal mating event) could account for the small size of their courtship food-gifts. Copyright 2005.

Suggested Citation

  • Luc F. Bussière & Hassaan Abdul Basit & Darryl T. Gwynne, 2005. "Preferred males are not always good providers: female choice and male investment in tree crickets," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 16(1), pages 223-231, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:16:y:2005:i:1:p:223-231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arh156
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:16:y:2005:i:1:p:223-231. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.