Females benefit from mating with different males in the scorpionfly Panorpa cognata

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 435-440

  Engqvist, Leif ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Egg hatching success; Genetic incompatibility; Mecoptera; Polyandry; Sperm limitation

Indexed keywords

EGG; FLY; HATCHING; MATING BEHAVIOR; NUPTIAL GIFT; POLYANDRY;

MECOPTERA; PANORPA COGNATA;

EID: 33645714565     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arj046     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Andersson M, 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
2. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T, 2000. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav 60:145-164.
3. Bateman AJ, 1948. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349-368.
4. Bernasconi G, Keller L, 2001. Female polyandry affects their sons' reproductive success in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum. J Evol Biol 14:186-193.
5. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (eds). 1998. Sperm competition and sexual selection. San Diego: Academic Press.
6. Bishop JDD, Jones CS, Noble LR, 1996. Female control of paternity in the internally fertilizing compound ascidian Diplosoma listerianum. 2. Investigation of male mating success using RAPD markers. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:401-407.
7. Bretman A, Wedell N, Tregenza T, 2004. Molecular evidence of post-copulatory inbreeding avoidance in the field cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:159-164.
8. Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L, 2003. Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol 18:41-47.
9. Colegrave N, Kotiaho JS, Tomkins JL, 2002. Mate choice or polyandry reconciling genetic compatibility and good genes sexual selection. Evol Ecol Res 4:911-917.
10. Cunningham EJA, Russell AF, 2000. Egg investment is influenced by male attractiveness in the mallard. Nature 404:74-77.
11. Dunn DW, Sumner JP, Goulson D, 2005. The benefits of multiple mating to female seaweed flies, Coelopa frigida (Diptera: Coelpidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:128-135.
12. Eady PE, Wilson N, Jackson M, 2000. Copulating with multiple mates enhances female fecundity but not egg-to-adult survival in the bruchid beetle Callosobruchus maculatus. Evolution 54:2161-2165.
13. Eberhard WG, 1996. Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
14. Engqvist L, Sauer KP, 2003a. Determinants of sperm transfer in the scorpionfly Panorpa cognata: male variation, female condition and copulation duration. J Evol Biol 16:1196-1204.
15. Engqvist L, Sauer KP, 2003b. Influence of nutrition on courtship and mating behaviour in the scorpionfly Panorpa cognata. Ethology 109:911-928.
16. Evans JP, Marshall DJ, 2005. Male-by-female interactions influence fertilization success and mediate the benefits of polyandry in the sea urchin Heliocidaris erythrogramma. Evolution 59:106-112.
17. Fedorka KM, Mousseau TA, 2002. Material and genetic benefits of female multiple mating and polyandry. Anim Behav 64:361-367.
18. Fisher RA, 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
19. Foerster K, Delhey K, Johnsen A, Lifjeld JT, Kempenaers B, 2003. Females increase offspring heterozygosity and fitness through extra-pair matings. Nature 425:714-717.
20. Fox CW, Rauter CM, 2003. Bet-hedging and the evolution of multiple mating. Evol Ecol Res 5:273-286.
21. Garcia-Gonzalez F, Simmons LW, 2005. The evolution of polyandry: intrinsic sire effects contribute to embryo viability. J Evol Biol 18:1097-1103.
22. Garner TWJ, Schmidt BR, 2003. Relatedness, body size and paternity in the alpine newt, Triturus alpestris. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:619-624.
23. Halliday TR, 1983. The study of mate choice. In: Mate choice (Bateson P, ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 3-32.
24. Hosken DJ, Garner TWJ, Tregenza T, Wedell N, Ward PI, 2003. Superior sperm competitors sire higher-quality young. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1933-1938.
25. Ihaka R, Gentleman R, 1996. R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Graph Stat 5:299-314.
26. Ivy TM, Sakaluk SK, 2005. Polyandry promotes enhanced offspring survival in decorated crickets. Evolution 59:152-159.
27. Jennions MD, Petrie M, 2000. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21-64.
28. Keller L, Reeve HK, 1995. Why do females mate with multiple males? The sexually selected sperm hypothesis. Adv Study Behav 24:291-315.
29. Kempenaers B, Verheyen GR, van der Broeck M, Burke T, van Broeckhoven C, Dhondt AA, 1992. Extra-pair paternity results from female preference for high quality males in the blue tit. Nature 357:494-496.
30. Kraaijeveld-Smit FJL, Ward SJ, Temple-Smith PD, Paetkau D, 2002. Factors influencing paternity success in Antechinus agilis: last-male sperm precedence, timing of mating and genetic compatibility. J Evol Biol 15:100-107.
31. Marshall DJ, Evans JP, 2005. The benefits of polyandry in the free-spawning polychaete Galeolaria caespitosa. J Evol Biol 18:735-741.
32. Mays HL, Hill GE, 2004. Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol Evol 19:554-559.
33. Newcomer SD, Zeh JA, Zeh DW, 1999. Genetic benefits enhance the reproductive success of polyandrous females. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96:10236-10241.
34. Olsson M, Shine R, Madsen T, Gullberg A, Tegelström H, 1996. Sperm selection by females. Nature 383:585.
35. Pizzari T, Birkhead TR, 2002. The sexually-selected sperm hypothesis: sex-biased inheritance and sexual antagonism. Biol Rev 77:183-209.
36. Rowe L, Arnqvist G, Sih A, Krupa JJ, 1994. Sexual conflict and the evolutionary ecology of mating patterns: water striders as a model system. Trends Ecol Evol 9:289-293.
37. Sauer KP, 1970. Zur Monotopbindung einheimischer Arten der Gattung Panorpa (Mecoptera) nach Untersuchungen im Freiland und im Laboratorium. Zool Jahrb Syst 97:201-284.
38. Sauer KP, 1977. The adaptive significance of genetic variability of photoperiodic response in Panorpa vulgaris. Zool Jahrb Syst 104:489-538.
39. Sauer KP, Lubjuhn T (eds). 1999. Genetic analysis of social systems. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.
40. Simmons LW, 2001. The evolution of polyandry: an examination of the genetic incompatibility and good-sperm hypotheses. J Evol Biol 14:585-594.
41. Stockley P, 1999. Sperm selection and genetic incompatibility: does relatedness of mates affect male success in sperm competition? Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1663-1669.
42. Therneu TM, Grambsch PM, Pankratz VS, 2003. Penalized survival models and frailty. J Comput Graph Stat 12:156-175.
43. Thornhill R, Sauer KP, 1992. Genetic sire effects on the fighting ability of sons and daughters and mating success of sons in a scorpionfly. Anim Behav 43:255-264.
44. Tregenza T, Wedell N, 1998. Benefits of multiple mates in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Evolution 52:1726-1730.
45. Tregenza T, Wedell N, 2000. Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol Ecol 9:1013-1027.
46. Tregenza T, Wedell N, 2002. Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature 415:71-73.
47. Watson PJ, 1991. Multiple paternity as genetic bet-hedging in female sierra dome spiders, Linyphia litigosa (Linyphiidae). Anim Behav 41:343-360.
48. Wedell N, 1996. Mate quality affects reproductive effort in a paternally investing species. Am Nat 148:1075-1088.
49. Yasui Y, 1997. A "good-sperm" model can explain the evolution of costly multiple mating by females. Am Nat 149:573-584.
50. Yasui Y, 1998. The 'genetic benefits' of female multiple mating reconsidered. Trends Ecol Evol 13:246-250.
51. Zeh JA, Zeh DW, 1996. The evolution of polyandry I. Intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1711-1717.
52. Zeh JA, Zeh DW, 1997. The evolution of polyandry II. Post-copulatory defences against genetic incompatibility. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:69-75.
53. Zeh JA, Zeh DW, 2003. Toward a new sexual selection paradigm: polyandry, conflict and incompatibility. Ethology 109:929-950.