↓ Skip to main content

Influence of female cuticular hydrocarbon (CHC) profile on male courtship behavior in two hybridizing field crickets Gryllus firmus and Gryllus pennsylvanicus

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, February 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Influence of female cuticular hydrocarbon (CHC) profile on male courtship behavior in two hybridizing field crickets Gryllus firmus and Gryllus pennsylvanicus
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, February 2020
DOI 10.1186/s12862-020-1587-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brianna Heggeseth, Danielle Sim, Laura Partida, Luana S. Maroja

Abstract

The hybridizing field crickets, Gryllus firmus and Gryllus pennsylvanicus have several barriers that prevent gene flow between species. The behavioral pre-zygotic mating barrier, where males court conspecifics more intensely than heterospecifics, is important because by acting earlier in the life cycle it has the potential to prevent a larger fraction of hybridization. The mechanism behind such male mate preference is unknown. Here we investigate if the female cuticular hydrocarbon (CHC) profile could be the signal behind male courtship. While males of the two species display nearly identical CHC profiles, females have different, albeit overlapping profiles and some females (between 15 and 45%) of both species display a male-like profile distinct from profiles of typical females. We classified CHC females profile into three categories: G. firmus-like (F; including mainly G. firmus females), G. pennsylvanicus-like (P; including mainly G. pennsylvanicus females), and male-like (ML; including females of both species). Gryllus firmus males courted ML and F females more often and faster than they courted P females (p < 0.05). Gryllus pennsylvanicus males were slower to court than G. firmus males, but courted ML females more often (p < 0.05) than their own conspecific P females (no difference between P and F). Both males courted heterospecific ML females more often than other heterospecific females (p < 0.05, significant only for G. firmus males). Our results suggest that male mate preference is at least partially informed by female CHC profile and that ML females elicit high courtship behavior in both species. Since ML females exist in both species and are preferred over other heterospecific females, it is likely that this female type is responsible for most hybrid offspring production.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 17%
Researcher 1 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 8%
Student > Postgraduate 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 2 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 8%
Neuroscience 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 February 2020.
All research outputs
#16,057,393
of 25,387,668 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#2,697
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#263,365
of 469,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#42
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,387,668 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 469,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.