2012
DOI: 10.1603/an12010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Larval Food Supply Constrains Female Reproductive Schedules inHippodamia convergens(Coleoptera: Coccinellidae)

Abstract: Reproductive schedules are a critical aspect of life history intrinsically linked to a speciesÕ ecology. We explored dynamic trajectories of daily fecundity, egg size, and egg fertility in three size classes of Hippodamia convergens GuerinÐMeneville produced by varying larval access to food, eggs of Ephestia kuehniella Zeller. Adult pairs were held with ad libitum food and eggs were collected daily, counted, and a subsample measured. Egg fertility declined steeply over 25 clutches in small females, gradually i… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
16
0
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
16
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Females of the two predators that were offered E. kuehniella eggs expressed a much lower daily and total fecundity compared with females fed natural prey. The lower fresh body weight on the moth egg diet and the higher reproductive output on aphid and psyllid diets might be due to increased prey consumption on the natural prey, leading to better conversion of food into eggs (Dixon & Agarwala, 2002;Honěk et al, 2008;Vargas et al, 2012) and vice versa with less suitable diet (i.e. eggs of E. kuehniella).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Females of the two predators that were offered E. kuehniella eggs expressed a much lower daily and total fecundity compared with females fed natural prey. The lower fresh body weight on the moth egg diet and the higher reproductive output on aphid and psyllid diets might be due to increased prey consumption on the natural prey, leading to better conversion of food into eggs (Dixon & Agarwala, 2002;Honěk et al, 2008;Vargas et al, 2012) and vice versa with less suitable diet (i.e. eggs of E. kuehniella).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Generally, the adult body size is inversely correlated with developmental time in coccinellids, i.e., faster development is generally associated with a larger size at emergence (Honek, 1996;Michaud, 2005;Vargas et al, 2012b), and this holds true for H. axyridis also, at least when food sources vary in suitability for larval development (e.g., Michaud, 2000;Wolf et al, 2018). However, the present results suggest that a trade-off between body size and developmental time can emerge at the individual level; either slower embryonic and pupal development is required when parental effects cue growth to a larger adult weight or they reflect pleiotropic effects of epigenetic signals unrelated to weight gain.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The present data suggest that the paternal effects of non-sib males tend to accelerate progeny development relative to those of sibling males. However, maternal effects in this species follow an age-specific schedule in which progeny of later clutches develop faster than those of earlier ones to cope with predictable changes in prey availability (Vargas et al, 2012a). Because female remating results in progressive dilution of paternity, males should discount future female reproduction relative to current, raising the potential for sexual conflict over progeny phenotype mediated by these epigenetic mechanisms.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Until recently, the more indirect benefits of polyandry were often ignored as inconsequential if direct benefits were evident (Tuni et al, 2013). However, it is possible that polyandry also has epigenetic consequences for offspring phenotype development, which could be mediated by maternal effects (Fox & Mousseau, 1998;Marshall et al, 2008;Shea et al, 2011;Vargas et al, 2012aVargas et al, ,2012b. Paternal effects are also recognised, especially in insects (Hunt & Simmons, 2000;Bonduriansky & Head, 2007;Michaud et al, 2013;Mirhosseini et al, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%