Male and Female Mating Behavior is Dependent on Social Context in the Butterfly Bicyclus anynana

Westerman, Erica L.; Drucker, Caroline B.; Monteiro, Antónia

doi:10.1007/s10905-014-9441-9

Cited by 23 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, males strongly decreased their persistency to court with increasing densities, suggesting that males did not court indiscriminately at higher density despite a higher mate encounter rate. Such male mate choice, expressed through courtship preferences, has already been reported in some species (Hebets & Sullivan-Beckers, 2010), was previously suggested in B. anynana under a female-biased sex ratio (Westerman, Drucker, et al, 2014) and can even sometimes occurs when OSR is skewed towards males (Servedio, 2007). Nevertheless, in our study when the OSR was biased towards females, sex role did not seem to be totally reversed as female choosiness appeared to increase with increasing densities: females escaped more often and more rapidly from male mating attempts with increasing density.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

“…OSR, Arnqvist, 1992;Kokko et al, 2012;Krupa & Sih, 1993;density, Jirotkul, 1999b;Mills & Reynolds, 2003;Pomfret & Knell, 2008;Rowe et al, 1994). In B. anynana, there has long been a general agreement that female choice should prevail in the wet seasonal form (van Bergen et al, 2013;Brakefield et al, 2001;Costanzo & Monteiro, 2007;Frankino, Zwaan, Stern, & Brakefield, 2007;Nieberding et al, 2008Nieberding et al, , 2012Prudic et al, 2011;Robertson & Monteiro, 2005;Westerman, Chirathivat, Schyling, & Monteiro, 2014;Westerman, Drucker, & Monteiro, 2014;Westerman, HodginsDavis, Dinwiddie, & Monteiro, 2012;Westerman & Monteiro, 2013). This is notably based on the facts that females do reject courting males, rarely mate more than once in the field and in the laboratory (van Bergen et al, 2013;Brakefield et al, 2001;Brakefield & Reitsma, 1991;Joron & Brakefield, 2003;Nieberding et al, 2008Nieberding et al, , 2012, and gain neither direct benefits (no evidence for nuptial gifts, Ferkau & Fischer, 2006;M€ olleman, Zwaan, & Brakefield, 2004; but see Prudic et al, 2011;Westerman, Drucker, et al, 2014, who suggest that females may receive a beneficial nuptial gift from dry season males) nor fitness benefits from multiple matings while suffering survival costs (Fischer, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dense, small and male-biased cages exacerbate male–male competition and reduce female choosiness in Bicyclus anynana

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dense, small and male-biased cages exacerbate male–male competition and reduce female choosiness in Bicyclus anynana

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Conversely, aging virgins increase investment in mating activities (signaling or foraging) to counterbalance the ever-increasing risk of lifelong virginity (Lehtonen et al, 2012;de Cock et al, 2014;Simmons, 2015;Umbers et al, 2015). Other adaptations to mitigate FMF include selection of microhabitats most suitable for mate attraction (Rhainds, 2010(Rhainds, , 2015, plasticity in sex role reversal (virgin females becoming the active partner when perceived abundance of males is low) (Lewis & Wang, 1991;Wing, 1991;Gwynne & Lorch, 2013;Westermann et al, 2014;Fritzsche et al, 2016), and agonistic interactions between virgin females for access to males (Rillich et al, 2009;Papadopoulos et al, 2009).…”

Section: Low Risk Of Fmf As An Emergent Property Of Male-female Adaptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecology of female mating failure/lifelong virginity: a review of causal mechanisms in insects and arachnids

Rhainds

2019

Entomologia Exp Applicata

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sexual reproduction implies binary outcomes of competitive interactions for access to male gametes: lifelong virgin females with null fitness vs. mated females with variable (generally nonzero) fitness. Female mating failure has long remained a dormant concept in sexual selection theory in part because it is acutely maladaptive (lifelong virgins that do not reproduce are strongly selected against) and also due to widespread acceptance of the Bateman–Trivers paradigm (anisogamy and correlated sex roles). Based on recent scientific output on lifelong virginity across multiple taxonomic groups in insects (Coleoptera, Diptera, Hemiptera, Lepidoptera, Odonata, Orthoptera, Strepsiptera), female mating failure has become a mainstay of sexual selection over the last decade. Lifelong virginity and senescence (death) are intertwined processes; old virgin females compensate for increased risk of lifelong virginity by becoming less choosy and increasing investment in mating‐related activities. Low rates of female lifelong virginity (<5%) in most natural populations of insects indicate that sex generally ‘works’ due to selective pressures acting on both males and females to enhance lifetime fitness. Mating failures are most common in insects with female flightlessness; these pressures may lead in evolutionary time to transitionary pathways from sexual reproduction to parthenogenesis. Female mating probability is affected by nonlinear density‐dependent processes dependent upon the scale of observation (mate‐encounter Allee effect at large spatial scales, mating interferences between females at small scales). Mate choice and sex role reversal (females being the active sexual partner) are ubiquitous in insects and arachnids with significant paternal investment, but consequences in terms of female lifelong virginity remain unknown. Logistically, conceptual development of female mating failure in insects is most limited by the lack of broadly applicable methods to assess rates of lifetime virginity among flighted females.

show abstract

“…For example, females use pheromone concentration to assess male age (Nieberding et al, 2012); males use female size to assess female reproductive potential (Wedell & Cook, 1999); and both sexes are known to attend to the wing patterns of the opposite sex, though the specific information conveyed through these wing patterns is often unclear (Chamberlain, Hill, Kapan, Gilbert, & Kronforst, 2009;Chouteau, Llaurens, Piron-Prunier, & Joron, 2017;Melo, Salazar, Jiggins, & Linares, 2009;Morehouse & Rutowski, 2010;Obara, Koshitaka, & Arikawa, 2008;Robertson & Monteiro, 2005) (but see . Activity levels may also be used by both sexes in the mate selection process, and are hypothesized to convey information related to current condition (Westerman, Drucker, & Monteiro, 2014;Westerman et al, 2018). Activity levels may also be used by both sexes in the mate selection process, and are hypothesized to convey information related to current condition (Westerman, Drucker, & Monteiro, 2014;Westerman et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behaviour before beauty: Signal weighting during mate selection in the butterfly Papilio polytes

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mating displays often contain multiple signals. Different combinations of these signals may be equally successful at attracting a mate, as environment and signal combination may influence relative signal weighting by choosy individuals. This variation in signal weighting among choosy individuals may facilitate the maintenance of polymorphic displays and signalling behaviour. One group of animals known for their polymorphic patterning are Batesian mimetic butterflies, where the interaction of sexual selection and predation pressures is hypothesized to influence the maintenance of polymorphic wing patterning and behaviour. Males in the female‐limited polymorphic Batesian mimetic butterfly Papilio polytes use female wing pattern and female activity levels when determining whom to court. They court stationary females with mimetic wing patterns more often than stationary females with non‐mimetic, male‐like wing patterns and active females more often than inactive females. It is unclear whether females modify their behaviour to increase (or decrease) their likelihood of receiving male courtship, or whether non‐mimetic females spend more time in cryptic environments than mimetic females, to compensate for their lack of mimicry‐driven predation protection (at the cost of decreased visibility to males). In addition, relative signal weighting of female wing pattern and activity to male mate selection is unknown. To address these questions, we conducted a series of observational studies of a polymorphic P. polytes population in a large butterfly enclosure. We found that males exclusively courted active females, irrespective of female wing pattern. However, males did court active non‐mimetic females significantly more often than expected given their relative abundance in the population. Females exhibited similar activity levels, and selected similar resting environments, irrespective of wing pattern. Our results suggest that male preference for non‐mimetic females may play an active role in the maintenance of the non‐mimetic female form in natural populations, where males are likely to be in the presence of active, as well as inactive, mimetic and non‐mimetic females.

show abstract

Male and Female Mating Behavior is Dependent on Social Context in the Butterfly Bicyclus anynana

Cited by 23 publications

References 47 publications

Dense, small and male-biased cages exacerbate male–male competition and reduce female choosiness in Bicyclus anynana

Dense, small and male-biased cages exacerbate male–male competition and reduce female choosiness in Bicyclus anynana

Ecology of female mating failure/lifelong virginity: a review of causal mechanisms in insects and arachnids

Behaviour before beauty: Signal weighting during mate selection in the butterfly Papilio polytes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About