Small-male advantage in the territorial tropical butterfly Heliconius sara (Nymphalidae): A paradoxical strategy?

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 56, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 533-540

  Hernández, Malva I M ^a   Benson, Woodruff W ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; BUTTERFLY; MALE BEHAVIOR; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; TERRITORIALITY;

BRAZIL;

HELICONIUS SARA; LEPIDOPTERA; NYMPHALIDAE;

EID: 0032168221     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/anbe.1998.0840     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Alcock J. The behavioural consequences of size variation among males of the territorial waspHemipepsis ustulata. Behaviour. 71:1979;322-335.
2. Anholt B. R., Marden J. H., Jenkins D. M. Patterns of mass gain and sexual dimorphism in adult dragonflies (Insecta: Odonata). Canadian Journal of Zoology. 69:1991;1156-1163.
3. Archer J. The Behavioural Biology of Aggression. 1988;Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
4. Bartlett J., Ashworth C. M. Brood size and fitness inNicrophorus vespilloides. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 22:1988;429-434.
5. Benson W. W. Natural selection for Müllerian mimicry inHeliconius erato. Science. 176:1972;936-939.
6. Benson W. W., Haddad C. F. B., Zikán M. Territorial behavior and dominance in some heliconiine butterflies (Nymphalidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society. 43:1989;33-49.
7. Borch H., Schmid F. OnOrnithoptera priamus caelestisdemophanesboisduvali. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society. 27:1973;196-205.
8. Brower L. P., Brower J. vanZ., Collins C. T. Experimental studies on mimicry. 7. Relative palatability and Müllerian mimicry among neotropical butterflies of the subfamily Heliconiinae. Zoologica. 48:1963;65-84.
9. Brown K. S. The biology ofHeliconius. Annual Review of Entomology. 26:1981;427-456.
10. Chai P. Field observations and feeding experiments on the response of rufous-tailed jacamars (Galbula ruficauda. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 29:1986;166-189.
11. Convey P. Influences on the choice between territorial and satellite behaviour in maleLibellula quadrimaculata. Behaviour. 109:1989;125-141.
12. Crane J. Imaginal behavior in butterflies of the family Heliconiidae: changing social patterns and irrelevant actions. Zoologica. 42:1957;135-145.
13. Crespi B. J. Risks and benefits of lethal male fighting in the colonial, polygynous thripsHoplothrips karnyi. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 22:1988;293-301.
14. Darwin C. R. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. 1871;John Murray. London.
15. Davis N. B. Territorial defense in the speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria. Animal Behaviour. 26:1978;138-147.
16. Deinert E. I., Longino J. T., Gilbert L. E. Mate competition in butterflies. Nature. 370:1994;23-24.
17. Dodson G., Yeates D. The mating system of a bee fly (Diptera: Bombylidae). II. Factors affecting male territorial and mating success. Journal of Insect Behavior. 3:1990;19-636.
18. Dugatkin L. A., Biederman L. Balancing asymmetries in resource holding power and resource value in the pumpkinseed sunfish. Animal Behaviour. 42:1991;691-692.
19. Dugatkin L. A., Ohlsen S. R. Constrasting asymmetries in value expectation and resource holding power: effects on attack behaviour and dominance in the pumpkinseed sunfish,Lepomis gibbosus. Animal Behaviour. 39:1990;802-804.
20. Dunlap-Pianka H. L., Boggs C. L., Gilbert L. E. Ovarian dynamics in heliconiine butterflies: programmed senescence versus eternal youth. Science. 197:1977;487-490.
21. Eberhard W. G. Beetle horn dimorphism: making the best of a bad lot. American Naturalist. 119:1982;420-426.
22. Ehrlich A. H., Ehrlich P. R. Reproductive strategies in butterflies. I. Mating frequency, plugging, and egg number. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society. 51:1978;666-697.
23. Elgar M. A., Pierce N. E. Mating success and fecundity in an ant-tended lycaenid butterfly. Reproductive Success: Individual Variation in Contrasting Breeding Systems. 1988;University of Chicago Press. Chicago. p. 59-75.
24. Englund G., Otto C. Effects of ownership status, weight asymmetry, and case fit on the outcome of case contests in two populations ofAgrypnia pagetana. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 29:1991;113-120.
25. Enquist M., Leimar O. Evolution of fighting behaviour: the effect of variation in resource value. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 127:1987;187-205.
26. Ewald P. W. Influence of asymmetries in resource quality and age on aggression and dominance in black-chinned hummingbirds. Animal Behaviour. 33:1985;705-719.
27. Fincke O. M. Sources of variation in lifetime reproductive success in a non-territorial damselfly (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Clutton-Brock T. H. Reproductive Success: Individual Variation in Contrasting Breeding Systems. 1988;24-43 University of Chicago Press. Chicago.
28. Fincke O. M. Consequences of larval ecology for territoriality and reproductive success of a neotropical damselfly. Ecology. 73:1992;449-462.
29. Gibbs H. L., Grant P. R. Ecological consequences of an exceptionally strong El Niño event on Darwin's finches. Ecology. 68:1987;1735-1746.
30. Gilbert L. E. Ecological consequences of a coevolved mutualism between butterflies and plants. Gilbert L. E., Raven P. R. Coevolution of Animals and Plants. 1975;210-240 University of Texas Press. Austin.
31. Gilbert L. E., Singer M. C. Butterfly ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 6:1975;365-397.
32. Grafen A. The logic of divisively asymmetric contests: respect for ownership and the desperado effect. Animal Behaviour. 35:1987;462-467.
33. Gribbin S. D., Thompson D. J. The effects of size and residency on territorial disputes and short-term mating success in the damselflyPyrrhosoma nymphula. Animal Behaviour. 41:1991;689-695.
34. Hammerstein P. The role of asymmetries in animal contests. Animal Behaviour. 29:1981;193-205.
35. Hammerstein P., Parker G. A. The asymmetric war of attrition. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 96:1982;647-682.
36. Hildrew A. G., Townsend C. R. Aggregation, interference and foraging by larvae ofPlectrocnemia conspersa. Animal Behaviour. 28:1980;553-560.
37. Holdridge L. Life Zone Ecology. 2nd edn. 1967;Tropical Science Center. San José
38. Keeley E. R., Grant J. W. A. Asymmetries in the expected value of food do not predict the outcome of contests between convict cichlids. Animal Behaviour. 45:1993;1035-1037.
39. Lederhouse R. C. Territorial defense and lek behavior of the black swallowtail butterfly,Papilio polyxenes. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 10:1982;109-118.
40. McLachlan J. J., Allan D. F. Male mating success in Diptera: advantages of small size. Oikos. 48:1987;11-14.
41. McLachlan J. J., Cant M. Small males are more symmetrical: mating success in the midgeChironomus plumosus. Animal Behaviour. 50:1995;841-846.
42. McLain D. K. Host plant density and territorial behavior of the seed bug,Neacoryphus bicrucis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 14:1984;181-187.
43. Marden J. H. Bodybuilding in dragonflies: costs and benefits of maximizing flight muscle. Physiological Zoology. 62:1989;505-521.
44. Maynard Smith J. The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflicts. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 47:1974;209-221.
45. Maynard Smith J., Parker G. A. The logic of asymmetric contest. Animal Behaviour. 24:1976;159-175.
46. Moore A. J. The evolution of sexual dimorphism by sexual selection: the separate effects of intrasexual selection and intersexual selection. Evolution. 44:1990;315-333.
47. Neems R. M., McLachlan J. J., Chambers R. Body size and lifetime mating success of male midges (Diptera: Chironomidae). Animal Behaviour. 40:1990;648-652.
48. Otronen M. Male contests for territories and females in the flyDyromyza anilis. Animal Behaviour. 32:1984;891-898.
49. Papageorgis C. Mimicry in neotropical butterflies. American Scientist. 63:1975;522-532.
50. Parker G. A. Evolution of competitive mate searching. Annual Review of Entomology. 23:1978;173-196.
51. Parker, G. A. 1982, Phenotype-limited evolutionarily stable strategies. In, Current Problems in Sociobiology, King's College Sociobiology Group, 173, 201, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
52. Parker G. A. Evolutionary stable strategies. Krebs J. R., Davies N. B. Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. 1984;30-61 Blackwell. Oxford.
53. Parker G. A., Rubenstein D. I. Role assessment, reserve strategy, and acquisition of information in asymmetric animal conflicts. Animal Behaviour. 29:1981;221-240.
54. Petrie M. Female moorhens compete for small fat males. Science. 220:1983;413-415.
55. Pliske T. E. Factors determining mating frequencies in some New World butterflies and skippers. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 66:1973;164-169.
56. Polak M. Competition for landmark territories among malePolistes canadensis. Behavioral Ecology. 4:1993;25-351.
57. Rohlf F. J., Sokal R. R. Statistical Tables. 3rd edn. 1995;W. H. Freeman. San Francisco.
58. Rosenberg R. H., Enquist M. Contest behaviour in Weidemeyer's admiral butterflyLimenitis weidemeyerii. Animal Behaviour. 42:1991;805-811.
59. Sigurjónsdóttir H., Parker G. A. Dung fly struggles: evidence for assessment strategy. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 8:1981;219-230.
60. Silbaugh J. M., Ewald P. W. Effects of unit payoff asymmetries on aggression and dominance in meadow voles,Microtus pennsylvanicus. Animal Behaviour. 35:1987;606-608.
61. Sokal R. R., Rohlf F. J. Biometry. 3rd edn. 1995;W. H. Freeman. San Francisco.
62. Thornhill R., Alcock J. The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems. 1983;Harvard University Press. Cambridge.
63. Turner J. R. G. Adaptation and evolution inHeliconius. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 12:1981;99-121.
64. Vane-Wright R. I., Ackery P. R. The Biology of Butterflies. 1984;Academic Press. London.
65. Villalobos E. M., Shelly T. E. Correlates of male mating success in two species ofAnthidium. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 29:1991;47-53.
66. Whitham T. G. Territorial behaviour inPemphigus. Nature. 279:1979;324-325.
67. Wickman P.-O. Territorial defense and mating success in males of the small heath butterfly,Coenonympha pamphilus. Animal Behaviour. 33:1985;1162-1168.
68. Wickman P.-O. Courtship solicitation by females of the small heath butterfly,Coenonympha pamphilus. Animal Behaviour. 34:1986;153-157.
69. Wickman P.-O. Dynamics of mate-searching behaviour in a hilltopping butterfly,Lasiommata megere. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 93:1988;357-377.
70. Wickman P.-O., Wicklund C. Territorial defense and its seasonal decline in the speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria. Animal Behaviour. 31:1983;1206-1216.
71. Wickman P.-O., Garcia-Barros E., Rappe-George C. The location of landmark leks in the small heath butterfly,Coenonympha pamphilus. Behavioral Ecology. 6:1995;39-45.
72. Wilkinson L. SYSTAT: The System for Statistics. 1990;SYSTAT. Evanston.
73. Zamudio K. R., Huey R. B., Crill W. D. Bigger isn't always better: body size, developmental and parental temperature and male territorial success inDrosophila melanogaster. Animal Behaviour. 49:1995;671-677.