| Literature DB >> 29225403 |
Mika Kadoi1, Kotaro Morimoto2, Yasuoki Takami2.
Abstract
While competing males and choosy females may be common in animal mating systems, male choice can evolve under certain conditions. Sexual cannibalism is such a condition because of the high mortality risk for males. In mantids, female body condition is associated with male mate preference, with fat females preferred, due to at least two reasons: females in poor nutritional condition are likely to attack and predate males, and fat females can potentially increase the number of offspring. Thus, the risk of cannibalism and female fecundity can influence male mating behavior. In this study, we attempted to separate these factors by using the praying mantid Tenodera angustipennis to examine whether male preference for fat female mantids was based on avoiding sexual cannibalism (cannibalism avoidance hypothesis) or preference for female fecundity (fecundity preference hypothesis). The feeding regimes were experimentally manipulated to discriminate between the effects of female fecundity and female hunger status on male and female mating behaviors. We found that recently starved females more frequently locomoted toward the male, and that male abdominal bending was less intensive and escape was sooner from recently starved females. These female and male behavioral responses to female hunger condition may reveal male avoidance of dangerous females in this mantid.Entities:
Keywords: Mate preference; Mating behavior; Sexual cannibalism; Sexual conflict; Sexual selection
Year: 2017 PMID: 29225403 PMCID: PMC5711982 DOI: 10.1007/s10164-017-0506-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ethol ISSN: 0289-0771 Impact factor: 1.270
Fig. 1Apparatus used in the mating experiments
Effect of female feeding treatments on female and male body measurements in Tenodera angustipennis
| High fecundity and recently fed (HF) | High fecundity and recently starved (HS) | Low fecundity and recently fed (LF) | Low fecundity and recently starved (LS) | Model | Fecundity treatment | Hunger treatment | Interaction | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female pronotum length (mm) | 25.08 ± 0.32 (9)b | 25.08 ± 0.65 (9)b | 24.03 ± 0.45 (8)b | 25.20 ± 0.73 (8)b |
|
|
|
|
| Ovary mass (g) | 0.74 ± 0.06 (9)b | 0.73 ± 0.07 (9)b | 0.06 ± 0.03 (8)c | 0.09 ± 0.04 (8)c |
|
|
|
|
| Female body condition | 119.32 ± 4.18 (9)b | 99.25 ± 4.52 (9)c | 61.20 ± 1.98 (8)d | 43.40 ± 5.18 (8)e |
|
|
|
|
| Male pronotum length (mm)a | 23.44 ± 0.46 (9)b | 24.03 ± 0.43 (9)b | 24.63 ± 0.63 (5)b | 23.34 ± 0.67 (8)b |
|
|
|
|
| Male body conditiona | 34.65 ± 1.25 (9)b | 32.80 ± 1.54 (9)b | 35.97 ± 2.15 (5)b | 34.43 ± 1.12 (8)b |
|
|
|
|
Mean ± standard error (SE) (N) is shown. Body conditions indicate body mass divided by pronotum length. Different letters indicate significant difference at 5% level [Tukey–Kramer honest significant difference (HSD) test]
*** P < 0.0001, ** P < 0.001, NS P > 0.05
aMales were not subjected to experimental manipulation of feeding regimes
Effects of female fecundity and hunger (recent feeding status) on mating behavior in Tenodera angustipennis
| Model | Fecundity (high/low) | Hunger (recently fed/recently starved) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Distribution |
|
| Estimate |
|
| Estimate |
|
| |
| Female behavior | ||||||||||
| Direction of locomotion (male/other) | GLM | Binomial | 5.84 | 0.054 | −0.629 ± 0.549 | 2.71 | 0.100 | −1.083 ± 0.772 | 4.34 |
|
| Male behavior | ||||||||||
| Latency to first abdominal bending | Survival | Fréchet | 6.01 |
| 0.826 ± 0.329 | 5.61 |
| −0.512 ± 0.327 | 2.38 | 0.123 |
| Number of abdominal bending | GLM | Poisson | 7.64 |
| 0.179 ± 0.255 | 0.52 | 0.473 | 0.648 ± 0.274 | 6.61 |
|
| Latency to mounting | Survival | Fréchet | 3.04 | 0.219 | 0.297 ± 0.350 | 0.70 | 0.403 | 0.590 ± 0.349 | 2.35 | 0.125 |
| Copulation (yes/no) | GLM | Binomial | 0.02 | 0.990 | −0.018 ± 0.437 | 0.00 | 0.968 | −0.058 ± 0.436 | 0.02 | 0.894 |
| Latency to escape | Survival | Fréchet | 8.25 |
| 0.073 ± 0.311 | 0.05 | 0.816 | 0.996 ± 0.333 | 7.64 |
|
Significant effects (P < 0.05) in each model are shown in boldface, and indicated with asterisks after correction of the false discovery rate within the male
Fig. 2Effects of fecundity and hunger treatments of females on male behavioral traits: a latency to male first abdominal bending, b number of male abdominal bending behaviors, and c latency to male escape from the mating arena. HF high fecundity and recently fed, HS high fecundity and recently starved, LF low fecundity and recently fed, LS low fecundity and recently starved