Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:17:56.652Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some observations on the reproductive behaviour of Acanthoplus speiseri Brancsik (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae: Hetrodinae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

K. J. Mbata
K. J. Mbata
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Zambia, P. O. Box 32379, Lusaka, Zambia
Get access

Abstract

Observations on the reproductive behaviour of the armoured ground cricket, Acanthoplus speiseri Brancsik were made in the laboratory and field. In the field a male ready to mate attracted both receptive females and mature “silent males” by stridulating. A receptive female moved to the stridulating male and upon reaching it courtship begun. Silent males also moved towards the stridulating male, but stopped at a mean distance of 1.07 ± 0.14 m from him and either seduced females that passed their way to the stridulating male, to copulate with them, or joined the stridulating male singing. Chorusing of the calling song involving more than two males was not uncommon in both the field and laboratory.

Due to stiff competition for mates in the environmental chamber in the laboratory male A. speiseri combined acoustic and substrate signals to attract receptive females. The male ground crickets vibrated their appendages, while they stridulated. Substrate signalling through body/appendage vibration or tremulation is here being reported for the first time in the tettigoniid subfamily Hetrodinae, to which A. speiseri belongs. The courtship behaviour, orientations of members of a copulating pair relative to each other, copulation, spermatophore transfer from the male to the female during copulation and oviposition and postoviposition behaviours of the species are described. Finally, the differences in the reproductive behaviour of A. speiseri in the field and laboratory are discussed.

Résumé

Les observations sur le comportement reproductif du criquet de sol à armure, Acanthoplus speiseri Brancsik étaient faites dans la laboratoire et dans la nature. Dans la nature un mâle prêt à s'accoupler attira par une stridulation, des femelles receptives aussi bien que des adultes “mâle silencieux”. Une femelle réceptive se déplaca vers la mâle stridulant et lorsqui elle l'atteignit, le processus de séduisement commenca. Des mâles silencieux se deplacèrent aussi vers la mâle qui stridulait mais stoppèrent 1.07 ± 0.14 m de lui et séduisaient les femelles en chemin vers le mâle stridulant pour s'accoupler avec elles ou bien ils joignaient le mâle stridulant dans la chanson. La chanson d'appel chantée ensemble par plus de deux mâle était commune dans la nature aussi bien que dans le laboratoire.

A cause de la grande compétition pour un partenoire dans la chambre d'environement du laboratoire, le mâle A. speiseri combinait les signaux acoustiques et ceux des vibrations de la base ou l'insecte est perché pour attirer les femelles réceptives. Les mâle vibraient, leur appendices en même temps qu'ils stridulaient. La vibration de la base où l'insecte est perché par le tremblement du corps ou des appendices comme signalisation séductive est rapportée ici pour la première fois dans le sous-embranchement Hetrodinae des Tettigonoides à laquelle A. speiseri appartient. Le comportement séductif, la position copulatoire des corps des partenaires, la copulation, le transport du spermatophore du mâle à la femelle, le comportement durant et après la déposition des oeufs de A. speiseri dans la nature aussi bien que dans le laboratoire sout considérés.

Keywords

Acanthoplus speiseriarmoured ground cricketcourtship behaviouroviposition behaviourpostoviposition behaviourreproductive behaviour
Type
Research Articles
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , February 1992 , pp. 19 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1992

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, R. D. (1957) Sound production and associated behaviour in insects. Ohio J. Sci. 52, 101–113.Google Scholar
Alexander, R. D. (1967) Acoustical communication in Arthropods. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 12, 495–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browning, F. R. (1947) Observations on the habits and oviposition of Tettigonia viridissima L. (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae). Entomol. Mon. Mag., London, 83, 281–283.Google Scholar
Grzeschik, K. H. (1969) On the systematics, biology and ethology of Eugaster Serv. Form et Functio 1, 46–110.Google Scholar
Hartley, J. C. (1967) Laboratory culture of a tettigoniid, Homorocoryphus nitidulus vicinus (Wlk.) (Orthoptera). Bull. Entomol. Res. 57, 203–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leroy, Y. (1967) Quelques aspects de la reproduction des Tettigonioidea de Trinidad (Orthoptera). A. Soc. Entomol. France 5, 775–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mbata, K. J. (1991a) Spatial dispersion patterns of the armoured ground cricket, Acanthoplus speiseri Brancsik at the University of Zambia Campus (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae, Hetrodinae). Insect Sci. Applic. 12, 409–417.Google Scholar
Mbata, K. J. (1991b) Plant associations and rates of population interchange between two food plant areas of Acanthoplus speiseri Brancsik (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae, Hetrodinae). Insect Sci. Applic. 12, 401–408.Google Scholar
Morris, G. K. (1980) Calling display and mating behaviour of Copiphora rhinoceros Pictet (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Anim. Beh. 28, 42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, G. K. and Fullard, J. H. (1983) Random noise and congeneric discrimination in Conocephalus (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). In Orthopteran Mating Systems: Sexual Competition in a Diverse Group of Insects (Edited by Gwynne, D. T. and Morris, G. K.) Westview Press, Boulder Colorado, USA.Google Scholar
Nielsen, E.T. and Dreisig, H. (1970) The behaviour of stridulation in Orthoptera ensifera. Behaviour 37, 205–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, J. H. (1958) On the biology of canthoplus bechuanus Per. (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae). J. Entomol. Soc. S. Afr. 21, 376–252.Google Scholar
Scholtz, C. H. and Holm, E. (1989) Insects of Southern Africa. Butterworths, Durban, S. Africa.Google Scholar
Shaw, K. C. (1968) An analysis of the phonoresponse of males of the true Katydid, Pterophylla camellifolia (Fabricius) (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae). Behaviour 31, 203–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spooner, J. D. (1964) The Texas bush Katydid — its sounds and their significance. Anim. Behav. 12, 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spooner, J. D. (1968) Pair-forming acoustical systems of phaneropterine Katydids (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae). Amer. Zool. 8, 743 (Abstract).Google Scholar
Taylor, L. R. (1984) Assessing and interpreting the spatial distributions of insect populations. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 29, 321–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uvarov, B. Sir (1977) Grasshoppers and Locusts, a Handbook of General Acridology. Vol. 2. University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Walter, W. E. (1959) A quantitative measure of aggregation in insects. J. econ. Entomol. 52, 1180–1184.Google Scholar
Whitesell, J. J. and Walker, T. J. (1978) Photoperiodically determined dimorphic calling songs in a Katydid. Nature (London), 5674, 887–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
William, C. H. and Wyatt, D. R. (1984) Factors affecting calling behaviour in field crickets, Teleogryllus and Gryllus (Age, weight, density, and parasites). Behaviour 88, 61–75.Google Scholar