Size Effects on Mating and Egg Production in the Miami Blue Butterfly

Journal of Insect Behavior

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 34-43

  Trager, Matthew D ^a,b   Daniels, Jaret C ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri; mating system; Miami blue butterfly; potential fecundity; reproduction

Indexed keywords

HEXAPODA;

EID: 78650413964     PISSN: 08927553     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10905-010-9234-8     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Bauerfeind SS, Fischer K (2008) Maternal body size as a morphological constraint on egg size and fecundity in butterflies. Basic Appl Ecol 9: 443-451.
2. Bel-Venner MC, Dray S, Allaine D, Menu F, Venner S (2008) Unexpected male choosiness for mates in a spider. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 275: 77-82.
3. Berger D, Walters R, Gotthard K (2006) What keeps insects small? Size dependent predation on two species of butterfly larvae. Evol Ecol 20: 575-589.
4. Berger D, Walters R, Gotthard K (2008) What limits insect fecundity? Body size- and temperature-dependent egg maturation and oviposition in a butterfly. Funct Ecol 22: 523-529.
5. Bergman M, Gotthard K, Berger D, Olofsson M, Kemp DJ, Wiklund C (2007) Mating success of resident versus non-resident males in a territorial butterfly. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 274: 1659-1665.
6. Bernays EA (1997) Feeding by lepidopteran larvae is dangerous. Ecol Entomol 22: 121-123.
7. Blanckenhorn WU (2000) The evolution of body size: what keeps organisms small? Q Rev Biol 75: 385-407.
8. Bollache L, Cezilly F (2004) Sexual selection on male body size and assortative pairing in Gammarus pulex (Crustacea: Amphipoda): field surveys and laboratory experiments. J Zool 264: 135-141.
9. Brown WD (1990) Size-assortative mating in the blister beetle Lytta magister (Coleoptera, Meloidae) is due to male and female preference for larger mates. Anim Behav 40: 901-909.
10. Bryant EH, Reed DH (1999) Fitness decline under relaxed selection in captive populations. Conserv Biol 13: 665-669.
11. Elgar MA, Pierce NE (1988) Mating success and fecundity in an ant-tended lycaenid butterfly. In: Clutton-Brock TH (ed) Reproductive success: studies of selection and adaptation in contrasting breeding systems. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 59-75.
12. Ellers J, Sevenster JG, Driessen G (2000) Egg load evolution in parasitoids. Am Nat 156: 650-665.
13. Fischer K, Fiedler K (2000) Sex-related differences in reaction norms in the butterfly Lycaena tityrus (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Oikos 90: 372-380.
14. Fleming IA, Jonsson B, Gross MR, Lamberg A (1996) An experimental study of the reproductive behaviour and success of farmed and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). J Appl Ecol 33: 893-905.
15. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2003). Management plan: Miami blue Cyclargus (=Hemiargus) thomasi bethunebakeri. State of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.
16. Gotthard K (2000) Increased risk of predation as a cost of high growth rate: an experimental test in a butterfly. J Anim Ecol 69: 896-902.
17. Gotthard K (2004) Growth strategies and optimal body size in temperate Pararginii butterflies. Integr Comp Biol 44: 471-479.
18. Gotthard K (2008) Adaptive growth decisions in butterflies. Bioscience 58: 222-230.
19. Gotthard K, Nylin S, Wiklund C (2000) Mating opportunity and the evolution of sex-specific mortality rates in a butterfly. Oecologia 122: 36-43.
20. Gotthard K, Berger D, Walters R (2007) What keeps insects small? Time limitation during oviposition reduces the fecundity benefit of female size in a butterfly. Am Nat 169: 768-779.
21. Harari AR, Handler AM, Landolt PJ (1999) Size-assortative mating, male choice and female choice in the curculionid beetle Diaprepes abbreviatus. Anim Behav 58: 1191-1200.
22. Honek A (1993) Intraspecific variation in body size and fecundity in insects-a general relationship. Oikos 66: 483-492.
23. Iyengar VK, Eisner T (2004) Male indifference to female traits in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Ecol Entomol 29: 281-284.
24. Kemp DJ (2008) Female mating biases for bright ultraviolet iridescence in the butterfly Eurema hecabe (Pieridae). Behav Ecol 19: 1-8.
25. Klingenberg CP, Spence JR (1997) On the role of body size for life-history evolution. Ecol Entomol 22: 55-68.
26. Langellotto GA, Denno RF, Ott JR (2000) A trade-off between flight capability and reproduction in males of a wing-dimorphic insect. Ecology 81: 865-875.
27. Leather SR (1988) Size, reproductive potential and fecundity in insects-things aren't as simple as they seem. Oikos 51: 386-389.
28. Lomnicki A, Jasienski M (2000) Does fitness erode in the absence of selection? An experimental test with Tribolium. J Hered 91: 407-411.
29. Pureswaran DS, Borden JH (2003) Is bigger better? Size and pheromone production in the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). J Insect Behav 16: 765-782.
30. Saarinen EV, Daniels JC (2006) Miami blue butterfly larvae (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) and ants (Hymeoptera: Formicidae): new information on the symbionts of an endangered taxon. Fla Entomol 89: 69-74.
31. Sutherland DL, Hogg ID, Waas JR (2007) Is size assortative mating in Paracalliope fluviatilis (Crustacea: Amphipoda) explained by male-male competition or female choice? Biol J Linn Soc 92: 173-181.
32. Tammaru T, Esperk T, Castellanos I (2002) No evidence for costs of being large in females of Orgyia spp. (Lepidoptera, Lymantriidae): larger is always better. Oecologia 133: 430-438.
33. Trager MD, Daniels JC (2009) Ant tending of Miami blue butterfly larvae (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae): partner diversity and effects on larval performance. Fla Entomol 92: 474-482.
34. Visser ME (1994) The importance of being large-the relationship between size and fitness in females of the parasitoid Aphaereta minuta (Hymenoptera, Braconidae). J Anim Ecol 63: 963-978.