Male courtship pheromones as indicators of genetic quality in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix)

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 1009-1014

  Kelly, Caitlin A ^a   Norbutus, Amanda J ^a   Lagalante, Anthony F ^a   Iyengar, Vikram K ^a  

^a VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Arctiidae; genetic benefits; mate choice; pheromone; pyrrolizidine alkaloid; sexual selection

Indexed keywords

BIOINDICATOR; BODY SIZE; CHEMICAL CUE; COURTSHIP; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; GENETIC STRUCTURE; MATE CHOICE; MATE RECOGNITION; MOTH; PHENOTYPE; PHEROMONE; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL SELECTION; SPERMATOPHORE; SURVIVAL;

ARCTIIDAE; LEPIDOPTERA; UTETHEISA ORNATRIX;

EID: 84865729115     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/ars064     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
2. Andersson M, Simmons LW. 2006. Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol. 21:296-302.
3. Arnold SJ, Duvall D. 1994. Animal mating systems: a synthesis based on selection theory. Am Nat. 143:317-348.
4. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T. 2000. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav. 60:145-164.
5. Bateman AJ. 1948. Intrasexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity. 2: 349-368.
6. Bell TW, Meinwald J. 1986. Pheromones of two Arctiid moths (Creatonotos transiens and C. gangis). J Chem Ecol. 12:385-409.
7. Bezzerides A. 2004. Phenotypic and genetic benefits of promiscuity in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix) [Ph.D. dissertation]. [Ithaca (NY)]: Cornell University.
8. Bezzerides A, Iyengar VK, Eisner T. 2005. Corematal function in Utetheisa ornatrix: interpretation in the light of data from field-collected males. Chemoecology. 15:187-192.
9. Birkhead TR, Møller AP. 1995. Extra-pair copulations and extra-pair paternity in birds. Anim Behav. 49:843-848.
10. Blanckenhorn W, Hosken D, Martin O, Reim C, Teuschl Y, Ward P. 2002. The costs of copulating in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Behav Ecol.13:353-358.
11. Candolin U. 1999. The relationship between signal quality and physical condition: is sexual signaling honest in the three-spined stickleback? Anim Behav. 58:1261-1267.
12. Chapman T, Liddle LF, Kalb JM, Wolfner MF, Partridge L. 1995. Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature. 373:241-244.
13. Conner WE, Roach B, Benedict E, Meinwald J, Eisner T. 1990. Courtship pheromone production and body size as correlates of larval diet in males of the arctiid moth, Utetheisa ornatrix. J Chem Ecol. 16:543-552.
14. Conner WE, Eisner T, Vander Meer RK, Guerrero A, Meinwald J. 1981. Precopulatory sexual interaction in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix): role of a pheromone derived from dietary alkaloids. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 9:227-235.
15. Davies NB. 1992. Dunnock behaviour and social evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. den Hollander M, Gwynne DT. 2009. Female fitness consequences of male harassment and copulation in seed beetles, Callosobruchus maculatus. Anim Behav.78:1061-1070.
17. Del Campo ML, Smedley SR, Eisner T. 2005. Reproductive benefits derived from defensive plant alkaloid possession in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 102:13508-13512.
18. Dussourd DE, Harvis CA, Meinwald J, Eisner T. 1991. Pheromonal advertisement of a nuptial gift by a male moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 88:9224-9227.
19. Dussourd DE, Ubik K, Harvis C, Resch J, Meinwald J, Eisner T. 1988. Biparental defensive endowment of eggs with acquired plant alkaloid in the moth Utetheisa ornatrix. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 85: 5992-5996.
20. Eberhard WG. 1996. Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
21. Eisner T, Eisner M. 1991. Unpalatability of the pyrrolizidine alkaloidcontaining moth Utetheisa ornatrix, and its larva, to wolf spider. Psyche. 98:111-118.
22. Eisner T, Meinwald J. 2003. Alkaloid-derived pheromone and sexual selection in Lepidoptera. In: Blomquist GJ, Prestwich RG, editors. Insect pheromone biochemistry. Orlando (FL): Academic Press. p. 341-368.
23. Gonzalez A, Rossini C, Eisner M, Eisner T. 1999. Sexually transmitted chemical defense in a moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 96:5570-5574.
24. Grafen A. 1990. Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol. 144: 517-546.
25. Gwynne DT. 1984. Courtship feeding increases female reproductive success in bushcrickets. Nature. 307:361-363.
26. Hare JF, Eisner T. 1993. Pyrrolizidine alkaloid deters ant predators of Utetheisa ornatrix eggs: effects of alkaloid concentration, oxidation state, and prior exposure of ants to alkaloid-laden prey. Oecologia. 96:9-18.
27. Hughes C. 1998. Integrating molecular techniques with field methods in studies of social behavior: a revolution results. Mol Ecol. 79:383-399.
28. Hunt J, Bussière LF, Jennions MD, Brooks R. 2004. Trends Ecol Evol. 19:329-333.
29. Iyengar VK. 2001. Sexual selection and its consequences in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix) [dissteration]. [Ithica (NY)]: Cornell University.
30. Iyengar VK, Eisner T. 1999a. Heritability of body mass, a sexually selected trait, in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 96:9169-9171.
31. Iyengar VK, Eisner T. 1999b. Female choice increases offspring fitness in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 96:15013-15016.
32. Iyengar VK, Eisner T. 2002. Parental body mass as a determinant of egg size and egg output in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). J Insect Behav. 15:309-318.
33. Iyengar VK, Reeve HK. 2010. Z linkage of female promiscuity genes in the moth Utetheisa ornatrix: support for the sexy-sperm hypothesis? Evolution. 64:1267-1272.
34. Iyengar VK, Reeve HK, Eisner T. 2002. Paternal inheritance of a female moth's mating preference. Nature. 419:830-832.
35. Iyengar VK, Rossini C, Eisner T. 2001. Precopulatory assessment of male quality in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix): hydroxydanaidal is the only criterion of choice. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 49:283-288.
36. Keller L, Reeve HK. 1995. Why do females mate with multiple males? The sexually-selected sperm hypothesis. Adv Stud Behav. 24:291-315.
37. Kirkpatrick M, Barton NH. 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 94: 1282-1286.
38. LaMunyon CW. 1997. Increased fecundity, as a function of multiple mating, in an arctiid moth, Utetheisa ornatrix. Ecol Entomol. 22:69-73.
39. LaMunyon CW, Eisner T. 1993. Postcopulatory sexual selection in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 90:4689-4692.
40. LaMunyon CW, Eisner T. 1994. Spermatophore size as determinant of paternity in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 91:7081-7084.
41. Magnhagen C. 1991. Predation risk as a cost of reproduction. Trends Ecol Evol. 26:183-186.
42. Rowe L. 1994. The costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. Anim Behav. 48:1049-1056.
43. Sadd B, Holman L, Armitage H, Lock, F, Marland R, Siva-Jothy MT. 2006. Modulation of sexual signalling by immune challenged male mealworm beetles (Tenebrio molitor, L.): evidence for terminal investment and dishonesty. J Evolution Biol. 19:321-325.
44. Schneider D, Boppre M, Zweig J, Horsely SB, Bell TW, Meinwald J, Hansen K, Diehl EW. 1982. Scent organ development in Creatonotos moths: regulation by pyrrolizidine alkaloids. Science. 215:1264-1265.
45. Schultz S. 2009. Alkaloid-derived male courtship pheromones. In: Conner WE, editor. Tiger moths and woolly bears. New York: Oxford University Press.
46. Slatyer RA, Mautz BS, Backwell PR, Jennions MD. 2011. Estimating genetic benefits of polyandry from experimental studies: a metaanalysis. Biol Rev. 87:1-33.
47. South A, Lewis SM. 2011. The influence of male ejaculate quantity on female fitness: a meta-analysis. Biol Rev. 86:299-309.
48. Thornhill R, Alcock J. 1983. The evolution of insect mating systems. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
49. Thrall P, Antonovics J, Dobson A. 2000. Sexually transmitted diseases in polygynous mating systems: prevalence and impact on reproductive success. P Roy Soc Lond B Bio. 267:1555-1563.
50. Torres-Vila LM, Jennions MD. 2005. Male mating history and female fecundity in the Lepidoptera: do male virgis make better partners? Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 57:318-1226.
51. Trivers RL. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B, editor. Sexual selection and the descent of man. London: Aldine Publishing Co.
52. Warton DI, Weber NC. 2002. Common slope tests for bivariate errorsin-variables models. Biometrical J. 44: 161-174.
53. Zahavi A. 1975. Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol. 53:205-214.