Female mate choice in a subsocial beetle: Male phenotype correlates with helping potential and offspring survival

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 56, Issue 5, 1998, Pages 1213-1220

  Rasa, O Anne E ^a   Bisch, Sonia ^a   Teichner, Theresa ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEETLE; BODY SIZE; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; MATE CHOICE; PHENOTYPE;

COLEOPTERA; PARASTIZOPUS ARMATICEPS; TENEBRIONIDAE;

EID: 0032212939     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/anbe.1998.0889     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Andersson M. Sexual Selection. 1994;Princeton University Press, Princeton.
2. Ashraf M., Berryman A. A. Biology ofScolytus ventralisAbies grandis. Melanderia. 2:1969;1-22.
3. Bartlett J. Male mating success and paternal care inNecrophorus vespilloides. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 23:1988;297-303.
4. Borgia G. Mate selection in the flyScatophaga stercoraria. Animal Behaviour. 29:1981;71-80.
5. Brandmayr P. Short review of presocial evolution in Coleoptera. Ethology, Ecology and Evolution. 2:1992;7-16.
6. Brits J. A. The physiology of the defensive glands ofParastizopus armaticeps. Journal of the Entomological Society of South Africa. 44:1981;297-313.
7. Brits J. A. The anatomy and physiology of the internal adult male reproductive system ofParastizopus armaticeps. Journal of the Entomological Society of South Africa. 45:1982;239-260.
8. Crocker G., Day T. An advantage to mate choice in the seaweed fly (Coleopa frigida. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 20:1987;295-301.
9. Eggert A. K., Müller J. K. Uni- and biparental care in the burying beetleNecrophorus vespilloides. Verhandlungen der Deutschen Zoologischen Gesellschaft. 82:1989;318.
10. Engelhard G. S., Foster S. P., Day T. H. Genetic differences in mating success and female choice in seaweed flies (Coleopa frigida. Heredity. 62:1989;123-131.
11. Hein E., Rasa O. A. E., Ockenfels P. Odour profile congruity in two closely related desert tenebrionid beetles: homology as the basis for a cleptoparasitic relationship. Chemoecology. 7:1996;156-161.
12. Knowlton N., Greenwell S. R. The influence of female interests. Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Animal Mating Systems. 1984;Academic Press. London. p. 61-84.
13. Linsenmair K-E. The importance of family-specific badges for the cohesion of families in a desert woodlouseHemilepistus reaumuri. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie. 31:1972;131-162.
14. Lloyd J. E. Mating behavior and natural selection. Florida Entomologist. 62:1979;17-23.
15. McCauley D. E., Wade M. J. Female choice and the mating structure of a natural population of the soldier beetleChauliognathus pennsylvanicus. Evolution. 32:1977;771-775.
16. Mason L. G. Stabilizing selection for mating fitness in a natural population ofTetraopes. Evolution. 18:1964;492-497.
17. Milne L. J., Milne M. J. The social behavior of burying beetles. Scientific American. 235:1976;84-90.
18. Monteith G. B., Storey R. I. The biology ofCephalodes-mius. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum. 20:1981;253-271.
19. Müller J. K., Eggert A-K. Paternity assurance by 'helpful' males: adaptations to sperm competition in burying beetles. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 24:1989;245-249.
20. Partridge L. mate choice increases a component of fitness in fruit flies. Nature. 283:1980;290-291.
21. Partridge L., Ewing A., Chandler A. Male size and mating success inDrosophila melanogaster. Animal Behaviour. 35:1987;555-562.
22. Phelan P. L., Baker T. C. Male-size-related courtship success and intersexual selection in the tobacco moth,Ephestia elutella. Experientia. 42:1986;1291-1293.
23. Pukowski E. Ökologische Untersuchungen anNecrophorus. Zeitschrift für Morphologie Ökologie der Tiere. 27:1933;518-586.
24. Rasa O. A. E. Evidence for subsociality and division of labour in a desert tenebrionid beetleParastizopus armaticeps. Naturwissenschaften. 77:1990;591-592.
25. Rasa O. A. E. Behavioural adaptations to moisture as an environmental constraint in a nocturnal, burrow-inhabiting Kalahari detritivoreParastizopus armaticeps. Koedoe. 37:1994;57-66.
26. Rasa O. A. E. Interspecific association in desert tenebrionid beetles: a cleptoparasite does not affect the host's reproductive success but that of its offspring. Naturwissenschaften. 83:1996;575-577.
27. Rasa O. A. E. Female mate assessment tactics in a subsocial desert beetle: a test of Janetos' models. Ethology, Ecology and Evolution. 9:1997a;233-240.
28. Rasa O. A. E. Aggregation in a desert tenebrionid beetle: a cost/benefit analysis. Ethology. 103:1997b;466-487.
29. Rasa O. A. E. Biparental investment and reproductive success in a subsocial desert beetle: the role of maternal effort. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 43:1998;105-113.
30. 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.
31. Scheiring M. D. Assortative mating in soldier beetles,Tetraopes. Evolution. 32:1977;771-775.
32. Schuster J. C., Schuster L. B. Social behaviour in passalid beetles (Coleoptera:Passalidae): cooperative brood care. Florida Entomologist. 68:1985;266-272.
33. Scott M. P. Male parental care and reproductive success in the burying beetleNicrophorus orbicollis. Journal of Insect Behavior. 2:1989;133-137.
34. Scott M. P. Brood guarding and the evolution of male parental care in burying beetles. Behavioral Ecology and Socio-biology. 26:1990;31-39.
35. Siegel S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 1956;McGraw-Hill. New York.
36. Sigurjonsdottir H., Parker G. A. Dung fly struggles: evidence for an assessment strategy. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 8:1981;219-230.
37. Simmons L. W. Female choice in the field cricketGryllus bimaculatus. Animal Behaviour. 34:1986;1463-1470.
38. Simmons L. W. Female choice contributes to offspring fitness in the field cricket,Gryllus bimaculatus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 21:1987;313-322.
39. Sokal R. R., Rohlf F. J. Biometry. 3rd edn. 1995;W.H. Freeman. New York.
40. Smith R. L. Repeated copulation and sperm precedence:paternity assurance for a male brooding water bug. Science. 205:1979;1029-1031.
41. Tallamy D. W. Insect parental care. BioScience. 34:1984;20-24.
42. Taylor C. E., Pereda A. D., Ferrari J. A. On the corre-lation between mating success and offspring quality inDrosophila melanogaster. American Nauralist. 129:1987;721-729.
43. Thornhill R. Sexual selection and nuptual feeding behaviour inBittacus apicalis. American Naturalist. 110:1976;529-548.
44. Thornhill R. Mate choice inHylobittacus apicalis. Evolution. 34:1980;519-538.
45. Thornhill R., Alcock J. The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems. 1983;Harvard University Press. Cambridge.
46. Trivers R. Parental investment and sexual selection. Campbell B. Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man. 1972;139-179 Aldine Press. Chicago.
47. Wickman P.-O., Karlsson B. Abdomen size, body size and reproductive success in insects. Oikos. 56:1989;209-214.
48. Zeh D. W. Paternal investment by terrestrial arthropods. American Zoologist. 25:1985;785-805.