| Literature DB >> 22957167 |
Felix Zajitschek, Simon P Lailvaux, Josephine Dessmann, Robert Brooks.
Abstract
Senescence is shaped by age-dependent trade-offs between fitness components. Because males and females invest different resources in reproduction, the trade-offs behind age-dependent reproductive effort should be resolved differently in the sexes. In this study, we assess the effects of diet (high carbohydrate and low protein vs. equal carbohydrate and protein) and mating (once mated vs. virgin) on lifespan and age-dependent mortality in male and female field crickets (Teleogryllus commodus), and on male calling effort. Females always had higher actuarial ageing rates than males, and we found a clear lifespan cost of mating in females. Mated males, however, lived longer than virgin males, possibly because virgins call more than mated males. The fastest age-dependent increases in mortality were among mated males on the high-carbohydrate diet. Males on a high-carbohydrate diet showed a faster increase in calling effort earlier in life, and a more pronounced pattern of senescence once they reached this peak than did males on a diet with equal amounts of protein and carbohydrates. Our results provide evidence that the cost of mating in this cricket species is both diet and sex-dependent, and that the underlying causes of sex differences in life-history traits such as lifespan and senescence can be complex.Entities:
Keywords: Ageing; Gompertz; Teleogryllus commodus; calling effort; senescence; sex differences
Year: 2012 PMID: 22957167 PMCID: PMC3434943 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.288
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1A male (bottom) and a female (top) black field cricket, Teleogryllus commodus.
Gompertz parameter estimates for male and female mortality models. Values in brackets are lower and upper 95% confidence intervals
| Males | Females | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | α | β | α | β |
| CV | 0.0101 (0.0064, 0.0153) | 0.0264 (0.0171, 0.0356) | 0.0078 (0.0045, 0.0128) | 0.0417 (0.0291, 0.0543) |
| CM | 0.0065 (0.0038, 0.0107) | 0.0406 (0.0290, 0.0522) | 0.0075 (0.0046, 0.0118) | 0.0482 (0.0364, 0.0597) |
| PV | 0.0073 (0.0044, 0.0116) | 0.0280 (0.0189, 0.0370) | 0.0029 (0.0028, 0.0030) | 0.0418 (0.0414, 0.0423) |
| PM | 0.0059 (0.0035, 0.0096) | 0.0299 (0.0209, 0.0387) | 0.0041 (0.0023, 0.0071) | 0.0423 (0.0318, 0.0526) |
Figure 2Gompertz mortality trajectories of treatment groups of males (a) and females (b). Please note that these curves correspond to models fit separately to the four treatment groups (see Fig. S1 for parameter estimates), and do not represent any selected best-fit models. Lines end at realized maximum lifespans.
Median and maximum lifespan of treatment groups in days. Values in brackets are bootstrapped lower and upper 95% confidence intervals (based on 5000 bootstrap replicates). Maximum lifespan was defined as median lifespan of the longest lived 10% in each group (median [upper 10%])
| Males | Females | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | Median | Median (upper 10%) | Median | Median (upper 10%) |
| CV | 36 (27, 39) | 84 | 37 (32, 46) | 76.5 |
| CM | 42 (36, 48) | 75 | 35 (31.5, 38) | 62 |
| PV | 43.5 (31, 49) | 88 | 55 (45, 61) | 87.5 |
| PM | 49 (37, 56) | 90 | 51 (45.5, 58) | 78.5 |
Best-fit model results for male calling effort. Baseline category for diet is diet C and mated for mating treatment; that is, the reported values give the estimated change in calling effort between baseline category and the category named in the table
| Model term | Coefficient | SE |
|---|---|---|
| Diet (P) | 1299.3 | 752.1 |
| Mating treatment (virgin) | 1059.1 | 451.1 |
| Age | 95.4 | 35.7 |
| Lifespan | 78.3 | 44.1 |
| Age2 | − 3.2 | 0.5 |
| Lifespan2 | −1 | 0.4 |
| Diet (P): age | −123.6 | 40.6 |
| Diet (P): age2 | 1.4 | 0.5 |
| Age: lifespan | 2.4 | 0.5 |
Figure 3Calling effort (seconds per night) of males on diet C (a) and males on diet P (b), and of virgin (c) and mated (d) males. Lifespan and age are given in days of adult life.