Paternal care enhances male reproductive success in pine engraver beetles

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 56, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 595-602

  Robertson, Ian C ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEETLE; MALE BEHAVIOR; PARENTAL CARE; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS;

COLEOPTERA; INVERTEBRATA; IPS PINI; SCOLYTIDAE; SCOLYTINAE;

EID: 0032167865     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/anbe.1998.0816     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Anderbrant O., Lofqvist J. Relation between first and second brood production in the bark beetleIps typographus. Oikos. 53:1988;357-365.
2. Anderbrant O., Schlyter F. Causes and effects of individual quality in bark beetles. Holarctic Ecology. 12:1989;488-493.
3. Anderbrant O., Schlyter F., Birgersson G. Intraspecific competition affecting parents and offspring in the bark beetleIps typographus. Oikos. 45:1985;89-98.
4. Andersson M. Sexual Selection. 1994;Princeton University Press. Princeton.
5. Armstrong T., Robertson R. J. Parental investment based on clutch value: nest desertion in response to partial clutch loss in dabbling ducks. Animal Behaviour. 36:1988;941-943.
6. Beaver R. A. Intraspecific competition among bark beetle larvae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Journal of Animal Ecology. 43:1974;455-467.
7. Beissinger S. R., Snyder N. F. R. Mate desertion in the snail kite. Animal Behaviour. 35:1987;477-487.
8. Berryman A. A. Population dynamics of bark beetles. Bark Beetles in North American Conifers. A System for the Study of Evolutionary Biology. 1982;University of Texas Press. Austin. p. 264-314.
9. Birgersson G., Schlyter F., Bergström G., Löfqvist J. Individual variation in aggregation pheromone content of the bark beetleIps typographus. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 14:1988;1737-1761.
10. Botterweg P. F. Dispersal and flight behaviour of the spruce bark beetleIps typographus. Zeitschrift fuer Angewandt Entomologie. 94:1982;466-489.
11. Buchner, A. Faul, F. Erdfelder, E. 1992, GPOWER: A Priori-, Post hoc- and Compromise power Analyses for the Macintosh (Computer program). Bonn, Germany, Bonn University.
12. Burley N. The differential-allocation hypothesis: an experimental test. American Naturalist. 132:1988;611-628.
13. Clemens W. A. The pine bark beetle. Cornell University Agricultural Station Bulletin. 383:1916;287-298.
14. Clutton Brock T. H. The Evolution of Parental Care. 1991;Princeton University Press. Princeton.
15. Cohen J. Statistical power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. 2nd edn. 1988;L. Erlbaum. Hillsdale.
16. Coulson R. N., Fargo W. S., Pulley P. E., Foltz J. L., Pope D. N., Richerson J. V., Paine T. L. Evaluation of the re-emergence process of parent adultDendroctonus frontalis. Canadian Entomologist. 110:1978;475-486.
17. Eggert A.-K., Müller J. K. Biparental care and social evolution in burying beetles: lessons from the larder. Choe J. C., Crespi B. J. The Evolution of Social Behavior in Insects and Arachnids. 1997;216-236 Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
18. Erdfelder E., Faul F., Buchner A. GPOWER: a general power analysis program. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruction and Comparisons. 28:1996;1-11.
19. Halffter G., Lopez G. Development of the ovary and mating behavior inPhanaeus. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 70:1977;203-213.
20. Johnsen A., Lifjeld J. T., Rohde P. A. Coloured leg bands affect male mate guarding behaviour in the bluethroat. Animal Behaviour. 54:1997;121-130.
21. Keenleyside M. H. A. Mate desertion in relation to adult sex ratio in the biparental cichlid fishHerotilapia multispinosa. Animal Behaviour. 31:1983;683-688.
22. Kirkendall L. R. Within-harem competition amongIps. Holarctic Ecology. 12:1989;477-487.
23. Kirkendall L. R., Kent D. S., Raffa K. F. Interactions among males, females and offspring in bark and ambrosia beetles: the significance of living in tunnels for the evolution of social behavior. Choe J. C., Crespi B. J. The Evolution of Social Behavior in Insects and Arachnids. 1997;181-215 Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
24. Langor D. W., Raske A. G. Emergence, host attack, and overwintering behavior of the eastern larch beetle,Dendroctonus simplex. Canadian Entomologist. 119:1987;975-983.
25. Light D. M., Birch M. C., Paine T. D. Laboratory study of intraspecific and interspecific competition within and between two sympatric bark beetle species,Ips piniI. paraconfusus. Zeitschrift fuer Angewandt Entomologie. 96:1983;233-241.
26. Lissemore F. M. Frass clearing by male pine engraver beetles (Ips pini. Behavioral Ecology. 8:1997;318-325.
27. Maynard Smith J. Parental investment: a prospective analysis. Animal Behaviour. 25:1977;1-9.
28. Reid, M. L. 1992, Female mate choice and male parental care in a bark beetle, Ips pini (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.
29. Reid M. L., Roitberg B. D. Benefits of prolonged male residence with mates and brood in pine engravers (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Oikos. 70:1994;140-148.
30. Reid M. L., Roitberg B. D. Effects of body size on investment in individual broods by male pine engravers (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology. 73:1995;1396-1401.
31. Reid M. L., Stamps J. Female mate choice tactics in a resource-based mating system: field tests of alternative models. American Naturalist. 150:1997;98-121.
32. Rice W. R. Analysing tables of statistical tests. Evolution. 43:1989;74-80.
33. Ridley M. Paternal care. Animal Behaviour. 26:1978;904-932.
34. Robertson I. C. Nest intrusions, infanticide, and parental care in the burying beetle,Nicrophorus orbicollis. Journal of Zoology. 231:1993;583-593.
35. Robertson I. C. Flight muscle changes in male pine engraver beetles during reproduction: the effects of body size, mating status, and breeding failure. Physiological Entomology. 23:1998;75-80.
36. Safranyik L. Size- and sex-related emergence, and survival in cold storage, of mountain pine beetles. Canadian Entomologist. 108:1976;209-212.
37. Schmitz R. F. Behavior ofIps pini. Canadian Entomologist. 104:1972;1723-1728.
38. Scott M. P., Traniello J. F. A. Behavioural and ecological correlates of male and female parental care and reproductive success in burying beetles (Nicrophorus. Animal Behaviour. 39:1990;274-283.
39. Tallamy D. W. Nourishment and the evolution of paternal investment in arthropods. Hunt J. H., Nalepa C. A. Nourishment and the Evolution of Insect Societies. 1994;21-55 Westview Press. Boulder.
40. Tallamy D. W., Wood R. F. Convergence patterns in subsocial insects. Annual Review of Entomology. 31:1986;369-390.
41. Thomas J. B. The life history ofIps pini. Canadian Entomologist. 93:1961;384-390.
42. Trivers R. L. Parental investment and sexual selection. Campbell. Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871-1971. 1972;136-179 Aldine. Chicago.
43. Vité J. P., Bakke A., Renwick J. A. A. Pheromone inIps. Canadian Entomologist. 104:1972;1967-1975.
44. Williams G. C. Adaptation and Natural Selection. 1966;Princeton University Press. Princeton.
45. Wisenden B. D. Factors affecting mate desertion by males in free-ranging convict cichlids (Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum. Behavioral Ecology. 5:1994;439-447.
46. Zeh D. W., Smith R. L. Paternal investment by terrestrial arthropods. American Zoologist. 25:1985;785-805.