{"data":[{"source":"bio.acousti.ca","id":"17220","type":"article","title":"Costs of Calling in Tettigoniid Orthoptera: A Case Study of Requena verticalis (Tettigoniidae: Listroscelidinae)","author":"Bailey, Winston J.","editor":null,"year":"1995","month":null,"journal":"Journal of Orthoptera Research","booktitle":null,"series":null,"howpublished":null,"volume":null,"number":"4","pages":"65","chapter":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"organization":null,"institution":null,"school":null,"address":null,"type_of_work":null,"note":null,"isbn":null,"issn":"10826467","doi":"10.2307\/3503460","url":"http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/3503460?origin=crossref","attachments":null,"keywords":null,"abstract":"The tettigoniid Requena verticalis Walker controls the apportioning of energy between calling and spermatophylax\nproduction during courtship and copulation. Males delay the onset of calling following mating and during this period nutrients are\nmobilized to the production of a large nutrient-rich spermatophylax as well as to the production of sound. Experiments, using males\nreared on high and low quality diets (Simmons et al. 1993) examined the distribution of metabolic resources during this post-copula\nrefractory period. An experimental set of males was allowed to call in a period immediately following copulation, while a control group\nof animals was prevented from calling by waxing the wings together. Males maintain spermatophylax size, regardless of the quality\nof the diet, but delayed the onset of calling; those on a high quality diet were able to invest energy into further reproduction. Contrary\nto prediction, males prevented from calling did not produce a larger spermatophylax, which suggests that males control the\napportioning of energy reserves during this critical period. It is argued that where energy reserves are required for the production of\na spermatophylax, less energy may be available for calling and so calling strategies should evolve that allow for the more efficient use\nof metabolic energy for sound production.\n\nCalling efficiency is a measure of how males convert metabolic energy to sound power. Efficiency was estimated by measuring the\nmetabolic costs of calling and the power of sound radiation from the calling insect. Metabolic costs of calling in R. verticalis are compared\nwith those of conehead tettigoniids such as Neoconocephalus robustus where calling appears to require more energy per unit of sound.\nThe efficiency of conversion of metabolic energy to sound in R. verticalis is 6.4% while that for N. robustus is 2% (Bailey et al. 1993).\nAnother cost of calling is exposure by the male to acoustically orienting predators. Such predators may include tachinid flies,\ninsectivorous bats and predaceous females. I discuss experiments where a species of vespertilionid bat is shown to orient to the call of\nR. verticalis (Hosken et al. in press). Males may also be subject to cannibalism by orienting females. I describe experiments where females\nare released within 2m of calling males and where males show a high degree of female rejection. In the confines of a small container,\nwhere each sex cannot retreat from the other, a male smaller than the female is far more likely to be eaten by the female than males paired\nwith females of comparable size. In this context, I discuss how male coyness (a reluctance to mate) may be due, in part, to sexual role\nreversal and thereby under sexual selection, or due to female cannibalism, and thus selected through survival.","type_name":"Journal Article","journal_abbreviation":"Journal of Orthoptera Research","pmid":null,"info_url":"https:\/\/bio.acousti.ca\/node\/17220"}]}