Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T11:41:12.857Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BIOSYSTEMATICS OF THE GENUS EUXOA (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUIDAE): X. INCIDENCE AND LEVEL OF MULTIPLE MATING IN NATURAL AND LABORATORY POPULATIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

J. R. Byers
J. R. Byers
Affiliation:
Biosystematics Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa K1A 0C6
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In most species of Euxoa a high proportion of the females mate more than once. The mean number of matings per mated female in natural populations of 13 species ranged from 1.65 to 10.86. Mating frequency data for laboratory populations of three of these species indicate that laboratory rearing and confinement does not significantly alter the incidence and level of multiple mating. The propensity for multiple mating is species characteristic although the observed level in samples from the field can vary significantly depending on the age structure of the populations sampled and probably also on other parameters of populations or environmental factors. Since species differences in the tendency for multiple mating are probably manifestations of different reproductive strategies some of the possible advantages of this behavior are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 110 , Issue 2 , 01 February 1978 , pp. 193 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1978

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

Birch, L. C. 1971. The role of environmental heterogeneity and genetical heterogeneity in determining distribution and abundance, pp. 109–128. In Proc. Adv. Study Insect Dynamics Numbers Popul. (Oosterbeek 1970) edited by den Boer, P. J. and Gradwell, G. R., Centre Agric. Publ. Doc., Wageningen 1971.Google Scholar
Boorman, E. and Parker, G. A.. 1976. Sperm (ejaculate) competition in Drosophila melanogaster, and the reproductive value of females to males in relation to female age and mating status. Ecol. Ent. 1: 145–155.Google Scholar
Brower, J. H. 1975. Sperm precedence in the Indian meal moth, Plodia interpunctella. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 68: 78–80.Google Scholar
Burns, J. M. 1968. Mating frequency in natural populations of skippers and butterflies as determined by spermatophore counts. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. (U.S.A.) 61: 852–859.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byers, J. R. and Hinks, C. F.. Biosystematics of the genus Euxoa (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). XI. Mating discrimination between three closely related species. Can. J. Zool. (in press).Google Scholar
Callahan, P. S. 1958. Serial morphology as a technique for determination of reproductive patterns in the corn earworm, Heliothis zea (Boddie). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 51: 413–428.Google Scholar
Callahan, P. S. and Chapin, J. B.. 1960. Morphology of the reproductive systems and mating in two representative members of the family Noctuidae, Pseudaletia unipuncta and Peridroma margaritosa, with comparison to Heliothis zea. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 53: 763–782.Google Scholar
Campbell, I. M. 1962. Reproductive capacity in the genus Choristoneura Led. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). I. Quantitative inheritance and genes as controllers of rates. Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 4: 272–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, H. H. 1972. Oviposition and longevity of the dark-sided cutworm, Euxoa messoria (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in the laboratory. Can. Ent. 104: 919–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, C. A. and Sheppard, P. M.. 1962. Offspring from double matings in swallowtail butterflies. Entomologist 95: 199–203.Google Scholar
Den Boer, P. J. 1968. Spreading of risk and stabilization of animal numbers. Acta Biotheor. (A) 18: 165–194.Google Scholar
Flint, H. M. and Kressin, E. L.. 1968. Gamma irradiation of the tobacco budworm: sterilization, competitiveness, and observations on reproductive biology. J. econ. Ent. 61: 477–483.Google Scholar
Gilbert, L. E. 1976. Postmating female odor in Heliconius butterflies: a male-contributed anti-aphrodisiac? Science 193: 419–420.Google Scholar
Hedrick, P. W., Ginevan, M. E., and Ewing, E. P.. 1976. Genetic polymorphism in heterogeneous environments. A. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 7: 1–32.Google Scholar
Hendricks, D. E., Graham, H. H., and Fernandez, A. T.. 1970. Mating of female tobacco budworms and bollworms collected from light traps. J. econ. Ent. 63: 1228–1231.Google Scholar
Hinks, C. F. and Byers, J. R.. 1976. Biosystematics of the genus Euxoa (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). V. Rearing procedures, and life cycles of 36 species. Can. Ent. 108: 1345–1357.Google Scholar
Khalifa, A. 1949. Spermatophore production in Trichoptera and some other insects. Trans. Roy. ent. Soc. Lond. 100: 449–471.Google Scholar
Khalifa, A. 1950. Spermatophore production in Galleria mellonella L. (Lepidoptera). Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (A) 25: 33–42.Google Scholar
Labine, P. A. 1966. The population biology of the butterfly, Euphydryas editha. IV. Sperm precedence — a preliminary report. Evolution 20: 580–586.Google Scholar
LaChance, L. E., Richard, R. D., and Proshold, F. I.. 1975. Radiation response in the pink bollworm: A comparative study of sperm bundle production, sperm transfer, and oviposition response elicited by native and laboratory-reared males. Environ. Ent. 4: 321–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, R. J. 1976 a. Mating behaviour and fecundity of the red bollworm Diparopsis castanea Hmps. (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae). Bull. ent. Res. 66: 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, R. J. 1976 b. Female sex pheromone release and the timing of male flight in the red bollworm Diparopsis castanea Hmps. (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae), measured by pheromone traps. Bull. ent. Res. 66: 219–241.Google Scholar
Miyashita, K. and Fuwa, M.. 1972. The occurrence time, reiterative ability, and duration of mating in Spodoptera litura F. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Appl. Ent. Zool. 7: 171–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, D. T. and Holt, G. G.. 1968. Genetic and cytogenetic basis of radiation-induced sterility in the adult male cabbage looper Trichoplusia ni, pp. 391–403. Isotopes and radiation in entomology. I.A.E.A./F.A.O. Symposium, Vienna.Google Scholar
Parker, G. A. 1970. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in insects. Biol. Rev. 45: 525–567.Google Scholar
Pease, R. W. Jr., 1968. The evolutionary and biological significance of multiple pairing in Lepidoptera. J. lepid. Soc. 22: 197–207.Google Scholar
Petit, C. and Ehrman, L.. 1969. Sexual selection in Drosophila. In Evolutionary biology 3: 177–223. Edited by Dobzhansky, , Hecht, and Steere, . Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.Google Scholar
Pliske, T. E. 1973. Factors determining mating frequencies in some new world butterflies and skippers. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 66: 164–169.Google Scholar
Proshold, F. I. and Bartell, J. A.. 1972. Difference in radiosensitivity of two colonies of tobacco budworms, Heliothis virescens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Can. Ent. 104: 995–1002.Google Scholar
Proshold, F. I. and LaChance, L. E.. 1974. Analysis of sterility in hybrids from interspecific crosses between Heliothis virescens and H. subflexa. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 67: 445–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pruess, K. P. 1967. Migration of the army cutworm, Chorizagrotis auxiliaris (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). I. Evidence for a migration. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 60: 910–920.Google Scholar
Raulston, J. R., Snow, J. W., Graham, H. M., and Lingren, P. D.. 1975. Tobacco budworm: Effect of prior mating and sperm content on the mating behavior of females. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 68: 701–704.Google Scholar
Retnakaran, A. 1971. A method for determining sperm precedence in insects. J. econ. Ent. 64: 578–580.Google Scholar
Retnakaran, A. 1974. The mechanism of sperm precedence in the spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Can. Ent. 106: 1189–1194.Google Scholar
Scott, J. A. 1973. Mating of butterflies. J. Res. Lepid. 11: 99–127.Google Scholar
Sheppard, P. M. 1952. A note on non-random mating in the moth Panaxia dominula (L.). Heredity (London) 6: 239–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G.. 1967. Statistical methods, 6th ed. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.Google Scholar
Snow, J. W., Young, J. R., and Jones, R. L.. 1970. Competitiveness of sperm in female fall armyworms mating with normal and chemosterilized males. J. econ. Ent. 63: 1799–1802.Google Scholar
Southwood, T. R. E., May, R. M., Hassell, M. P., and Conway, G. R.. 1974. Ecological strategies and population parameters. Am. Nat. 108: 791–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, O. R. 1967. Relationship of multiple mating to fertility in Atteva punctella (Lepidoptera: Yponomeutidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 60: 583–590.Google Scholar
Thornhill, R. 1976. Sexual selection and paternal investment in insects. Am. Nat. 110: 153–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellington, W. G. 1965. Some maternal influences on progeny quality in the western tent caterpillar, Malacosoma pluviale (Dyar). Can. Ent. 97: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar