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."

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe