Assortative pairing with respect to parasite load in the beetle Timarcha maritima (Chrysomalidae)

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 385-390

  Thomas, F ^a   Oget, E ^a   Gente, P ^a   Desmots, D ^a   Renaud, F ^a  

^a UNIV MONTPELLIER   (France)

Author keywords

Assortative mating; Chrysomelidae; Gregarina munieri; Parasitism; Sexual selection; Timarcha maritima

Indexed keywords

BEETLE; MATE CHOICE; PARASITE; REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR;

CHRYSOMELIDAE; COLEOPTERA; TIMARCHA MARITIMA;

EID: 0033006421     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1420-9101.1999.00042.x     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Abro, A. 1971. Gregarines: their effects on damselflies. Ent. Scandiv. 2: 294-300.
2. Borgia, G. & Collis, K. 1989. Female choice for parasite-free male satin bowerbird (Ptilorhynchus violaceus). Am. Zool. 30: 279-286.
3. Brown, W.D. 1993. The cause of size-assortative mating in the leaf beetle Trirhabda canadensis (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 33: 151-157.
4. Chevin, H. 1992. Contribution la biologie des Timarcha (col. Chrysomelidae). L'entomologiste 33: 133-141.
5. Crespi, B.J. 1989. Causes of assortative mating in arthropods. Anim. Behav. 38: 980-1000.
6. Dickinson, J.L. 1992. Scramble competition polygyny in the milkweed leaf beetle: combat, mobility, and the importance of being there. Behav. Ecol. 3: 32-41.
7. Edwards, J.C. & Barnard, C.J. 1987. The effects of Trichinella infection on inter-sexual interactions between mice. Anim. Behav. 35: 533-540.
8. Gillot, C. 1995. Entomology, 2nd edn. Plenum Press, New York.
9. Harry, O.G. 1970. Gregarines: their effect on the growth of the desert locust (Schistocerca gregaria). Nature 225: 964-966.
10. Johnson, K. & Marzluff, J.M. 1990. Some problems and approaches in avian mate choice. Auk 107: 296-304.
11. Kasuya, E. 1985. Size-disassortative mating in the chrysomelid beetle Chrysolina aurichalcea (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Evolution 39: 705-707.
12. Manly, B.F.J. 1991. Randomization and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology. Chapman & Hall, London.
13. McCauley, D.E. & Wade, M.J. 1978. Female choice and the mating structure of a natural population of the soldier beetle, Chauliognathus pennsylvanicus. Evolution 32: 771-775.
14. McLain, D.K. & Boromisa, R.D. 1987. Male choice, fighting ability, assortative mating and the intensity of sexual selection in the milkweed longhorn beetle, Tetraopes tetraophthalmus (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 20: 239-246.
15. McLennan, D.A. & Shires, V.L. 1995. Correlation between the level of infection with Bunodera inconstans and Neoechinorhynchus rutili and behavioural intensity in female brook sticklebacks. J. Parasitol. 81: 675-682.
16. Merilä, J. & Bjorklund, M. 1995. Fluctuating asymmetry and measurement error. Syst. Biol. 44: 97-101.
17. Milinski, M. & Bakker, T.C.M. 1990. Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males. Nature 344: 330-333.
18. Møller, A.P. 1991. Parasites, sexual ornaments, and mate choice in the barn swallow. In: Bird-Parasite Interactions. Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour (J. E. Loye & M. Zuk, eds), pp. 328-343. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
19. Møller, A.P. 1994. Sexual Selection and the Barn Swallow. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
20. NAG. 1986. The GLIM System Release 3.77 Manual. Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd, Oxford.
21. Poulin, R. 1994. Mate choice decisions by parasitized female upland bullies, Gobiomorphus breviceps. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 256: 183-187.
22. Poulin, R. & Vickery, W.L. 1996. Parasite-mediated sexual selection: just how choosy are parasitized females? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 38: 43-49.
23. Read, A.F. 1988. Sexual selection and the role of parasites. Trends Ecol. Evol. 3: 97-102.
24. Rosenqvist, G. & Johansson, K. 1995. Male avoidance of parasitized females explained by direct benefits in a pipefish. Anim. Behav. 49: 1039-1045.
25. Simmons, L.W. 1993. Some constraints on reproduction for male bushcrickets, Requena verticalis (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae): diet, size and parasite load. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 32: 135-140.
26. Simmons, L.W. 1994. Courtship role reversal in bush crickets: another role for parasites? Behav. Ecol. 5: 259-266.
27. Simmons, L.W. & Zuk, M. 1992. Variability in call structure and pairing success of male field crickets, Gryllus bimaculatus: the effects of age, size and parasite load. Anim. Behav. 44: 1145-1152.
28. Thomas, F., Renaud, F. & Cézilly, F. 1996. Assortative pairing by parasitic prevalence in Gammarus insensibilis (Amphipoda): patterns and processes. Anim. Behav. 52: 683-690.
29. Thomas, F., Renaud, F., Derothe, J.M., Lambert, A., DeMeeus, T. & Cézilly, F. 1995. Assortative pairing in Gammarus insensibilis (Amphipoda) infected by a trematode parasite. Oecologia 104: 259-264.
30. Zuk, M. 1987a. The effects of gregarine parasites on longevity, weight loss, fecundity and developmental time in the field crickets Gryllus veletis and G. Pennsylvanicus. Ecol. Entomol. 12: 349-354.
31. Zuk, M. 1987b. The effects of gregarine parasites, body size, and time of day on spermatophore production and sexual selection in field crickets. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 21: 65-72.
32. Zuk, M. 1988. Parasite load, body size, and age of wild-caught male field crickets (Orthoptera: gryllidae): effects on sexual selection. Evolution 42: 969-976.
33. Zuk, M. 1992. The role of parasites in sexual selection: current evidence and future directions. Adv. Stud. Behav. 21: 39-68.