New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Cricket Courting Can Be a Deadly Deed

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Playing the field can be deadly, at least for crickets. Research published today in the journal Nature indicates that well-fed casanova crickets spend so much energy on mating calls to court female partners that they die sooner than malnourished males do.

John Hunt of the University of New South Wales in Australia and his colleagues observed two groups of field crickets. One group ate a restrictive, low-protein diet whereas the other dined on protein-rich foods. The researchers monitored the creatures' size, mating behavior and how long they lived. For female crickets, those fed a robust diet lived longer than did their protein-starved counterparts. This pattern did not hold for the males, however. Instead, the well-fed males used their extra energy to woo female partners by calling more extensively during early adulthood and experienced shortened life spans as a result. "They literally knocked themselves out trying to impress female crickets," says study co-author Luc F. Bussiere, also at the University of New South Wales.

The findings demonstrate that the best reproductive strategy in the animal kingdom does not always coincide with living a long life. What is more, long-lived males are not necessarily those in the best condition, which indicates that longevity is not always a reliable measure of male quality. "One thing that consistently prolongs life span in a range of species is a restricted diet," remarks co-author Rob Brooks of the University of New South Wales. "Now we know a bit more about how this occurs in male crickets--by suppressing sexual advertisement."

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe