Precopulatory sexual selection in the seed bug Lygaeus equestris: A comparison of choice and no-choice paradigms

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 89, Issue , 2014, Pages 207-214

  Dougherty, Liam R ^a   Shuker, David M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Choice paradigm; Experimental design; Lygaeidae; Mate choice; No choice; Sequential choice; Sexual selection; Simultaneous choice; Visualizing selection

Indexed keywords

EID: 84893807228     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.01.005     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Alcock J. Postinsemination associations between males and females in insects: the mate-guarding hypothesis. Annual Review of Entomology 1994, 39:1-21.
2. Aldrich J.R. Chemical communication in the true bugs and parasitoid exploitation. Chemical ecology of insects 2 1995, 318-363. Chapman & Hall, New York. R.T. Carde, W.J. Bell (Eds.).
3. Aldrich J.R., Oliver J.E., Taghizadeh T., Ferreira J.T.B., Liewehr D. Pheromones and colonization: reassessment of the milkweed bug migration model (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae: Lygaeinae). Chemoecology 1999, 9:63-71.
4. Andersson M.B. Sexual selection 1994, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
5. Barry K.L., Holwell G.I., Herberstein M.E. Multimodal mate assessment by male praying mantids in a sexually cannibalistic mating system. Animal Behaviour 2010, 79:1165-1172.
6. Barry K.L., Kokko H. Male mate choice: why sequential choice can make its evolution difficult. Animal Behaviour 2010, 80:163-169.
7. Bates D., Maechler M., Bolker B., Walker S. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes 2013, R package version 1.0-5 cran.r-project.org/package=lme4.
8. Bateson M., Healy S.D. Comparative evaluation and its implications for mate choice. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2005, 20:659-664.
9. Bonduriansky R. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biological Reviews 2001, 76:305-339.
10. Booksmythe I., Jennions M.D., Backwell P.R. Male fiddler crabs prefer conspecific females during simultaneous, but not sequential, mate choice. Animal Behaviour 2011, 81:775-778.
11. Burdfield-Steel E.R., Dougherty L.R., Smith L.A., Collins L.A., Shuker D.M. Variation in social and sexual behaviour in four species of aposematic seed bugs (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae): the role of toxic and non-toxic food. Behavioural Processes 2013, 99:52-61.
12. Cocchiararo-Bastias L.M., Mijailovsky S.J., Calderon-Fernández G.M., Figueiras A.N.L., Juárez M.P. Epicuticle lipids mediate mate recognition in Triatoma infestans. Journal of Chemical Ecology 2011, 37:246-252.
13. Coyne J.A., Elwyn S., Rolán-Alvarez E. Impact of experimental design on Drosophila sexual isolation studies: direct effects and comparison to field hybridization data. Evolution 2005, 59:2588-2601.
14. Darwin C.R. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex 1871, John Murray, London, U.K.
15. Doherty J.A. Phonotaxis in the cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus De Geer: comparisons of choice and no-choice paradigms. Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology 1985, 157:279-289.
16. Drijfhout F.P., Groot A.T. Close-range attraction in Lygocoris pabulinus (L.). Journal of Chemical Ecology 2001, 27:1133-1149.
17. Eberhard W. Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice 1996, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
18. Gershman S.N., Sakaluk S.K. No Coolidge effect in decorated crickets. Ethology 2009, 115:774-780.
19. Gibson R.M. Female choice in sage grouse: the roles of attraction and active comparison. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1996, 39:55-59.
20. Honěk A. Intraspecific variation in body size and fecundity in insects: a general relationship. Oikos 1993, 66:483-492.
21. Howard R.W., Blomquist G.J. Ecological, behavioral and biochemical aspects of insect hydrocarbons. Annual Review of Entomology 2005, 50:371-393.
22. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows 2012, Version 19.0, IBM Corp, Armonk, NY.
23. Jackson L.L. Cuticular hydrocarbons of the milkweed bug, Oncopeltus fasciatus by age and sex. Insect Biochemistry 1983, 13:19-25.
24. Jang Y., Gerhardt H.C. Divergence in female calling song discrimination between sympatric and allopatric populations of the southern wood cricket Gryllus fultoni (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2006, 60:150-158.
25. Jordan L.A., Brooks R.C. Recent social history alters male courtship preferences. Evolution 2011, 66:280-287.
26. Kacelnik A., Vasconcelos M., Monteiro T., Aw J. Darwin's 'tug-of-war' vs. starlings' 'horse-racing': how adaptations for sequential encounters drive simultaneous choice. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2011, 65:547-558.
27. Lessells C., Boag P.T. Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. The Auk 1987, 104:116-121.
28. MacLaren R.D., Rowland W.J. Differences in female preference for male body size in Poecilia latipinna using simultaneous versus sequential stimulus presentation designs. Behaviour 2006, 143:273-292.
29. Martel V., Boivin G. Do choice tests really test choice?. Journal of Insect Behavior 2011, 24:329-336.
30. McLain D.K. Population density and the intensity of sexual selection on body length in spatially or temporally restricted natural populations of a seed bug. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1992, 30:347-356.
31. Micholitsch T., Krugel P., Pass G. Insemination and fertilization in the seed bug Lygaeus simulans (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae). European Journal of Entomology 2000, 97:13-18.
32. Mundry R., Nunn C.L. Stepwise model fitting and statistical inference: turning noise into signal pollution. The American Naturalist 2009, 173:119-123.
33. Owen M.A., Rohrer K., Howard R.D. Mate choice for a novel male phenotype in zebrafish, Danio rerio. Animal Behaviour 2012, 83:811-820.
34. R: A language and environment for statistical computing 2012, R Development Core Team, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
35. Schluter D. Estimating the form of natural selection on a quantitative trait. Evolution 1988, 42:849-861.
36. Schluter D., Nychka D. Exploring fitness surfaces. American Naturalist 1994, 143:597-616.
37. Shuker D.M., Ballantyne G.A., Wedell N. Variation in the cost to females of the sexual conflict over mating in the seed bug, Lygaeus equestris. Animal Behaviour 2006, 72:313-321.
38. Shuker D.M., Day T.H. Mate sampling and the sexual conflict over mating in seaweed flies. Behavioral Ecology 2002, 13:83-86.
39. Sillén-Tullberg B. Prolonged copulation: A male 'postcopulatory' strategy in a promiscuous species, Lygaeus equestris (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1981, 9:283-289.
40. Tadler A. Selection of a conspicuous male genitalic trait in the seedbug Lygaeus simulans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 1999, 266:1773-1777.
41. Tadler A., Nemeschkal H.L., Pass G. Selection of male traits during and after copulation in the seedbug Lygaeus simulans (Heteroptera, Lygaeidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 1999, 68:471-483.
42. Wagner W.E. Measuring female mating preferences. Animal Behaviour 1998, 55:1029-1042.
43. Werner N.Y., Lotem A. Experimental evidence for male sequential mate preference in a lekking species. Ethology 2006, 112:657-663.
44. Whittingham M.J., Stephens P.A., Bradbury R.B., Freckleton R.P. Why do we still use stepwise modelling in ecology and behaviour?. Journal of Animal Ecology 2006, 75:1182-1189.
45. Wong B., Candolin U. How is female mate choice affected by male competition?. Biological Reviews 2005, 80:559-571.
46. Yang L., Wang Q. Precopulation sexual selection in Nysius huttoni White (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae) in relation to morphometric traits. Journal of Insect Behavior 2004, 17:695-707.