Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:58:43.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evolutionary significance of promiscuity in an aphidophagous ladybird, Propylea dissecta (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Omkar  and
G. Mishra
Omkar*
Affiliation:
Ladybird Research Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Lucknow, Lucknow 226 007, India
G. Mishra
Affiliation:
Ladybird Research Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Lucknow, Lucknow 226 007, India
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The short- and long-term consequences of monogamy and promiscuity in an aphidophagous ladybird, Propylea dissecta (Mulsant) in terms of reproductive performance and offspring fitness were investigated. Promiscuous females were more fecund and laid more viable eggs than monogamous ones. Amongst promiscuous females, those mated with multiple males (freedom for mate choice) had significantly higher reproductive output than those mated daily with a new unmated male. The increased reproductive output of females mated with an unmated male each day in comparison to monogamous ones might possibly be a result of their increased ejaculate size. The further increase in reproductive output, when a female was allowed to choose a mate, may be because of repeated preferential mating with the fitter males. Results on long-term consequences of promiscuity revealed faster development and increased survival in offspring of promiscuous females at 25, 27 and 30%C. The percent adult emergence was more strongly influenced than development by the mating regime. There were no statistically significant differences in survival of offspring of promiscuous females (mate choice) at the three temperatures, while the percent survival of offspring of monogamous females differed significantly. Offspring of promiscuous females (mate choice) were fittest in terms of development and survival, which indicates their probable better genetic constitution and subsequently that of chosen mates. Thus, promiscuity has both short- and long-term benefits and is advantageous to ladybirds. The presence of long-term benefits in terms of fitter offspring probably indicates the evolutionary rationale behind the prevalence of promiscuity in ladybirds.

Keywords

promiscuityevolutionPropylea dissectaladybirds
Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 95 , Issue 6 , December 2005 , pp. 527 - 533
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnqvist, G. (1989) Multiple mating in a water strider: mutual benefits or intersexual conflict. Animal Behavior 38, 749–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnqvist, G., Edvardsson, M., Friberg, U. & Nilsson, T. (2000) Sexual conflict promotes speciation in insects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 97, 10460–10464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnqvist, G. & Nilsson, T. (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Animal Behavior 60, 145–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bateman, P.W., Gilson, L.N. & Ferguson, J.W.H. (2001) Male size and sequential mate preference in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Animal Behavior 61, 631–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bind, R.B. (1998) Bioecology and behaviour of a ladybird beetle, Cheilomenes (=Menochilus) sexmaculata (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). 164 pp. PhD thesis, University of Lucknow.Google Scholar
Birkhead, T.R. & Møller, A.P. (Eds) (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection. 826 pp. London, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Birkhead, T.R., Møller, A.P. & Sutherland, W.J. (1993) Why do females make it so difficult for males to fertilize their eggs. Journal of Theoretical Biology 161, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanckenhorn, W.U., Hosken, D.J., Martin, O.Y., Reim, C., Teuschl, Y. & Ward, P.I. (2002) The costs of copulating in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Behavioural Ecology 13, 353–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, W.D., Wiedmann, J., Andrade, M.C.B., Mason, A.C. & Gwynne, D.T.M. (1996) Female choice for an indicator of male size in the song of the black-horned tree cricket Oecanthus nigricornis (Orthoptera, Gryllidae, Oecanthinae). Evolution 50, 2400–2411CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burpee, D.M. & Sakaluk, S.K. (1993) Repeated matings offset costs of reproduction in female crickets. Evolutionary Ecology 7, 240–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, T., Liddle, L.F., Kalb, J.M., Wolfner, M.F. & Partridge, L. (1995) Costs of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 373, 241–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, W.G. (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. 472 pp. Princeton, New Jersey Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, C.W. & Hickman, D.L. (1994) The influence of oviposition substrate on female receptivity to multiple mating in Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 87, 395–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, C.W., Hickman, D.L., Raleigh, E.L. & Mousseau, T.A. (1995) Paternal investment in a seed beetle (Coleoptera: Bruchidae): influence of male size, age, and mating history. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 88, 101–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hack, M.A. (1997) Assessment strategies in the contests of male crickets, Acheta domesticus (L.). Animal Behavior 53, 733–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosken, D.J., Garner, T.W.J., Tregenza, T., Wedell, N. & Ward, P.I. (2003) Superior sperm competitors sire higher-quality young. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 270, 1933–1938CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hosken, D.J. & Stockley, P. (2003) Benefits of polyandry: a life history perspective. Evolutionary Biology 33, 173–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurst, G.D.D., Sharpe, R.G., Broomfield, A.H., Walker, L.E., Majerus, T.M.O., Zakjarov, I.A. & Majerus, M.E.N. (1995) Sexually transmitted disease in a promiscuous insect, Adalia bipunctata. Ecological Entomology 20, 230–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennions, M.D. & Petrie, M. (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biological Reviews 75, 21–64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leather, S.R. (1990) Sex-ratio and reproductive success in the pine beauty moth, Panolis flammea (Den. & Schiff.) (Lep., Noctuidae). Journal of Applied Entomology 109, 200–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, T., Shine, R., Loman, J. & Hakansson, T. (1992) Why do female adders copulate so frequently. Nature 355, 440–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majerus, M.E.N. (1994) Ladybirds. 367 pp. London, Harper CollinsGoogle Scholar
Mishra, G. & Omkar, (2004a) Diel rhythmicity in certain life events of a ladybird, Propylea dissecta (Mulsant). Biological Rhythm Research 35, 269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishra, G. & Omkar, (2004b) Influence of parental age on reproductive performance of an aphidophagous ladybird, Propylea dissecta (Mulsant). Journal of Applied Entomology 128, 605–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishra, G. & Omkar, (2005) Influence of light components on the life attributes of an aphidophagous ladybird, Propylea dissecta (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 25, 32–38Google Scholar
Nilsson, T. (2004) Polyandry and the evolution of reproductive divergence in insects. 70 pp. Sweden PhD thesis, Umea University.Google Scholar
Olsson, M., Shine, R., Madsen, T., Gullberg, A. & Tegelstrom, H. (1996) Sperm selection by females. Nature 383, 585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omkar, (2004) Reproductive behaviour of two aphidophagous ladybird beetles, Cheilomenes sexmaculata and Coccinella transversalis. Entomologia Sinica 11, 47–60Google Scholar
Omkar, & James, B.E. (2005) Reproductive behaviour of an aphidophagous ladybeetle, Coccinella transversalis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 25, 96–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omkar, & Mishra, G. (2003) Ovipositional orientation of an aphidophagous ladybird beetle, Propylea dissecta (Mulsant). Insect Science and Its Application 23, 211–219Google Scholar
Omkar, & Mishra, G. (2005) Preference-performance of a generalist predatory ladybird: a laboratory study. Biological Control 34, 187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omkar, & Pervez, A. (2000) Sexual dimorphism in Propylea dissecta (Mulsant), (Coccinellidae: Coleoptera). Journal of Aphidology 14, 139–140Google Scholar
Omkar, & Pervez, A. (2003) Influence of prey deprivation on biological attributes of pale morph of the ladybeetle, Propylea dissecta (Mulsant). Insect Science and Its Application 23, 143–148Google Scholar
Omkar, & Pervez, A. (2005) Mating behavior of an aphidophagous ladybird beetle, Propylea dissecta (Mulsant). Insect Science 12, 37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omkar, & Srivastava, S. (2002) The reproductive behaviour of an aphidophagous ladybeetle, Coccinella septempunctata Linnaeus. European Journal of Entomology 99, 465–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, G. (1979) Sexual selection and sexual conflict. pp. 123–166in Blum, M. & Blum, N. (Eds) Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pervez, A. & Omkar, (2003) Predation potential and handling time estimates of a generalist aphidophagous ladybird, Propylea dissecta. Biological Memoirs 29, 91–97Google Scholar
Pervez, A. & Omkar, (2004a) Functional and numerical responses of Propylea dissecta (Mulsant) (Col., Coccinellidae). Journal of Applied Entomology 128, 140–146Google Scholar
Pervez, A. & Omkar, (2004b) Temperature dependent life attributes of an aphidophagous ladybird beetle, Propylea dissecta (Mulsant). Biocontrol Science and Technology 14, 587–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pervez, A. & Omkar, (2004c) Prey dependent life attributes of an aphidophagous ladybird beetle, Propylea dissecta (Mulsant). Biocontrol Science and Technology 14, 385–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pervez, A., Omkar, . & Richmond, A.S. (2004) The influence of age on reproductive performance of a predatory ladybird beetle, Propylea dissecta. Journal of Insect Science 4, 1–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sakaluk, S.K. (1985) Spermatophore size and its role in the reproductive behaviour of the cricket, Gryllodes supplicans (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 63, 1652–1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakaluk, S.K. & Smith, R.L. (1998) Inheritance of male parent investment in an insect. American Naturalist 132, 594–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakaluk, S.K., Schaus, J.M., Eggert, A.K., Snedden, W.A & Brady, P.L. (2002) Polyandry and fitness of offspring reared under varying nutritional stress in decorated crickets. Evolution 56, 1999–2007Google ScholarPubMed
Savalli, U.M. & Fox, C.W. (1999) The effect of male mating history on paternal investment, fecundity and female remating in the seed beetle Callosobruchus maculatus. Functional Ecology 13, 169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaus, J.M. & Sakaluk, S.K. (2002) Repeatibility of sperm number across multiple matings in three cricket species, Gryllodes sigillatus, Gryllus veletis and Gryllus texensis (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 80, 582–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, L.W. (1987) Female choice contributes to offspring fitness in the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (De Geer). Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 21, 313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, L.W. (2001) The evolution of polyandry: an examination of the genetic incompatibility and good-sperm hypothesis. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 14, 585–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souroukis, K. & Cade, W.H. (1993) Reproductive competition and selection on male traits at varying sex ratios in the field cricket, Gryllus pennsylvanicus. Behaviour 126, 45–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, L.A., Dixon, A.F.G., Ruzicka, Z. & Iperti, G. (1991) Clutch and egg size in ladybird beetles. Entomophaga 36, 329–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornhill, R. & Alcock, J. (1983) The evolution of insect mating systems. 576 pp. Cambridge, Massachusetts Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tregenza, T. & Wedell, N. (1998) Benefits of multiple mates in the cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus. Evolution 52, 1726–1730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tregenza, T. & Wedell, N. (2002) Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature 415, 71–73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wedell, N., Gage, M.J.G. & Parker, G.A. (2002) Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm limited females. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17, 313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Will, M.W. & Sakaluk, S.K. (1994) Courtship feeding in decorated crickets: is the spermatophylax a sham. Animal Behavior 48, 1309–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yasuda, H. & Dixon, A.F.G. (2002) Sexual size dimorphism in the two spot ladybird beetle Adalia bipunctata: developmental mechanism and its consequences for mating. Ecological Entomology 27, 493–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar