Mutual mate choice by mountain pine beetles: Size-dependence but not size-assortative mating

Ecological Entomology

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 69-76

  Reid, Mary L ^a,b   Baruch, Orit ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^b Moshav Amirim House Number 21   (Israel)

^c HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

^d VOLCANI CENTER   (Israel)

Author keywords

Assortative mating; Bark beetle; Condition dependence; Dendroctonus ponderosae; Mountain pine beetle; Scolytinae

Indexed keywords

ASSORTATIVE MATING; BEETLE; BODY CONDITION; BODY SIZE; BREEDING SITE; MATE CHOICE; REPRODUCTIVE COST; REPRODUCTIVE EFFORT; SIZE EFFECT;

COLEOPTERA; CURCULIONIDAE; DENDROCTONUS PONDEROSAE; PINUS MUGO; SCOLYTINAE;

EID: 74249119212     PISSN: 03076946     EISSN: 13652311     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2311.2009.01157.x     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Amman, G.D. (1980) Incidence of Mountain Pine Beetle Abandoned Galleries in Lodgepole Pine. USDA Forest Service Research Note INT-284.
2. Anderbrant, O. & Schlyter, F. (1989) Causes and effect of individual quality in bark beetles. Holarctic Ecology, 12, 488 493.
3. Arak, A. (1983) Male-male competition and mate choice in anuran amphibians. Mate Choice (ed. by P. Bateson pp. 181 210. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
4. Arnqvist, G., Rowe, L., Krupa, J.J. & Sih, A. (1996) Assortative mating by size: a meta-analysis of mating patterns in water striders. Evolutionary Ecology, 10, 265 284.
5. Bateman, A.J. (1948) Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity, 2, 349 368.
6. Bel-Venner, M.C., Dray, S., Allainé, D., Menu, F. & Venner, S. (2008) Unexpected male choosiness for mates in a spider. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 275, 77 82.
7. Bessa-Gomes, C., Clobert, J., Legendre, S. & Moller, A.P. (2003) Modeling mating patterns given mutual mate choice: the importance of individual mating preferences and mating system. Journal of Biological Systems, 11, 205 219.
8. Bonduriansky, R. (2001) The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biological Reviews, 76, 305 339.
9. Brown, W.D. (1990) Constraints on size-assortative mating in the blister beetle Tegrodera aloga (Coleoptera: Meloidae). Ethology, 86, 146 160.
10. Brown, W.D. (2008) Size-biased mating in both sexes of the black-horned tree cricket, Oecanthus nigricornis Walker (Orthoptera: Gryllidae: Oecanthinae). Journal of Insect Behaviour, 21, 130 142.
11. Bussière, L.F., Gwynne, D.T. & Brooks, R. (2008) Contrasting sexual selection on males and females in a role-reversed swarming dance fly, Rhamphomyia longicauda Loew (Diptera: Empididae). Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 21, 1683 1691.
12. Cerezke, H.F. (1964) The morphology and functions of the reproductive systems of Dendroctonus monticolae Hopk. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Canadian Entomologist, 96, 477 500.
13. Clutton-Brock, T. (2009) Sexual selection in females. Animal Behaviour, 77, 3 11.
14. Cotton, S., Small, J. & Pomiankowski, A. (2006) Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Current Biology, 16, R755 R765.
15. Crespi, B.J. (1989) Causes of assortative mating in arthropods. Animal Behaviour, 38, 980 1000.
16. Elkin, C.M. & Reid, M.L. (2005) Low energy reserves and energy allocation decisions affect reproduction by mountain pine beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosae). Functional Ecology, 19, 102 109.
17. Gimelfarb, A. (1988) Processes of pair formation leading to assortative mating in biological populations: encounter-mating model. American Naturalist, 131, 865 884.
18. Halliday, T.R. (1983) The study of mate choice. Mate Choice (ed. by P. Bateson pp. 3 32. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
19. Harari, A.R., Handler, A.M. & Landolt, P.J. (1999) Size-assortative mating, male choice and female choice in the curculionid beetle Diaprepes abbreviatus. Animal Behaviour, 58, 1191 1200.
20. Honek, A. (1993) Intraspecific variation in body size and fecundity in insects. Oikos, 66, 483 492.
21. Jakob, E.M., Marshall, S.D. & Uetz, G.W. (1996) Estimating fitness: a comparison of body condition indices. Oikos, 77, 299 302.
22. Johnstone, R.A. (1997) The tactics of mutual mate choice and competitive search. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 40, 51 59.
23. Johnstone, R.A., Reynolds, J.D. & Deutsch, J.C. (1996) Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution, 50, 1382 1391.
24. Kirkendall, L.R. (1983) The evolution of mating systems in bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae and Platypodidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 77, 293 352.
25. Kokko, H. & Johnstone, R.A. (2002) Why is mutual mate choice not the norm? Operational sex ratios, sex roles and the evolution of sexually dimorphic and monomorphic signalling. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 357, 319 330.
26. Kraaijeveld, K., Kraaijeveld-Smit, F.J.L. & Komdeur, J. (2007) The evolution of mutual ornamentation. Animal Behaviour, 74, 657 677.
27. Latty, T.M. & Reid, M.L. (2009) First in line or first in time? Effects of settlement order and arrival date on reproduction of a group-living beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae. Journal of Animal Ecology, 78, 549 555.
28. McGhehey, J.H. (1971) Female Size and Egg Production of the Mountain Pine Beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins. Canadian Forest Service Information Report NOR-X-9, Canadian Forest Service Edmonton, Canada, 18 pp. 1 18.
29. Nebeker, T.E., Schmitz, R.F. & Tisdale, R.A. (1995) Comparison of oleoresin flow in relation to wound size, growth rates, and disease status of lodgepole pine. Canadian Journal of Botany, 73, 370 375.
30. Parker, G.A. (1983) Mate quality and mating decisions. Mate Choice (ed. by P. Bateson pp. 141 166. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
31. Pureswaran, D.S. & Borden, J.H. (2003a) Test of semiochemical mediated host specificity in four species of tree killing bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Environmental Entomology, 32, 963 969.
32. Pureswaran, D.S. & Borden, J.H. (2003b) Is bigger better? Size and pheromone production in the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Journal of Insect Behaviour, 16, 765 782.
33. Raffa, K.F. & Berryman, A.A. (1983) The role of host plant resistance in the colonization behavior and ecology of bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Ecological Monographs, 53, 27 49.
34. Real, L. (1990) Search theory and mate choice. I. Models of single-sex discrimination. American Naturalist, 136, 376 404.
35. Real, L.A. (1991) Search theory and mate choice. II. Mutual interaction, assortative mating, and equilibrium variation in male and female fitness. American Naturalist, 138, 901 917.
36. Reid, R.W. (1958a) The behaviour of the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus monticolae Hopk., during mating, egg laying, and gallery construction. Canadian Entomologist, 90, 505 509.
37. Reid, R.W. (1958b) Internal changes in the female mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus monticolae Hopk., associated with egg-laying and flight. Canadian Entomologist, 90, 464 468.
38. Reid, R.W. (1962) Biology of the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus monticolae Hopkins, in the east Kootenay region of British Columbia I. life cycle, brood development, and flight periods. Canadian Entomologist, 94, 531 538.
39. Reid, M.L. (1999) Monogamy in the bark beetle Ips latidens (LeConte): ecological correlates of an unusual mating system. Ecological Entomology, 24, 89 94.
40. Reid, M.L. & Roitberg, B.D. (1994) Benefits of prolonged residence with mates and brood in a bark beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Oikos, 70, 140 148.
41. Reid, M.L. & Roitberg, B.D. (1995) Effects of body size on investment in individual broods by male pine engravers (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 73, 1306 1401.
42. Reid, M.L. & Stamps, J.A. (1997) Female mate choice tactics in a resource-based mating system: field tests of alternative models. American Naturalist, 150, 98 121.
43. Robertson, I.C. (1998) Paternal care enhances male reproductive success in pine engraver beetles. Animal Behaviour, 56, 595 602.
44. Robertson, I.C. & Roitberg, B.D. (1998) Duration of paternal care in pine engraver beetles: why do larger males care less? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 43, 379 386.
45. Ryker, L.C. & Rudinsky, J.A. (1976) Sound production in Scolytidae: aggressive and mating behavior of the mountain pine beetle. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 69, 677 680.
46. Safranyik, L. (1976) Size- and sex-related emergence, and survival in cold storage, of mountain pine beetles. Canadian Entomologist, 108, 209 212.
47. Safranyik, L. & Carroll, A.L. (2006) The biology and epidemiology of the mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine forests. The Mountain Pine Beetle: A Synthesis of its Biology and Management in Lodgepole Pine (ed. by L. Safranyik and B. Wilson pp. 3 66. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Victoria, British Columbia.
48. Schulte-Hostedde, A.I., Zinner, B., Millar, J.S. & Hickling, G.J. (2005) Restitution of mass-size residuals: validating body condition indices. Ecology, 86, 155 163.
49. Teale, S.A., Hager, B.J. & Webster, F.X. (1994) Pheromone-based assortative mating in a bark beetle. Animal Behaviour, 48, 569 578.
50. Trivers, R.L. (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871-1971 (ed. by B. Campbell pp. 136 179. Aldine, Chicago, Illinois.
51. Wagner, W.E.J. (1998) Measuring female mating preferences. Animal Behaviour, 55, 1029 1042.