The cost of mating and mutual mate choice in 2 role-reversed honey locust beetles

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 1104-1113

  Salehialavi, Yassaman ^a   Fritzsche, Karoline ^a   Arnqvist, Göran ^a  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

allometry; Bruchidae; mate choice; nuptial gifts; sex role reversal; sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; BEETLE; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; FOOD AVAILABILITY; FOOD PROVISIONING; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MALE BEHAVIOR; MATE CHOICE; MATE LOCATION; NUPTIAL GIFT; REPRODUCTIVE COST; REPRODUCTIVE STATUS; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; ROLE REVERSAL; SEXUAL SELECTION; VIGOR;

BRUCHINAE; COLEOPTERA; GLEDITSIA;

EID: 80052258145     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arr097     Document Type: Article

References (96)

1. Alonzo SH, Pizzari T. 2010. Male fecundity stimulation: conflict and cooperation within and between the sexes: model analyses and co-evolutionary dynamics. Am Nat. 175:174-185.
2. Amundsen T. 2000. Why are female birds ornamented? Trends Ecol Evol. 15:149-155. (Pubitemid 30151592)
3. Amundsen T, Forsgren E. 2001. Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 98:13155-13160. (Pubitemid 33051333)
4. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
5. Aquiloni L, Gherardi F. 2008. Mutual mate choice in crayfish: large body size is selected by both sexes, virginity by males only. J Zool. 274:171-179. (Pubitemid 351160856)
6. Arnold SJ. 1985. Quanatitative genetic models of sexual selection. Experientia. 41:1296-1310. (Pubitemid 16233087)
7. Arnqvist G, Rowe L. 2005. Sexual conflict. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
8. Bateman AJ. 1948. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity. 2:349-368.
9. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 1993. Selective males and ardent females in pipefishes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 32:331-336. (Pubitemid 24406410)
10. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 2003. Sex role reversal in pipefish. Adv Study Behav. 32:131-167.
11. Bonduriansky R. 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol Rev. 76:305-339. (Pubitemid 32824013)
12. Bonduriansky R. 2007. Sexual selection and allometry: a critical reappraisal of the evidence and ideas. Evolution. 61:838-849. (Pubitemid 46537657)
13. Brown GP, Weatherhead PJ. 2004. Sexual abstinence and the cost of reproduction in adult male water snakes, Nerodia sipedon. Oikos. 104:269-276. (Pubitemid 38143433)
14. Chenoweth SF, Doughty P, Kokko H. 2006. Can non-directional male mating preferences facilitate honest female ornamentation? Ecol Lett. 9:179-184.
15. Clutton-Brock T. 2007. Sexual selection in males and females. Science. 318:1882-1885.
16. Clutton-Brock T. 2009. Sexual selection in females. Anim Behav. 77:3-11.
17. Clutton-Brock TH, Parker GA. 1992. Potential reproductive rates and the operation of sexual selection. Q Rev Biol. 67:437-456. (Pubitemid 24408295)
18. Conner WE, Boada R, Schroeder FC, Gonzalez A, Meinwald J, Eisner T. 2000. Chemical defense: bestowal of a nuptial alkaloidal garment by a male moth on its mate. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 97:14406-14411. (Pubitemid 32016588)
19. Coyne JA, Elwyn S, Rolan-Alvarez EL. 2005. Impact of experimental design on Drosophila sexual isolation studies: direct effects and comparison to field hybridization data. Evolution. 59:2588-2601. (Pubitemid 43069940)
20. Czesak ME, Fox CW. 2003. Evolutionary ecology of egg size and number in a seed beetle: genetic trade-off differs between environments. Evolution. 57:1121-1132. (Pubitemid 36726566)
21. Darwin C. 1871. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.
22. Dewsbury DA. 1982. Ejaculate cost and male choice. Am Nat. 119:601-610.
23. Domb LG, Pagel M. 2001. Sexual swellings advertise female quality in wild baboons. Nature. 410:204-206. (Pubitemid 32216591)
24. Eens M, Pinxten R. 2000. Sex-role reversal in vertebrates: behavioural and endocrinological accounts. Behav Processes. 51:135-147.
25. Emlen ST, Oring LW. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science. 197:215-223. (Pubitemid 8130430)
26. Engqvist L, Reinhold K. 2006. Theoretical influence of female mating status and remating propensity on male sperm allocation patterns. J Evol Biol. 19:1448-1458.
27. Fitzpatrick S, Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 1995. Ornaments or offspring-costs to reproductive success restrict sexual selection processes. Biol J Linn Soc. 55:251-260.
28. Forsgren E, Amundsen T, Borg AA, Bjelvenmark J. 2004. Unusually dynamic sex roles in a fish. Nature. 429:551-554. (Pubitemid 38737657)
29. Funk DH, Tallamy DW. 2000. Courtship role reversal and deceptive signals in the long-tailed dance fly, Rhamphomyia longicuada. Anim Behav. 59:411-421. (Pubitemid 30656499)
30. Gonzalez-Teuber M, Segovia R, Gianoli E. 2008. Effects of maternal diet and host quality on oviposition patterns and offspring performance in a seed beetle (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Naturwissenschaften. 95:609-615.
31. Gwynne DT. 1981. Sexual difference theory-mormon crickets show role reversal in mate choice. Science. 213:779-780. (Pubitemid 11016459)
32. Gwynne DT. 1990. Testing parental investment and the control of sexual selection in Katydids-the operational sex-ratio. Am Nat. 136:474-484.
33. Gwynne DT. 1991. Sexual competition among females-what causes courtship-role reversal. Trends Ecol Evol. 6:118-121. (Pubitemid 121002619)
34. Gwynne DT, Bussiere LF. 2002. Female mating swarms increase predation risk in a 'role-reversed' dance fly (Diptera: Empididae: Rhamphomyia longicauda Loew). Behaviour. 139:1425-1430.
35. Gwynne DT, Bussiere LF, Ivy TM. 2007. Female ornaments hinder escape from spider webs in a role-reversed swarming dance fly. Anim Behav. 73:1077-1082. (Pubitemid 46890789)
36. Gwynne DT, Simmons LW. 1990. Experimental reversal of courtship roles in an insect. Nature. 346:172-174.
37. György Z. 2007. To the biology of the honey locust seed beetle, Megabruchidius tonkineus (Pic, 1904) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae). Folia Entomol Hung. 68:89-96.
38. Hall MD, Bussiere LF, Brooks R. 2009. Diet-dependent female evolution influences male lifespan in a nuptial feeding insect. J Evol Biol. 22:873-881.
39. Härdling R, Gosden T, Aguilee R. 2008. Male mating constraints affect mutual mate choice: prudent male courting and sperm-limited females. Am Nat. 172:259-271.
40. Heinsohn R, Legge S, Endler JA. 2005. Extreme reversed sexual dichro-matism in a bird without sex role reversal. Science. 309:617-619. (Pubitemid 41033646)
41. Hooper PL, Miller GF. 2008. Mutual mate choice can drive costly signaling even under perfect monogamy. Adapt Behav. 16:53-70.
42. Hunt S, Cuthill IC, Bennett ATD, Griffiths R. 1999. Preferences for ultraviolet partners in the blue tit. Anim Behav. 58:809-815. (Pubitemid 29478155)
43. Johnstone RA, Reynolds JD, Deutsch JC. 1996. Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution. 50:1382-1391.
44. Jones IL, Hunter FM. 1993. Mutual sexual selection in a monogamous seabird. Nature. 362:238-239.
45. Kaitala A, Wiklund C. 1994. Polyandrous female butterflies forage for matings. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 35:385-388.
46. Kekalainen J, Huuskonen H, Tuomaala M, Kortet R. 2010. Both male and female sexual ornaments reflect offspring performance in a fish. Evolution. 64:3149-3157.
47. Kemp DJ. 2008. Female mating biases for bright ultraviolet iridescence in the butterfly Eurema hecabe (Pieridae). Behav Ecol. 19:1-8.
48. Kergoat GJ, Silvain JF, Delobel A, Tuda M, Anton KW. 2007. Defining the limits of taxonomic conservatism in host-plant use for phytophagous insects: molecular systematics and evolution of host-plant associations in the seed-beetle genus Bruchus Linnaeus (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae). Mol Phylogenet Evol. 43:251-269. (Pubitemid 46505275)
49. Kodric-Brown A, Sibly RM, Brown JH. 2006. The allometry of ornaments and weapons. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 103:8733-8738. (Pubitemid 43878088)
50. Kokko H, Jennions MD. 2008. Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. J Evol Biol. 21:919-948. (Pubitemid 351832275)
51. Kokko H, Johnstone RA. 2002. Why is mutual mate choice not the norm? Operational sex ratios, sex roles and the evolution of sexually dimorphic and monomorphic signalling. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 357:319-330. (Pubitemid 34432068)
52. Kokko H, Monaghan P. 2001. Predicting the direction of sexual selection. Ecol Lett. 4:159-165. (Pubitemid 32228513)
53. Kraaijeveld K, Kraaijeveld-Smit FJL, Komdeur J. 2007. The evolution of mutual ornamentation. Anim Behav. 74:657-677. (Pubitemid 47538522)
54. Kurota H, Shimada M. 2002. Geographical variation in the seasonal population dynamics of Bruchidius dorsalis (Coleoptera: Bruchidae): constraints of temperature and host plant phenology. Environ Entomol. 31:469-475. (Pubitemid 36166438)
55. Kvarnemo C, Ahnesjo I. 1996. The dynamics of operational sex ratios and competition for mates. Trends Ecol Evol. 11:404-408.
56. LeBas NR. 2006. Female finery is not for males. Trends Ecol Evol. 21:170-173.
57. LeBas NR, Hockham LR, Ritchie MG. 2003. Nonlinear and correlational sexual selection on 'honest' female ornamentation. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 270:2159-2165. (Pubitemid 37289883)
58. Löfstedt C. 1993. Moth pheromone genetics and evolution. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 340:167-177.
59. Moya-Larano J, Fox CW. 2006. Ejaculate size, second male size, and moderate polyandry increase female fecundity in a seed beetle. Behav Ecol. 17:940-946. (Pubitemid 44526936)
60. Nakahashi W. 2008. Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection by male choice. Theor Popul Biol. 74:167-181.
61. Okuda N. 1999. Sex roles are not always reversed when the potential reproductive rate is higher in females. Am Nat. 153:540-548. (Pubitemid 29285417)
62. Oliver C, Cordero C. 2009. Multiple mating reduces male survivorship but not ejaculate size in the polygamous insect Stenomacra marginella (Heteroptera: Largidae). Evol Ecol. 23:417-424.
63. Owens IPF, Thompson DBA. 1994. Sex-differences, sex-ratios and sex-roles. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 258:93-99.
64. Paukku S, Kotiaho JS. 2005. Cost of reproduction in Callosobruchus maculatus: effects of mating on male longevity and the effect of male mating status on female longevity. J Insect Physiol. 51:1220-1226. (Pubitemid 41562693)
65. Phelan PL. 1997. Genetics and phylogenetics in the evolution of sex pheromones. New York: Chapman & Hall Inc.
66. Poiani A. 2006. Complexity of seminal fluid: a review. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 60:289-310. (Pubitemid 43922330)
67. Pomiankowski A, Denniff M, Fowler K, Chapman T. 2005. The costs and benefits of high early mating rates in male stalk-eyed flies, Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. J Insect Physiol. 51:1165-1171. (Pubitemid 41455019)
68. Potti J, Merino S. 1996. Decreased levels of blood trypanosome infection correlate with female expression of a male secondary sexual trait: implications for sexual selection. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 263:1199-1204. (Pubitemid 26340734)
69. Reinhold K, Kurtz J, Engqvist L. 2002. Cryptic male choice: sperm allocation strategies when female quality varies. J Evol Biol. 15:201-209. (Pubitemid 34271264)
70. Romero-Pujante M, Hoi H, Blomqvist D, Valera F. 2002. Tail length and mutual mate choice in bearded tits (Panurus biarmicus). Ethology. 108:885-895. (Pubitemid 35181001)
71. Rönn JL, Katvala M, Arnqvist G. 2008. Interspecific variation in ejaculate allocation and associated effects on female fitness in seed beetles. J Evol Biol. 21:461-470. (Pubitemid 351208141)
72. Rowe L, Houle D. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 263:1415-1421.
73. Rowell JT, Servedio MR. 2009. Gentlemen prefer blondes: the evolution of mate preference among strategically allocated males. Am Nat. 173:12-25.
74. Sandvik M, Rosenqvist G, Berglund A. 2000. Male and female mate choice affects offspring quality in a sex-role-reversed pipefish. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 267:2151-2155.
75. Sawada M. 1999. Model II: geometric mean regression add-In for Excel '97. Freeware by M. Sawada. Ottawa (Canada): University of Ottawa.
76. Servedio MR, Lande R. 2006. Population genetic models of male and mutual mate choice. Evolution. 60:674-685. (Pubitemid 44804512)
77. Simmons LW. 1992. Quantification of role reversal in relative parental investment in a bush cricket. Nature. 358:61-63.
78. Simmons LW. 1993. Some constraints on reproduction for male bush-crickets. Requena verticalis (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidea)-diet, size and parasite load. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 32:135-139. (Pubitemid 24406686)
79. South SH, Arnqvist G. 2009. Morphological variation of an ornament expressed in both sexes of the mosquito Sabethes cyaneus. Evol Ecol Res. 11:1-21.
80. South SH, Steiner D, Arnqvist G. 2009. Male mating costs in a polyg-ynous mosquito with ornaments expressed in both sexes. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 276:3671-3678.
81. Takakura K. 1999. Active female courtship behavior and male nutritional contribution to female fecundity in Bruchidius dorsalis (Fahraeus) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Res Popul Ecol. 41:269-273. (Pubitemid 30028257)
82. Takakura K. 2001. Courtship-role-reversal in the bean weevil, Bruchidius dorsalis (Coleoptera: Bruchidae): interplay between male-male competition and cryptic female choice. Appl Entomol Zool. 36:311-316.
83. Takakura KI. 2004a. The nutritional contribution of males affects the feeding behavior and spatial distribution of females in a bruchid beetle, Bruchidius dorsalis. J Ethol. 22:37-42.
84. Takakura KI. 2004b. Variation in egg size within and among generations of the bean weevil, Bruchidius dorsalis (Coleoptera, Bruchidae): effects of host plant quality and paternal nutritional investment. Ann Entomol Soc Am. 97:346-352.
85. Takakura KI. 2006. Estimation of relative reproductive expenditure in the courtship-role-reversed bean weevil, Bruchidius dorsalis (Fahraeus). J Ethol. 24:33-36.
86. Thomas ML, Simmons LW. 2010. Cuticular hydrocarbons influence female attractiveness to males in the Australian field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus. J Evol Biol. 23:707-714.
87. Tomkins JL, Radwan J, Kotiaho JS, Tregenza T. 2004. Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol Evol. 19:323-328. (Pubitemid 38729834)
88. Trivers RL. 1972. Mother-offspring conflict. Am Zool. 12:648.
89. Tuda M, Morimoto K. 2004. A new species Megabruchidius sophorae (Coleoptera, Bruchidae), feeding on seeds of Styphnolobium (Fabaceae) new to Bruchidae. Zool Sci. 21:105-110. (Pubitemid 38717973)
90. Vahed K. 1998. The function of nuptial feeding in insects: review of empirical studies. Biol Rev. 73:43-78. (Pubitemid 28140312)
91. Vincent A, Ahnesjö I, Berglund A. 1994. Operational sex-ratios and behavioral sex-differences in a pipefish population. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 34:435-442. (Pubitemid 2098063)
92. Wedell N. 2010. Variation in male courtship costs in butterflies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 64:1385-1391.
93. Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA. 2002. Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol Evol. 17:313-320. (Pubitemid 34628657)
94. Weiss SL, Kennedy EA, Bernhard JA. 2009. Female-specific ornamentation predicts offspring quality in the striped plateau lizard, Scelo-porus virgatus. Behav Ecol. 20:1063-1071.
95. Wenninger EJ, Stelinski LL, Hall DG. 2008. Behavioral evidence for a female-produced sex attractant in Diaphorina citri. Entomol Exp Appl. 128:450-459.
96. Yanagi SI, Miyatake T. 2002. Effects of maternal age on reproductive traits and fitness components of the offspring in the bruchid beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Physiol Entomol. 27:261-266. (Pubitemid 36080409)