Male body size and mating success and their relation to larval host plant history in the moth Rothschildia lebeau in Costa Rican dry forest

Biotropica

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 201-207

  Agosta, Salvatore J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Age; Area de Conservacion Guanacaste; Body size; Giant silk worm moth; Host use; Life history trade off; Mating; Saturniidae; Tropical dry forest; Wing damage

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; CATERPILLAR; FITNESS; HOST PLANT; HOST USE; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATING SUCCESS; MOTH; TRADE-OFF; TROPICAL FOREST; WIND FORCING;

COSTA RICA;

LEPIDOPTERA; ROTHSCHILDIA; SATURNIIDAE;

EID: 77951180724     PISSN: 00063606     EISSN: 17447429     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00556.x     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Agosta S J. Fitness consequences of host use in the field: Temporal variation in performance and a host-related life history trade-off in the moth Rothschildia lebeau (Saturniidae). Oecologia 2008a, 157:69-82.
2. Agosta S J. Selection on offspring size varies within and among families in relation to host nutritional quality. Evol. Ecol. 2008b, 22:71-83.
3. Agosta S J, Janzen D H. Body size distributions of large Costa Rican dry forest moths and the underlying relationship between plant and pollinator morphology. Oikos 2005, 108:183-193.
4. Agosta S J, Klemens J A. Resource specialization in a phytophagous insect: No evidence of genetically based performance trade-offs across hosts in the field or laboratory. J. Evol. Biol. 2009, 22:907-912.
5. Awmack C S, Leather S R. Host plant quality and fecundity in herbivorous insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2002, 47:817-844.
6. Bernays E A, Chapman R F. Host-plant selection by phytophagous insects 1994, Chapman & Hall, London, UK
7. Berwaerts K, Van Dyck H, Aerts P. Does flight morphology relate to flight performance? An experimental test with the butterfly Pararge aegeria. Funct. Ecol. 2002, 16:484-491.
8. Blanckenhorn W U, Kraushaar U R S, Teuschl Y, Reim C. Sexual selection on morphological and physiological traits and fluctuating asymmetry in the black scavenger fly Sepsis cynipsea. J. Evol. Biol. 2004, 17:629-641.
9. Blay S, Yuval B. Nutritional correlates of reproductive success of male Mediterranean fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Anim. Behav. 1997, 54:59-66.
10. Brown L N. Mating behavior and life habits of the sweet-bay silk moth (Callosamia carolina). Science 1972, 176:73-75.
11. Burkhard D U, Ward P I, Blanckenhorn W U. Using age grading by wing injuries to estimate size-dependent adult survivorship in the field: A case study of the yellow dung fly Scathophaga stercoraria. Ecol. Entomol. 2002, 27:514-520.
12. The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids 1997, Choe J CCrespi B J. (Eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
13. Reproductive success: Studies of individual variation in contrasting breeding systems 1988, Clutton-Brock T H. (Ed.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois
14. Crompton B, Thomason J C, McLachlan A. Mating in a viscous universe: The race is to the agile, not to the swift. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B 2003, 270:1991-1995.
15. De Block M D, Stoks R. Fitness effects from egg to reproduction: Bridging the life history transition. Ecology 2005, 86:185-197.
16. De Block M D, Stoks R. Flight-related body morphology shapes mating success in a damselfly. Anim. Behav. 2007, 74:1093-1098.
17. Ellers J, Van Alphen J J M, Sevenster J G. A field-study of size-fitness relationships in the parasitoid Asobara tabida. J. Anim. Ecol. 1998, 67:318-324.
18. Fincke O M, Hadrys H. Unpredictable offspring survivorship in the damselfly, Megaloprepus coerulatus, shapes parental behavior, constrains sexual selection, and challenges traditional fitness estimates. Evolution 2001, 55:762-772.
19. Godfray H C J. Parasitoids: Behavioral and evolutionary ecology 1994, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
20. Hanks L M, Millar J G, Paine T D. Body size influences mating success of the eucalyptus longhorned borer (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). J. Insect Behav. 1996, 9:369-382.
21. Hanks L M, Paine T D, Millar J G. Influence of the larval environment on performance and adult body size of the wood-boring beetle Phorocantha semipunctata. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2005, 114:25-34.
22. Hayes J P, Wall R. Age-grading adult insects: A review of techniques. Physiol. Entomol. 1999, 24:1-10.
23. Jaenike J. Host specialization in phytophagous insects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1990, 21:243-273.
24. Jang Y, Greenfield M D. Absolute versus relative measurements of sexual selection: Assessing the contributions of ultrasonic signal characters to mate attraction in lesser wax moths, Achroia grisella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Evolution 1998, 52:1383-1393.
25. Janzen D H. Two ways to be a tropical big moth: Santa Rosa saturniids and sphingids. Oxf. Surv. Evol. Biol. 1984a, 1:85-140.
26. Janzen D H. Weather-related color polymorphism of Rothschildia lebeau (Saturniidae). Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1984b, 30:16-20.
27. Janzen D H. Tropical dry forest: Area de Conservación Guanacaste, northwestern Costa Rica. Handbook of ecological restoration, Vol. 2, Restoration in practice 2002, 559-583. Perrow M RDavy A J. (Eds.), pp, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
28. Janzen D H. How polyphagous are Costa Rican dry forest saturniid caterpillars? Arthropods of tropical forests: Spatio-temporal dynamics and resource use in the canopy 2003, 369-379. Basset YNovotny VMiller S EKitching R L. (Eds.), pp, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
29. Kemp D J, Alcock J. Lifetime resource utilization, flight physiology, and the evolution of contest competition in territorial insects. Am. Nat. 2003, 162:290-301.
30. Kemp D J, Wiklund C, Van Dyck H. Contest behavior in the speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria): Seasonal phenotypic plasticity and the functional significance of flight performance. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2006, 59:403-411.
31. Lailvaux S P, Irschick D J. A functional perspective on sexual selection: Insights and future prospects. Anim. Behav. 2006, 72:263-273.
32. Landolt P J, Phillips T W. Host plant influences on sex pheromone behavior of phytophagous insects. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 1997, 42:371-391.
33. Lemaire C. Les Attacidae americains. Attacinae 1978, Lemaire, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France
34. Leather S R. Size, reproductive potential and fecundity in insects: Things aren't as simple as they seem. Oikos 1988, 51:386-388.
35. Moreau J, Benrey B, Thiery D. Assessing larval food quality for phytophagous insects: Are the facts as simple as they appear? Funct. Ecol. 2006, 20:592-600.
36. Nayar J K, Van Handel E. The fuel for sustained mosquito flight. J. Insect Physiol. 1971, 17:471-481.
37. Neems R M, Lazarus J, McLachlan A J. Lifetime reproductive success in a swarming midge: Trade-offs and stabilizing selection for male body size. Behav. Ecol. 1998, 9:279-286.
38. Otronen M. Energy reserves and mating success in males of the yellow dung fly, Scathophaga stercoraria. Funct. Ecol. 1995, 9:683-688.
39. Shuster S M, Wade M J. Mating systems and strategies 2003, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
40. Sohal R S. Ageing changes in insect flight muscle. Gerontology 1976, 22:317-333.
41. Thornhill R, Alcock J. The evolution of insect mating systems 1983, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
42. Tuskes P M, Tuttle J P, Collins M M. The wild silk moths of North America: A natural history of the Saturniidae of the United States and Canada 1996, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York
43. Waldbauer G P, Sternburg J G, Janzen D H. Longevity and weight loss of free-flying male cecropia moths, Hylaphora cecropia (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae). Great Lakes Entomol. 1985, 18:133-138.
44. West S A, Cunningham J P. A general model for host plant selection in phytophagous insects. J. Theor. Biol. 2002, 214:499-513.