Bet-hedging and the evolution of multiple mating

Evolutionary Ecology Research

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 273-286

  Fox, Charles W ^a   Rauter, Claudia M ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT OMAHA   (United States)

Author keywords

Bet hedging; Genetic benefits; Geometric mean fitness; Lygaeus kalmii; Multiple mating; Polyandry

Indexed keywords

ASCLEPIAS; HEXAPODA; INSECTA; LYGAEUS; LYGAEUS KALMII; ONCOPELTUS FASCIATUS;

EID: 0347456196     PISSN: 15220613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Arnqvist, G. and Nilsson, T. 2000. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim. Behav., 60: 145-164.
2. Baer, B. and Schmid-Hempel, P. 2001. Unexpected consequences of polyandry for parasitism and fitness in the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris. Evolution, 55: 1639-1643.
3. Birkhead, T. and Møller, A.P. 1992. Sperm Competition in Birds: Evolutionary Causes and Consequences. New York: Academic Press.
4. Curtsinger, J.W. 1991. Sperm competition and the evolution of multiple mating. Am. Nat., 138: 93-102.
5. Evans, J.P. and Magurran, A.E. 2000. Multiple benefits to multiple mating in guppies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 97: 10074-10076.
6. Fox, C.W. 1993. The influence of maternal age and mating frequency on egg size and offspring performance in Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Oecologia, 96: 139-146.
7. Fox, C.W. and Caldwell, R.L. 1994. Host-associated fitness trade-offs do not limit the evolution of diet breadth in the small milkweed bug Lygaeus kalmii (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae). Oecologia, 97: 382-389.
8. Galimberti, F., Boitani, L. and Marzetti, I. 2000. The frequency and costs of harassment in southern elephant seals. Ethol. Ecol. Evol., 12: 345-365.
9. Gromko, M.H. 1992. Genetic correlation of male and female mating frequency - evidence from Drosophila melanogaster. Anim. Behav., 43: 176-177.
10. Halliday, T.R. and Arnold, S.J. 1987. Multiple mating by females: a perspective from quantitative genetics. Anim. Behav., 35: 939-941.
11. Hopper, K.R. 1999. Risk-spreading and bet-hedging in insect population biology. Annu. Rev. Entomol., 44: 535-560.
12. Hosken, D.J. and Blanckenhorn, W.U. 1999. Female multiple mating, inbreeding avoidance, and fitness: it is not only the magnitude of costs and benefits that counts. Behav. Ecol., 10: 462-464.
13. Jennions, M.D. and Petrie, M. 2000. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. Comb. Phil. Soc., 75: 21-64.
14. Jones, T.M. 2001. A potential cost of monandry in the lekking sandfly Lutzomyia longipalpis. J. Insect Behav., 14: 385-399.
15. Kawagoe, T., Suzuki, N. and Matsumoto, K. 2001. Multiple mating reduces longevity of females of the windmill butterfly Atrophaneura alcinous. Ecol. Entomol., 26: 258-262.
16. Lauer, M.J., Sih, A. and Krupa, J.J. 1996. Male density, female density and inter-sexual conflict in a stream-dwelling insect. Anim. Behav., 52: 929-939.
17. Ligon, J.D. and Zwartjes, P.W. 1995. Female red jungle fowl choose to mate with multiple males. Anim. Behav., 49: 127-135.
18. Loman, J., Madsen, T. and Hakansson, T. 1988. Increased fitness from multiple matings and genetic heterogeneity - a model. Oikos, 52: 69-72.
19. Lynch, M. and Walsh, B. 1998. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
20. Madsen, T., Shine, R., Loman, J. and Hakansson, T. 1992. Why do female adders copulate so frequently? Nature, 355: 440-441.
21. Newcomer, S.D., Zeh, J.A. and Zeh, D.W. 1999. Genetic benefits enhance the reproductive success of polyandrous females. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 96: 10236-10241.
22. Partridge, L., Fowler, K., Trevitt, S. and Sharp, W. 1986. An examination of the effects of males on the survival and egg-production rates of female Drosophila melanogaster. J. Insect Physiol., 32: 925-929.
23. Philippi, T. and Seger, J. 1989. Hedging one's evolutionary bets, revisited. TREE, 4: 41-44.
24. Ridley, M. 1993. Clutch size and mating frequency in parasitic Hymenoptera. Am. Nat., 142: 892-910.
25. Roff, D.A. 1997. Evolutionary Quantitative Genetics. New York: Chapman & Hall.
26. Savalli, U.M. and Fox, C.W. 1998. Sexual selection and the fitness consequences of male body size in the seed beetle, Stator limbatus. Anim. Behav., 55: 473-483.
27. Tregenza, T. and Wedell, N. 2000. Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol. Ecol., 9: 1013-1027.
28. Venables, W.N. and Ripley, B.D. 1997. Modern Applied Statistics with S-Plus. New York: Springer-Verlag.
29. Via, S. 1994. The evolution of phenotypic plasticity: what do we really know? In Ecological Genetics (L.A. Real, ed.), pp. 35-57. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30. Wagner, W.E., Kelley, R.J., Tucket, K.R. and Harper, C.J. 2001. Females receive a lifespan benefit from male ejaculates in a field cricket. Evolution, 55: 994-1001.
31. Walker, W.F. 1980. Sperm utilization strategies in nonsocial insects. Am. Nat., 115: 780-799.
32. Watson, P.J. 1991. Multiple paternity as genetic bet-hedging in female sierra dome spiders, Linyphia litigiosa (Linyphiidae). Anim. Behav., 41: 343-360.
33. Watson, P.J. 1998. Multi-male mating and female choice increase offspring growth in the spider Neriene litigiosa (Linyphiidae). Anim. Behav., 55: 387-403.
34. Wiklund, C., Karlsson, B. and Leimar, O. 2001. Sexual conflict and cooperation in butterfly reproduction: a comparative study of polyandry and female fitness. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 268: 1661-1667.
35. Yasui, Y. 1997. A 'good-sperm' model can explain the evolution of costly multiple-mating by females. Am. Nat., 149: 573-584.
36. Yasui, Y. 1998. The 'genetic benefits' of multiple mating reconsidered. TREE, 13: 246-250.
37. Yasui, Y. 2001. Female multiple mating as a genetic bet-hedging strategy when mate choice criteria are unreliable. Ecol. Res., 16: 605-616.
38. Zeh, J.A. and Zeh, D.W. 2001. Reproductive mode and the genetic benefits of polyandry. Anim. Behav., 61: 1051-1063.