Sphragis in parnassius mnemosyne (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae): Male-derived insemination plugs loose efficiency with progress of female flight

Biologia

Volumn 64, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 1206-1211

  Vlasanek, Petr ^a,b   Konvicka, Martin ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BOHEMIA   (Czech Republic)

^b INSTITUTE OF ENTOMOLOGY   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

Apollo butterflies; Insect behaviour; Lepidoptera ecology; Mating access; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

HEXAPODA; LEPIDOPTERA; PAPILIONIDAE; PARNASSIINAE; PARNASSIUS MNEMOSYNE;

EID: 70350532049     PISSN: 00063088     EISSN: 13369563     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2478/s11756-009-0207-3     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Adamski P. & Witkowski Z. 1999. Wing deformation in an isolated Carpathian population of Parnassius apollo (Papilionidae: Parnassinae). Nota Lepid. 22: 67-73.
2. Ae S.A. 1962. A study of hybrids between Japanese and Himalayan Papilio butterflies. Spec. Bull. Lep. Soc. Jap. 2: 75-94.
3. Araújo M.B. & Luoto M. 2007. The importance of biotic interactions for modelling species distributions under climate change. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 16: 743-753. DOI 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00359.x.
4. Auckland J.N., Debinski D.M. & Clark W.R. 2004. Survival, movement, and resource use of the butterfly Parnassius clodius. Ecol. Entomol. 29: 139-149. DOI 10.1111/j.0307-6946.2004.00581.x.
5. Boggs C.L. & Watt W.B. 1981. Population structure of pierid butterflies IV. Genetic and physiological investment in offspring by male Colias. Oecologia 50: 320-324. DOI 10.1007/BF00344970.
6. Calabrese M.J., Ries L., Matter S.F., Debinski D.D., Auckland J.N., Roland J. & Fagan W.F. 2008. Reproductive asynchrony in natural butterfly populations and its consequences for female matelessness. J. Anim. Ecol. 77: 746-756. DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01385.x.
7. Clarke C.A. & Sheppard P.M. 1962. Offspring from double matings in swallowtail butterflies. Entomologist 95: 199-203.
8. DeChaine E.G. & Martin A.P. 2005. Historical biogeography of two alpine butterflies in the Rocky Mountains: broad-scale concordance and local-scale discordance. J. Biogeography 32: 1943-1956. DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2005.01356.x.
9. Descimon H. & Napolitano M. 1993. Enzyme polymorphism, wing pattern variability, and geographical isolation in an endangered butterfly species. Biol. Conserv. 66: 117-123. DOI 10.1016/0006-3207(93)90142-N.
10. Ehrlich A.H. & Ehrlich P.R. 1978. Reproductive strategies in the butterflies: I. Mating frequency, plugging, and egg number. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 51: 666-697.
11. Fagerström T. & Wiklund C. 1982. Why do males emerge before females? Protandry as a mating strategy in male and female butterflies. Oecologia 52: 164-166. DOI 10.1007/BF00363830.
12. Fox C.W. & Rauter C.M. 2003. Bet-hedging and the evolution of multiple mating. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5: 273-286.
13. Gratton P., Konopinski M.K. & Sbordoni V. 2008. Pleistocene evolutionary history of the Clouded Apollo (Parnassius mnemosyne): genetic signatures of climate cycles and a 'time-dependent' mitochondrial substitution rate. Mol. Evol. 17: 4248-4262. DOI 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03901.x.
14. Hanski I. & Saccheri I. 2006. Molecular-level variation affects population growth in a butterfly metapopulation. PLOS Biol. 4: 719-726. DOI 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040129.
15. Karlsson B. 1998. Nuptial gifts, resource budgets, and reproductive output in a polyandrous butterfly. Ecology 79: 2931-2940. DOI 10.2307/1939305.
16. Kawagoe T., Suzuki N. & Matsumoto K. 2001. Multiple mating reduces longevity of females of the windmill butterfly Atrophaneura alcinous. Ecol. Entomol. 26: 258-262. DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2311.2001.00326.x.
17. Konvicka M. & Kuras T. 1999. Population structure, behaviour and selection of oviposition sites of an endangered butterfly, Parnassius mnemosyne, in Litovelské Pomoraví, Czech Republic. J. Insect Conserv. 3: 211-223. DOI 10.1023/A:1009641618795.
18. Konvicka M., Duchoslav M., Harastova M., Benes J., Jirku M., Foldynova S. & Kuras T. 2001. Habitat utilization and behaviour of adult Parnassius mnemosyne (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae) in the Litovelské Pomoraví, Czech Republic. Nota Lepid. 24: 39-51.
19. Kudrna O. & Seufert W. 1991. Öekologie und Schutz von Parnassius mnemosyne (Linnaeus, 1758) in der Rhön. Oedippus 2: 1-44.
20. Labine P.A. 1964. Population biology of the butterfly, Euphydryas editha. I. Barriers to multiple inseminations. Evolution 18: 335-336.
21. Labine P.A. 1966. The population biology of the butterfly, Euphydryas editha. IV. Sperm precedence - a preliminary report. Evolution 20: 580-586.
22. LaMunyon C.W. 1997. Increased fecundity, as a function of multiple mating, in an arctiid moth, Utetheisa ornatrix. Ecol. Entomol. 22: 69-73. DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2311.1997.00033.x.
23. Luoto M., Kuussaari M., Rita H., Salminen J. & von Bonsdorff T. 2001. Determinants of distribution and abundance in the clouded apollo butterfly: a landscape ecological approach. Ecography 24: 601-617. DOI 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2001.tb00494.x.
24. Matsumoto K. 1985. Population dynamics of the japanese clouded apollo Parnassius glacialis Butler (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). I. Changes in population size and related population parameters for three successive generations. Res. Popul. Ecol. 27: 301-312. DOI 10.1007/BF02515468.
25. Matsumoto K. 1987. Mating patterns of a sphragis-bearing butterfly Luehdorfia japonica Leech (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae), with descriptions of mating behaviour. Res. Popul. Ecol. 29: 97-110. DOI 10.1007/BF02515428.
26. Matsumoto K. & Suzuki N. 1992. Effectiveness of the mating plug in Atrophaneura alcinous (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 30: 157-163. DOI 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2001.tb00494.x.
27. Meglecz E., Pescenye K., Peregovits L. & Varga Z. 1997. Effects of population size and habitat fragmentation on the genetic variability of Parnassius mnemosyne populations in NE Hungary. Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hung. 43: 183-190.
28. Meglecz E., Neve G., Pecsenye K. & Varga Z. 1999. Genetic variations in space and time in Parnassius mnemosyne (L.) (Lepidoptera) populations in north-east Hungary: implications for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 89: 251-259. DOI 10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00006-3.
29. Meier K., Kuusemets V., Luig J. & Mander U. 2005. Riparian buffer zones as elements of ecological networks: Case study on Parnassius mnemosyne distribution in Estonia. Ecol. Eng. 24: 531-537. DOI 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.01.017.
30. Nève G. & Singer M.C. 2008. Protandry and postandry in two related butterflies: conflicting evidence about sex-specific tradeoffs between adult size and emergence time. Evol. Ecol. 22: 701-709. DOI 10.1007/s10682-007-9192-6.
31. Orr A.G. 1995. The evolution of the sphragis in the papilionidae and other butterflies, pp. 155-164. In: Scriber J.M., Tsubaki Y. & Lederhouse R.C. (ed.), Swallowtail Butterflies: their Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Scientific Publisher Inc., Gainesville, Florida, 459 pp.
32. Ovaskainen O., Luoto M., Ikonen I., Rekola H., Meyke E. & Kuussaari M. 2008. An empirical test of a diffusion model: Predicting clouded apollo movements in a novel environment. Am. Nat. 171: 610-619. DOI 10.1086/587070.
33. Petersen W. 1928. Über die Sphragis und das Spermatophragma der Tagfalter gattung Parnassius. Dsch. Entomol. Z. Jg. 1928: 407-413.
34. Pierre J. 1985. Le sphragis chez les Acraeinae (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). Ann. Soc. Entomol. Fr. 21: 393-398.
35. R Development Core Team 2008. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
36. Scott J.A. 1973. Population biology and adult behaviour of the circumpolar butterfly, Parnassius phoebus F. (Papilionidae). Entomol. Scand. 4: 161-168.
37. Sims S.R. 1979. Aspects of mating frequency and reproductive maturity in Papilio zelicaon. Am. Midl. Nat. 102: 36-50.
38. Valimaki P. & Itamies J. 2005. Effects of canopy coverage on the immature stages of the Clouded Apollo butterfly [Parnassius mnemosyne (L.)] with observations on larval behaviour. Entomol. Fenn. 16: 117-123.
39. Vandewoestijne S., Schtickzelle N. & Baguette M. 2008. Positive correlation between genetic diversity and fitness in a large, well-connected metapopulation. BMC Biol. 6: 46. DOI 10.1186/1741-7007-6-46.
40. White G.C. & Burnham K.P. 1999. Program Mark: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46(Suppl.): 120-139.
41. Wiklund C. & Solbreck C. 1982. Adaptive versus incidental explanations for the occurrence of protandry in a butterfly, Leptidea sinapis L. Evolution 36: 56-62.
42. Wiklund C., Kaitala A., Lindfors V. & Abenius J. 1993. Polyandry and its effect on female reproduction in the green-veined white butterfly (Pieris napi L.). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 33: 25-33. DOI 10.1007/BF00164343.
43. Wiklund C., Kaitala A. & Wedell N. 1998. Decoupling of reproductive rates and parental expenditure in a polyandrous butterfly. Behav. Ecol. 9: 20-25. DOI 10.1093/beheco/9.1.20.
44. Zonneveld C. 1996. Being big or emerging early? Polyandry and the trade-off between size and emergence in male butterflies. Am. Nat. 147: 946-965. DOI 10.1086/285887.
45. Zonneveld C. & Metz J.A.J. 1991. Models on butterfly protandry - virgin females are at risk to die. Theor. Popul. Biol. 40: 308-321. DOI 10.1016/0040-5809(91)90058-N.