Cepero's groundhopper

The question of the little-known habitat of T. ceperoi has come into greater study recently. Hochkirch et al. observed the reproductive interference between T. ceperoi and T. subulata, a neighbor and closely related species. Often two species that are very similar and share similar habitats are able to coexist, but do so at the cost of one species eventually being displaced by the interaction and experience lower fitness. Before one is displaced, the two species can go through intense competition. Two different ways animals can experience competition could be resource competition and reproductive competition. Resource competition could consist of fighting for food or territorial locations strategically safe from harm whether that be from predators or weather. Reproductive competition is the result of similar species exhibiting similar mating and courting systems. T. ceperoi shares some common territory with T. subulata because of common habitat requirements, however they do not "co-occur locally". Experiments were conducted by based on the mechanisms of coexistence to better understand the interaction because previous "in lab" and "in the wild" experiments disagreed. This study had four primary ways of attacking the question of how reproductive interference was handled. First, they studied wild ground hoppers in order to understand the magnitude and sexual interaction of species in the wild. Second, they analyzed if the species used different micro habitats, which was important because it could lead to "segregation on a micro-scale". Third, they mapped where and in what amounts each species was present in relation to food sources in order to see if there was any type of segregation or aggregation. Lastly, they experimentally changed the different habitats in order to see if the spatial distribution was a reflection of the "micro-habitat preferences". One theory of temporal segregation was able to be ruled out immediately based on the fact that both species are diurnal. If one had been nocturnal, while the other was diurnal, the temporal patterns of each species could be deemed the way reproductive interference was battled. Next, the species courting actions could be separated based on the movements of their body. T. ceperoi performed "pronotal bobbing", which is basically quick movement of the hind legs and the covering of the first thoracic segment. T. subulata on the other hand must simply swing their body both laterally and frontally, spending less energy than T. ceperoi, to mate. The study conducted in Emsland, Germany, was conducted between 10:30 and 17:00 on 116 individuals for thirty-minute increments. Results showed that males, who are inclined to court anything that is about their size and moves, more often attempted to court females. However, the females that were the receivers of the attention were not limited to the species of the male, indicating heterospecific interactions. Furthermore from the female standpoint, T. ceperoi females fought off heterospecific interactions more than T. subulata, who performed defensive maneuvers equally towards heterospecific interactions as well as conspecific. Microhabitat preference analysis results yielded T. subulata enjoyed taller vegetation areas with more ground cover than T. ceperoi. This is important because Hochkirch et al. believe although resource and reproductive competition play a huge role in the interspecies interaction, the costs can be offset by different habitat factors such as segregative mechanisms, dilution effects, and life history effects. In accordance with Wertheim et al., the results showed coexistence can be explained by intraspecific aggregations despite the presence or absence of unequally distributed resources. Lastly, the group was able to determine the reason for difference between testing done in the lab versus testing done in the wild could most likely be accredited with the increased number of forced heterospecific interactions due to small arenas in the lab testing. This conclusion further indicated that reproductive interference is density dependent, which was in accordance with previous studies.