Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-gs9qr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T09:47:47.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproductive Interference between the Common Ground-hopper Tetrix undulata and the Slender Ground-hopper Tetrix subulata (Orthoptera, Tetrigidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2008

A. Hochkirch ,
A. Bücker  and
J. Gröning
A. Hochkirch*
Affiliation:
University of Osnabrück, Department of Biology/Chemistry, Division of Ecology, Barbarastrasse 13, D-49076 Osnabrück, Germany University of Trier, Department VI, Biogeography Group, Am Wissenschaftspark 25–27, D-54296 Trier, Germany
A. Bücker
Affiliation:
University of Gießen, Institute of Landscape Ecology and Resources Management, Heinrich-Buff-Ring 26, D-35392 Gießen, Germany
J. Gröning
Affiliation:
University of Osnabrück, Department of Biology/Chemistry, Division of Ecology, Barbarastrasse 13, D-49076 Osnabrück, Germany
*
*Author for correspondence Fax: +49-651-201-3851 E-mail: hochkirch@uni-trier.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The coexistence of closely related species is often hampered by resource competition or reproductive interference (interspecific sexual interactions). Species utilising similar signal channels might face substantial problems when they co-occur. It has, therefore, been suggested that reinforcement might drive signal evolution in narrow suture zones of secondary contact. However, species with large overlapping ranges are usually not believed to interact sexually. The Slender Ground-hopper, Tetrix subulata, and the Common Ground-hopper, Tetrix undulata (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae) are sister species, which occur sympatrically in large parts of western and Central Europe, but rarely share the same habitat. It has been hypothesized that reproductive interference might account for their missing coexistence. Here, we test experimentally whether these two species interact sexually. Our results suggest an incomplete premating isolation of these ground-hoppers, as we recorded heterospecific courtship, mating attempts and mating. The number of conspecific copulations and mating attempts of T. subulata decreased substantially in the presence of T. undulata, whereas the latter species was not negatively affected. Males of both species preferred to approach females of T. undulata, whereas females of both species did not discriminate against heterospecific males. Further studies on the reproductive success are needed to clarify whether reproductive interference might influence habitat partitioning between these species.

Keywords

Specific mate recognition systemsreproductive isolationmate choicepremating isolationsatyr effect

Information

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 98 , Issue 6 , December 2008 , pp. 605 - 612
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andrews, R.H., Petney, T.N. & Bull, C.M. (1982) Reproductive interference between three parapatric species of reptile tick. Oecologia 52, 281–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ardeh, M.J., De Jong, P.W., Loomans, A.J.M. & Van Lenteren, J.C. (2004) Inter- and intraspecific effects of volatile and nonvolatile sex pheromones on males, mating behavior, and hybridization in Eretmocerus mundus and E. eremicus (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). Journal of Insect Behavior 17, 745–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, N.H. & Hewitt, G.M. (1985) Analysis of hybrid zones. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 16, 113–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beier, P. & Noss, R.F. (1998) Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conservation Biology 12, 1241–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benediktov, A. (2005) Vibrational signals in the family Tetrigidae (Orthoptera). Proceedings of the Russian Entomological Society 76, 131–140.Google Scholar
Bonduriansky, R. (2001) The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biological Reviews 76, 305–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, C.M. & Burzacott, D. (1994) Reproductive interactions between two Australian reptile tick species. Experimental and Applied Acarology 18, 555–565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butlin, R.K. (1989) Reinforcement of premating isolation. pp. 158–179 in Otte, D. & Endler, J.A. (Eds) Speciation and Its Consequences. Sunderland, MA, Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Butlin, R.K. & Ritchie, M.G. (1991) Variation in female mate preference across a grasshopper hybrid zone. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 4, 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caesar, S., Ahnesjö, J. & Forsman, A. (2007) Testing the role of coadapted genes versus bet-hedging for mating strategies in colour polymorphic pygmy grasshoppers. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 90, 491–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell, J.H. (1980) Diversity and the coevolution of competitors, or the ghost of competition past. Oikos 35, 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, M.J. (2005) Statistical Computing: An Introduction to Data Analysis Using S-Plus. 762 pp. Chichester, John Wiley.Google Scholar
Deering, M.D. & Scriber, J.M. (2002) Field bioassays show heterospecific mating preference asymmetry between hybridizing North American Papilio butterfly species (Lepidoptera: Papillonidae). Journal of Ethology 20, 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Detzel, P. (1998) Die Heuschrecken Baden-Württembergs. 580 pp. Stuttgart, Ulmer.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. (1937) Genetics and the Origin of Species. 364 pp. New York, Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ficetola, G.F. & De Bernardi, F. (2005) Interspecific social interactions and breeding success of the frog Rana latastei: A field study. Ethology 111, 764–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, B.M. & Shaffer, H.B. (2007) Hybrid vigor between native and introduced salamanders raises new challenges for conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104, 15793–15798.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, D.A. (2005) Does courtship behavior contribute to species-level reproductive isolation in field crickets? Behavioral Ecology 16, 201–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grein, G. (2005) Rote Liste der in Niedersachsen und Bremen gefährdeten Heuschrecken. 3. Fassung. Informationsdienst Naturschutz Niedersachsen 25, 1–20.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, D. & Groenendijk, M. (1998) Hoe zeldzaam is de macropronotale vorm van Tetrix undulata ? Nieuwsbrief Saltabel 17, 9–10.Google Scholar
Gröning, J. & Hochkirch, A. Reproductive interference between animal species. Quarterly Review of Biology, in press.Google Scholar
Gröning, J., Kochmann, J. & Hochkirch, A. (2005) Dornschrecken (Orthoptera, Tetrigidae) auf den Ostfriesischen Inseln – Verbreitung, Koexistenz und Ökologie. Entomologie Heute 17, 47–63.Google Scholar
Gröning, J., Lücke, N., Finger, A. & Hochkirch, A. (2007) Reproductive interference in two ground-hopper species: Testing hypotheses of coexistence in the field. Oikos 116, 1449–1460.Google Scholar
Hochkirch, A., Gröning, J., Loos, T., Metzing, C. & Reichelt, M. (2000) Specialized diet and feeding habits as key factors for the habitat requirements of the grasshopper species Tetrix subulata (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae). Entomologia Generalis 25, 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochkirch, A., Deppermann, J. & Gröning, J. (2006) Visual communication behaviour as a mechanism behind reproductive interference in three pygmy grasshoppers (genus Tetrix, Tetrigidae, Orthoptera). Journal of Insect Behavior 19, 559–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochkirch, A., Gröning, J. & Bücker, A. (2007) Sympatry with the devil: reproductive interference could hamper species coexistence. Journal of Animal Ecology 76, 633–642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howard, D.J. (1999) Conspecific sperm and pollen precedence and speciation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30, 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingrisch, S. & Köhler, G. (1998) Die Heuschrecken Mitteleuropas. 460 pp. Magdeburg, Westarp Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Kawano, K. (2004) Developmental stability and adaptive variability of male genitalia in sexually dimorphic beetles. American Naturalist 163, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleukers, R., Van Nieukerken, E., Odé, B.L.W. & Van Wingerden, W. (1997) De Sprinkhanen en Krekels van Nederland (Orthoptera). 416 pp. Leiden, KNNV Uitgeverij and EIS-Nederland.Google Scholar
Kuno, E. (1992) Competitive exclusion through reproductive interference. Researches on Population Ecology 34, 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liou, L.W. & Price, T.D. (1994) Speciation by reinforcement of premating isolation. Evolution 48, 1451–1459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, S.-S., De Barro, P.J., Xu, J., Luan, J.-B., Zang, L.-S., Ruan, Y.-M. & Wan, F.-H. (2007) Asymmetric mating interactions drive widespread invasion and displacement in a whitefly. Science 318, 1769–1772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallet, J. (2005) Hybridization as an invasion of the genome. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20, 229–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nasci, R.S., Hare, S.G. & Willis, F.S. (1989) Interspecific Mating between Louisiana strains of Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti in the field and laboratory. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 5, 416–421.Google ScholarPubMed
Paranjape, S.Y., Bhalerao, A.M. & Naidu, N.M. (1987) On etho-ecological characteristics and phylogeny of Tetrigidae. pp. 386–395 in Baccetti, B.M. (Ed.) Evolutionary Biology of Orthopteroid Insects. New York, Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
Paterson, H.E.H. (1985) The recognition concept of species. pp. 21–29 in Vrba, E.S. (Ed.) Species and Speciation. Pretoria, Transvaal Museum.Google Scholar
Pfennig, K.S. (2007) Facultative mate choice drives adaptive hybridization. Science 318, 965–967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Development Core Team (2007) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.R-project.orgGoogle Scholar
Rhymer, J.M. & Simberloff, D. (1996) Extinction by hybridization and introgression. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 27, 83–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribeiro, J.M.C. & Spielman, A. (1986) The satyr effect – a model predicting parapatry and species extinction. American Naturalist 128, 513–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowell, C.H.F. & Flook, P.K. (1998) Phylogeny of the Caelifera and the Orthoptera as derived from ribosomal gene sequences. Journal of Orthoptera Research 7, 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, M.J. (1998) Sexual selection, receiver biases, and the evolution of sex differences. Science 281, 1999–2003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schultz, J.K. & Switzer, P.V. (2001) Pursuit of heterospecific targets by territorial amberwing dragonflies (Perithemis tenera Say): A case of mistaken identity. Journal of Insect Behavior 14, 607–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Servedio, M.R. & Noor, M.A.F. (2003) The role of reinforcement in speciation: Theory and data. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 34, 339–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sicker, W. (1964) Die Abhängigkeit der Diapause von der Photoperiodizität bei Tetrix undulata (Sow.) (Saltatoria, Tetrigidae) (Mit Beiträgen zur Biologie und Morphologie dieser Art). Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Ökologie der Tiere 54, 107–140.Google Scholar
Söderbäck, B. (1994) Reproductive interference between two co-occurring crayfish species, Astacus astacus and Pacifastacus leniusculus. Nordic Journal of Freshwater Research 69, 137–143.Google Scholar
Sota, T. & Kubota, K. (1998) Genital lock-and-key as a selective agent against hybridization. Evolution 52, 1507–1513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spencer, H.G., Mcardle, B.H. & Lambert, D.M. (1986) A theoretical investigation of speciation by reinforcement. American Naturalist 128, 241–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, S., Nagano, M. & Trumbo, S.T. (2005) Intrasexual competition and mating behavior in Ptomascopus morio (Coleoptera: Silphidae Nicrophorinae). Journal of Insect Behavior 18, 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornhill, R. & Alcock, J. (2000) The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems. 564 pp. Lincoln, IUniverse.com.Google Scholar
Venables, W.N. & Ripley, B.D. (2002) Modern Applied Statistics with S+. 496 pp. New York, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verrell, P.A. (1994) Is decreased frequency of mating among conspecifics a cost of sympatry in salamanders. Evolution 48, 921–925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vick, K.W. (1973) Effects of interspecific matings of Trogoderma glabrum and T. inclusum on oviposition and remating. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 66, 237–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westman, K., Savolainen, R. & Julkunen, M. (2002) Replacement of the native crayfish Astacus astacus by the introduced species Pacifastacus leniusculus in a small, enclosed Finnish lake: a 30-year study. Ecography 25, 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wirtz, P. (1999) Mother species-father species: unidirectional hybridization in animals with female choice. Animal Behaviour 58, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wollerman, L. (1999) Acoustic interference limits call detection in a Neotropical frog Hyla ebraccata. Animal Behaviour 57, 529–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar