Comparison of mating of ten eumeninae wasp species with a brief review of sexual selection theories: a framework for future research

Acta Zoologica Lituanica

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 87-104

  Budrienė, Anna ^a   Budrys, Eduardas ^a  

^a VILNIUS UNIVERSITY   (Lithuania)

Author keywords

Courtship; Female rejecting behaviour; Monandry; Sexual conflict; Sexual selection; Sl CSD

Indexed keywords

EID: 84887505791     PISSN: 13921657     EISSN: 16486919     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13921657.2007.10512820     Document Type: Article

References (143)

1. Alcock, J. 1978. Notes on male mate-locating behaviour in some bees and wasps of Arizona. The Pan-Pacific Entomologist 54: 215-225.
2. Alcock, J. 1994. Postinsemination associations between male and female insects: the mate-guarding hypothesis. Annual Review of Entomology 39: 1-21.
3. Alcock, J. and Buchmann, S. L. 1985. The significance of the postinsemination display of male Centris pallida (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae). Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 68:231-243.
4. Alexander, R. D., Marshall, D. C. and Cooley, J. R. 1997. Evolutionary perspectives on insect mating: In: J. C. Chjoe and B. J. Crcspi (eds) The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids, pp. 4-31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Allen, G. R., Kazmer, D. J. and Luck, R. F. 1994. Post-copu-latory male behaviour, sperm precedence and multiple mating in a solitary parasitoid wasp. Animal Behaviour 4&9 635-644.
6. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
7. Andersson, M. and Iwasa, Y. 1996. Sexual selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 53-58.
8. Arnold, S. J. and Duvall, D. 1994. Animal mating systems: a synthesis based on selection theory. The American Naturalist 143: 317-348.
9. Arnqvist, G. 1992. Precopulatory fighting in a water stridcr: intersexual conflict or mate assessment? Animal Behaviour43: 559-567.
10. Arnqvist, G. 1997. The evolution of water stridcr mating systems: causes and consequences of sexual conflicts. In: J. C. Chjoe and B. J. Crcspi (cds) The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids, pp. 146—163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Arnqvist, G. 2004. Sexual conflict and sexual selection: lost in the chase. Evolution 58: 1383-1388.
12. Arnqvist, G. and Nilsson, T. 2000. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insccts. Animal Behaviour 60: 145-164.
13. Arnqvist, G. and Rowe, L. 2002. Antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415: 787-789.
14. Arnqvist, G. and Rowe, L. 2005. Sexual Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15. Arnqvist, G. and Andres, J. A. 2006. The effects of experimentally induced polyandry on female reproduction in a monandrous mating system. Ethology 112: 748-756.
16. Arnqvist, G., Edvardsson, M., Friberg, U. and Nilsson, T. 2000. Sexual conflict promotes speciation in insects. Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97: 10460-10464.
17. Baer, B. 2003. Bumblebees as model organisms to study male sexual selection in social insccts. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 54: 521-533.
18. Baer, B. and Schmid-Hempel, P. 2001. Unexpected conscquences of polyandry for parasitism and fitness in the bumblebee, Bombas terrestris. Evolution 55: 1639-1643.
19. Baer, B. and Boomsma, J. J. 2004. Male reproductive investment and queen mating-frequency in fungus-growing ants. Behavioral Ecology 15: 426-432.
20. Barrows, E. M. 1975. Mating behaviour in Halictine bees (Hymenoptera: Halictinae): III. Copulatory behavior and olfactory communication. Insectes Sociaux 22: 307-332.
21. Batra, S. W. T. 1978. Aggression, territoriality, mating and nest aggregation of some solitary bees (Hymenoptera: Ilalictidae, Megaehilidae, Colletidae, Anthophoridae). Journal ofthe Kansas Entomological Society 51: 547-559.
22. Beani, L. and Turilazzi, S. 1999. Stripes display in hover-wasps (Vcspidae: Stenogastrinae): a socially costly status badge. Animal Behaviour 57: 1233-1239.
23. Birkhead, T. R. and Pizzari, T. 2002. Postcopulatory sexual selection. Nature Reviews Genetics 3: 262-273.
24. Blanckenhorn, W. U. 2005. Behavioral causes and consequences of sexual size dimorphism. Ethology 111: 977-1016.
25. Bonduriansky, R. 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insccts: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 76:305-339.
26. Boomsma, J. J. and Ratnieks, F. L. W. 1996. Paternity in eusocial Hymenoptera. Philosophical Transactions ofthe Royal Society of London £ 351: 947-975.
27. Boomsma, J. J., Baer, B. and Heinze, J. 2005.The evolution of male traits in social insects. Annual Review of Entomology 50: 395-420.
28. Bretman, B., Rodriguez-Munoz, R. and Tregenza, T. 2006. Male dominance determines female egg laying rate in crickets. Biology Letters 2: 409-11.
29. Brothers, D. J. 1999. Phylogeny and evolution of wasps, ants and bees (Hymenoptera, Chrysidoidea, Vespoidea and Apoidea). Zoologica Scripta 28: 233-249.
30. Brown, M. F. J. and Schmid-Hempel, P. 2003. The evolution of multiple mating in social Hymenoptera. Evolution 57:2067-2081.
31. Budrienė, A. 2001. Some aspects of mating behaviour of Eumenidae wasps (Hymenoptera). Norwegian Journal of Entomology 48: 41—44.
32. Budrienė, A. 2003. Prey of Symmorphus wasps (Hymenoptera: Eumeninae) in Lithuania. Acta Zoologica Lituanica 13: 306-310.
33. Budrienė, A. 2004. Reproductive ecology and behaviour of predatory wasps (Hymenoptera: Eumeninae). Doctoral Thesis. Vilnius: Institute of Ecology of Vilnius University. http://www.ekoi.lt/info/theses/Budriene_ 2004.pdf
34. Budrienė, A. and Budrys, E. 2004. Behaviour elements influencing mating success of Symmorphus allobrogus (Hymenoptera: Eumeninae). Acta Zoologica Lituanica 14: 39-47.
35. Budrys, E., Budrienė, A. and Pakalniškis, S. 2004. Population size assessment using mark-releasc-recapture of 12 species of Orthoptera, Diptera and Hymenoptera: a comparison of methods. Latvijos Entomologs 41: 32-43.
36. Bussiėre, L. F., Hunt, J., Jennions, M. D. and Brooks, R. 2006. Sexual conflict and cryptic female choice in the black field cricket, Teleogryllus commodus. Evolution 60:792-800.
37. Candolin, U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biological Reviews 78: 575-595.
38. Carpenter, J. M. 1981. The phylogenetic relationships and natural classification of the Vespoidca (Hymenoptera). Systematic Entomology 7: 11-38.
39. Carpenter, J. M. and Wheeler, W. C. 1999. Towards simultaneous analysis of molecular and morphological data in Hymenoptera. Zoologica Scripta 28: 251-260.
40. Chapman, T. W. and Stewart, S. C. 1996. Extremely high levels of inbreeding in a natural population of the free-living wasp Ancistrocerus antilope (Hymenopte-ra: Vespidae: Eumeninae). Heredity 76: 65-69.
41. Chapman, T., Arnqvist, G., Bangham, J. and Rowe, L. 2003. Sexual conflict. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18: 41-47.
42. Clutton-Brock, T. and Vincent, A. C. J. 1991. Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females. Nature 351: 58-60.
43. Clutton-Brock, T. II. and Parker, G. A. 1992. Potential reproductive rates and the operation of sexual selection. Quarterly Review of Biology 67: 437-456.
44. Cordero, C. and Eberhard, W. G. 2005. Interaction between sexually antagonistic selection and mate choice in the evolution of female responses to male traits. Evolutionary Ecology 19: 111-122.
45. Cowan, D. P. 1979. Sibling mating in a hunting wasp: adaptive inbreeding? Science 205: 1403-1405.
46. Cowan, D. P. 1981. Parental investment in two solitary wasps Ancistrocerus adiabatus and Euodynerus foraminatus (Eumenidae: Hymenoptera). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 9: 95-102.
47. Cowan, D. P. 1986. Sexual behavior of Eumcnid wasps (Hy-menoptera, Eumenidae). Proceedings ofthe Entomological Society of Washington 88: 531-541.
48. Cowan, D. P. 1991. The solitary and prcsocial Vespidae. In: K. G. Ross and R. W. Matthews (eds) The Social Biology of Wasps, pp. 33-73. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
49. Cowan, D. P. and Waldbauer, G. P. 1984. Seasonal occurrence and mating at flowers by Ancistrocerus antilope (Hymenoptera: Eumenidae). Proceedings of the Entoniological Society of Washington 86: 930-934.
50. Cowan, D. P. and Stahlhut, J. K. 2004. Functionally reproductive diploid and haploid males in an inbreeding hymenopteran with complementary sex determination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 101:10374-10379.
51. Crozier, R. II. and Page, R. E., Jr. 1985. On being the right size: male contributions and multiple mating in social Hymenoptera. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 18: 105-115.
52. Crozier, R. II. and Fjerdingstad, E. J. 2001. Polyandry in social Hymenoptera - disunity in diversity? Annales Zoologici Fennici 38: 267-285.
53. Cunningham, E. J. A. and Birkhead, T. R. 1998. Sex roles and sexual selection. Animal Behaviour 56: 1311-1321.
54. Danielsson, I. 1998. Mechanisms of sperm competition in insects. Annales Zoologici Fennici 35: 241-257.
55. Eberhard, W. G. 1996. Female control, sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
56. Emlen, S. T. and Oring, L. W. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215-223.
57. Endler, J. A. and Basolo, A. L. 1998. Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13:415-420.
58. Evans, II. E. 1966. The behavior patterns of solitary wasps. Annual Review of Entomology 11: 123-154.
59. Felicioli, A., Isidoro, N., Romani, R. and Bin, F. 1998. Etho-logical and morphological analysis of mating behavior in Osmia cornuta Latr. (Hymenoptera: Megachi-lidae). Insect Social Life 2: 137-144.
60. Gavrilets, S. 2000. Rapid evolution of reproductive barriers driven by sexual conflict. Nature 403: 886-889.
61. Gavrilets, S. G., Arnqvist, G. and Friberg, U. 2001. The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proceedings ofthe Royal Society B 268: 531-539.
62. Gillott, C. 2003. Male accessory gland secrctions: modulators of female reproductive physiology and behavior. Annual Review of Entomology 48: 163-184.
63. Gosling, L. M., Roberts, S. C., Thornton, E. A. and Andrew, M. J. 2000. Life history costs of olfactory status signalling in mice. Behaworal Ecology and Sociobiology 48: 328-332.
64. G wynne, D. T. 1984. Male mating effort, confidence of paternity, and insect sperm competition. In: R. L. Smith (ed.) Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems, pp. 117-149. New York: Academic Press.
65. Hamilton, W. D. 1967. Extraordinary sex ratios. Science 156:477-488.
66. Hardy, I. C. W. and Mayhew, P. J. 1998. Sex ratio, sexual dimorphism and mating structure in bethylid wasps. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 42: 383-395.
67. Head, M. L., Hunt, J. and Brooks, R. 2006. Genetic association between male attractiveness and female differential allocation. Biology Letters 2: 341-344.
68. Hedrick, R W., Gadau, G. and Page, R. E., Jr. 2006. Genetic sex determination and extinction. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21: 55-57.
69. Helms, K. R. 1994. Sexual size dimorphism and sex ratios in bees and wasps. The American Naturalist 143: 418-434.
70. Ilenter, II. J. 2004. Constrained sex allocation in a parasi-toid due to variation in male quality. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17: 86-96.
71. I Ierzner, G., Schmitt, T., I Ieckel, E, Schreier, P. and Strohm, E. 2006. Brothers smell similar: variation in the sex phero-mone of male European Beewolves Philanthus triangulum F. (Hymenoptera: Crabronidae) and its implications for inbreeding avoidance. Biological Journal ofthe Linnean Society 89: 433-42.
72. Hunt, J. II. 1999. Trait mapping and salience in the evolution of eusocial vespid wasps. Evolution 53: 225-237.
73. Hunt, J. II. and Amdam, G. V. 2005. Bivoltinism as an antecedent to eusociality in the paper wasp genus Polistes. Science 308:264-267.
74. Isidoro, N., Bin, F., Colazza, S. and Vinson, S. B. 1996. Morphology of antennal gustatory sensilla and glands in some parasitoid Hymenoptera with hypothesis on their role in sex and host recognition. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 5: 206-239.
75. įtino, T. 1986. Comparison of life tables between the solitary eumenid wasp Anterhynchium flavomarginatum and the subsocial cumcnid wasp Orancistrocerus drewseni to evaluate the adaptive significance of maternal care. Researches on Population Ecology 28: 185-199.
76. Jennions, M. D. and Petrie, M. 2000. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biological Re\>iews ofthe Cambridge Philosophical Society 75: 21-64.
77. Jormalainen, V. 1998. Precopulatory mate guarding in crustaceans - Male competitive strategy and intcrscxual conflict. Quarterly Review of Biology 73: 275-304.
78. Jormalainen, V. and Merilaita, S. 1995. Female resistance and duration of mate-guarding in three aquatic pcracarids (Crustacea). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 36: 43-48.
79. King, B. II. 2000. Sperm depiction and mating behavior in the parasitoid wasp Spalangia cameroni (Hymenoptera; Pteromalidae). Great Lakes Entomologist 33:117-127.
80. King, B. II. and Fischer, C. R. 2005. Males mate guard in absentia through extended effccts of postcopulatory courtship in the parasitoid wasp Spalangia endius (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). Journal of Insect Physiology 51:1340-1345.
81. Kokko, II. and Brooks, R. 2003. Sexy to die for? Sexual sclcction 3nd the risk of extinction. A nnales Zoologici Fennici 40: 207-219.
82. Kokko, H. and Ots, I. 2006. When not to avoid inbreeding. Evolution 60:467-475.
83. Kokko, H., Brooks, R., Jennions, M. D. and Motely, J. 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 270: 653-664.
84. Kraus, F.B., Neumann, P., van Praagh, J. and Mori, C.R.F.A. 2004. Sperm limitation 3nd the evolution of extreme polyandry in honeybees (Apis mellifera L.). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 55: 494-501.
85. Kurrenko, X. V 1980. Contribution to flic basic directions of evolution 3nd phylogeny of the family Eumenidae (Hymenoptera: Vespoidea). In: B. A. Krasilov (ed.) Parallelism and Direction in Evolution of Insect, pp. 88-114. Vladivostok: Far Eastern Scientific Center, USSR Academy of Sciences (in Russian).
86. Lauer, M. J., Sih, A. and Krupa, J. J. 1996. Male density, female density 3nd inter-aexual conflict in a stream-dwelling insect. Animal Behaviour 52: 929-939.
87. Lessells, C. M. 2006. The evolutionary outcome of sexual conflict. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 361:301-317.
88. Martin, O.Y.and Hosken, D.J. 2004.Reproduetiveconse-quences of population divergence through sexual conflict Current Biology 14:906-910.
89. Mead, L. S. and Arnold, S. J. 2004. Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19:264-271.
90. Mikheyev, A. S. 2004. Male accessory gland size and the evolutionary transition from single to multiple mating in the fungus-gardening ants. Journal of Insect Science 4:31.
91. Moller, A. P. 1998. Sperm competition 3nd sexual selection. In: T. R. Birklicad and A. P. Moller (eds) Sperm competition in birds: mechanisms and function, pp. 55-90. London: Academic Press.
92. Moller, A. P. and Jennions, M. D. 2001. How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection? Nalurwis-senschaften 88:401—115.
93. Neff, B. D. and Pitcher, T. F. 2005. Genetic quality and sexual election: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Molecular Ecology 14: 19-38.
94. O’Neill, K. M. 2001. Solitary Wi&ps: Behavior and Natural History. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
95. Palmer, K. A.andOldroyd, B. P.2000. F.vohitionof multiple imting in the genus Apis. Apidoloįęe 31:235-248.
96. Parter, G. A. 1970. Spenncompetition3nd its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biological Reviews of she Cambridge Philosophical Society 45: 525-567.
97. Parker, G. A. 1979. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: A. N. Blum (ed.) Sexuil selection and re productive compel! tom m insects, pp. 123-166.Lond>n: Academic Press.
98. Parker, G. A. 2006. Sexual conflict over mating 3nd fertilization: an overview. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 361:235-259.
99. Parker, G. A. and Partridge, L. 1998. Sexual conflict and speciation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 353: 261-274.
100. Paxton, R.J.2005. Male mating behaviour and mating systems of bees: an overview. Apidologie 36: 145-156.
101. Poiani, A. 2006. Complexity of seminal fluid: a review. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 60: 289-310.
102. Reece, S. E., Shuker, D. M, Pen, L, Duncan, A. B., Choudhary, A., Batchelor, C. M. and Wist, S. A. 2004. Kin discrimination and sex ratios in a parasitoid wasp. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17: 208-216.
103. Reynolds, J.D. and Gross, M. R. 1990. Costs and benefits of female mat choice- is there a lek paradox? The American Naturalist 136: 230-243.
104. Romani, R, Isidoro, N, Riolo, P. and Bin, F.2003. Antennal glands in male bees: structures for sexual communication by pheromones? Apidologie 34: 603-610.
105. Romani, R., Isidoro, N., Riolo, P., Bin, F., Fortūnato, A., Turillazzi, S. and Beani, L. 2005. A new role for antennation in paper wasps (Hymenoptera.Vespidae): antennal courtship and sex dimorphic glands in antennomeres. Insectes Sociaux 52: 96-102.
106. Rosenheim, J. A., Xonacs, P. and Mangel, M. 1996. Sex ratios and multifaceted parental investment. The American Naturalist 148: 501-535.
107. Rowe, L. 1994. The cost of mating and mate choice in water Sriders. Animal Behaviour 48: 1049-1056.
108. Rowe, L. and Day, T. 2006. Detecting xxual conflict and sexually antagonistic coevolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 361: 277-285.
109. Rowe, L., A mqvist, G., Sih, A. and K rupa, J. J. 1994. Sexual conflict 3nd flic evolutionary ecology of mating patterns: water striders as a model system. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9: 289-293.
110. Schltlns, H., Moritz, R. F. A., Neumann, P., Kryger, P. and Koeniger, G. 2005. Multiple nuptial flights, spermtrans-fer 3nd the evolution of extreme polyandry in honeybee queens. Animal Behavour 70: 125-131.
111. Schmid-Hempel, R.and Schmid-Hempel, P. 2000.Female mating frequencies in Bombus spp. from Central Europe. Insectes Sociaux 47: 36-41.
112. Sc idelmami, K. 1999. The race for females: the mating system of the red mason bee, Osmia rufa (L.) (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Journal of Insect Behavior 12:13-25.
113. Sheldon, B. C.2000. Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms 3nd implications. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15:397-402.
114. Shine, R., O’Connor, D. and Mason, R. T. 2000. The problem wife courting a cylindrical object how does anamorous male snake determine which end is which Behaviour 137:727-739.
115. Shuker, D. M., Sytes, E. M, Browning, L E., Beukeboom, L. W. and West, S. A. 2006. Male influence on sex allocation in the parasitoid wasp Nason ia viiripennis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 59: 829-835.
116. Simmons, L. W. 2001. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Princeton, KJ: Princeton University Press.
117. Simmons, L. W. 2005. The evolution of polyandry: sperm competition, sperm selection, and offspring viability. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and System• a ties 16:125-146.
118. Simmons, L. W., Tomkins, J. L. and Alcock, J. 2000. Can minor males of Dawson’s burrowing bee, Amegilla dawsoni (Hymenoptera: Anthophorini) compensate for reduced access to virgin females through sperm competition? Behavioral Ecology 13: 319-325.
119. Simmons, L. W, Alcock, J. and Reeder, A. 2003. The role of cuticular hydrocarbons in male attraction and repulsion by female Dawson’s burrowing bee, Amegilla dawsoni. Animal Behaviour 66: 677-685.
120. Smith, A. P. and Alcock, J. 1980. A comparative study of tic mating systems of Australian eumenid wasps (Hy-menoptera).Zeitschriftfuer Tierpsychology 53:41-60.
121. Snook, R. R. 2005. Sperm in competition: not playing by the numbers. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20: 47-53.
122. Stahlhut, J. K. and Cowan, D. P. 2004.1 nbroeding in a natural population of F.uodynerus forammatus (Hymenoptera: Vespidae), a solitary wasp with single-locus complementary sex determination. Molecular Ecology 13:631-638.
123. Stone, G. X. 1995. Female foraging responses to sexual harassment in the solitary bee Anthophora plumipes. Animal Behaviour 50: 405—412.
124. Strassmann, J. E. 2001. The rarity of multiple mating by females in the ar>eial Hymenoptera. Insectes Socuux 48:1-3.
125. Strohm, E. Linsenmair, K. E. 1999. Measurement of parental investment 3iid sex allocation in the European bcewolf Philanthus triangulum F. (Hymenoptera: Sphccidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 47:76-88.
126. Strohm, E. and Linsenmair, K. E. 2000. Allocation of parental investment among individual offspring in the European bcewolf Philanthus triangulum F. (Hymenoptera: Sphccidae). Biological Journal of the I. in-nean Society 69: 173-192.
127. Saikely, T., Frockleton, R. P. and Reynolds, J. D. 2004. Sexual selection explains Rensch’s rule of size dimorphism in shorebirds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 101: 12224-12227.
128. Tarpy, D. R. and Page, R. E., Jr.2001.The curious promiscuity of queen honey bees (Apis mellifera): evolutionary and behavioral mcehanisms. Annales Zoologai Fennici 38:255-265.
129. Teder, T. 2005. Male-biased size dimorphism in iehneu-n tonine wasps (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) the role of sexual selcetion for large male size. Ecological Entomology 30: 342-349.
130. Thornhill, R. and Alcock, J. 1983. The evolution of insect mating systems. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
131. Tibbetts, E. A. 2002. Visual signals of individual identity in the wasp Polistes fuscatus. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269: 1423-1428.
132. Tibbetts, E. A. and Dale, J.2004. A socially-enforced signal of quality in a paper wasp. Nature 412:218-222.
133. Tomkins, J. J., Rad wan. J., Kotiaho, J. S. and Tregenza, T. 2004. Gcnic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends m Ecology and Evolution 19: 323-327.
134. Tregenza, T., Wedell, X. and Chapman, T. 2006. Sexual conflict a new paradigm? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 361: 229-234.
135. Trivers, R. L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: B. Campbell (cd.) Sexual selection and the descent of man, pp. 136-179. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
136. Vahed K. 2006. Larger ejaculate volumes are associated with a lower degree of polyandry across bushcricket taxa. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 273: 2387-2394.
137. Watson, P., Arnqvist, G. and Stallman, R. R. 1998. Sexual conflict 3nd flic energetic costs of mating 3nd mate choice in water striders. The American Naturalist 151: 46-58.
138. Wcislo, W. T. 2000. Environmental hierarchy, behavioral contexts, 3nd social evolution in insects. In: R. P. Martins, T. M. Lewinsohn and M. S. Barbeitos (eds). Ecology e comportamento de Insetos. Sėrie Oecologia BmsHensis Wl(PPCF.-UFRJ).49-61. Riode Janeiro.
139. Wedell, X., Kvarnemo, C., Lessells, M. C. and Tregenza, T. 2006. Sexual conflict and life histories. Animal Behaviour 71: 999-1011.
140. Werner, X. Y.andLotem, A. 2006.Experimental evidence for male sequential mate preference in a lekking species. Ethology 112:657-663.
141. Wickmann, P. O. and Rutowski, R. L. 1999. The evolution of mating dispersion in insects. Oikos 84: 463-472.
142. Wilgenburg, E. van, Driessen, G. and Bcukcboom, L. W. 2006. Single locus complementary sex determination in Hymenoptera: an ‘unintelligent’ design? Frontiers m Zoology3: 1-15. doi: 10.1186/1742-9994-3-1.
143. Zeh.J.A. andZeh, D.W. 1996. The evolution of polyandry I: intra$3iomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Prvcee-lingsofthe Royal Society ofIx>ndcn 5263: 1711-1717.