Ticking Biological Clock Drives Female Cockroaches to Lower Standards

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

When it comes to reproduction, human females aren't the only ones to hear the tick-tock of their biological clocks. According to a report published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, aging female cockroaches face similar pressure. In response, the study shows, female roaches beyond optimal mating age lower their standards, demanding far less courtship from suitors than younger counterparts.

A popular model of mate choice holds that females should choose mates based on their own reproductive quality. In other words, dishy females in their prime should hold out for the most desirable males, whereas females of low reproductive quality must be less discriminating. This theory, study authors Patricia J. Moore and Allen J. Moore of the University of Manchester note, considers reproductive quality as an intrinsic value of the female. But what happens when a female's reproductive quality changes over time?

To address the question, the Moores studied Nauphoeta cinerea, a cockroach that, like humans, has reproductive cycles and gives live birth. The scientists measured female choosiness by the amount of wooing required from males before mating. Their findings fit neatly with predictions: older females, which have decreased reproductive potential owing to age-related changes in their reproductive systems, were less selective than younger females. "As females age past an optimal breeding period, the cost of mating preferences increased rapidly if preferences delayed mating," the authors conclude.


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.


Males, in contrast, did not exhibit changes in their courtship and mating behavior as a function of female age. "Under our experimental conditions, perhaps males were unable to assess female age and reproductive quality," the researchers write, "or that the cost of passing up even a poor mating opportunity was greater than the investment in time and sperm production." Or they just weren't that picky.

Kate Wong is an award-winning science writer and senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she has focused on evolution, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology and animal behavior. She is fascinated by human origins, which she has covered for nearly 30 years. Recently she has become obsessed with birds. Her reporting has taken her to caves in France and Croatia that Neandertals once called home to the shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana in search of the oldest stone tools in the world, as well as to Madagascar on an expedition to unearth ancient mammals and dinosaurs, the icy waters of Antarctica, where humpback whales feast on krill, and a “Big Day” race around the state of Connecticut to find as many bird species as possible in 24 hours. Wong is co-author, with Donald Johanson, of Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins. She holds a bachelor of science degree in biological anthropology and zoology from the University of Michigan. Follow her on Bluesky @katewong.bsky.social

More by Kate Wong

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