The costs of copulating in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea

Blanckenhorn, Wolf U.; Hosken, David J.; Martin, Oliver Y.; Reim, Constanze; Teuschl, Yvonne; Ward, Paul I.

doi:10.1093/beheco/13.3.353

Cited by 223 publications

(209 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

196

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As noted in Section I, groups with protected females are expected to have reduced levels of male-female conflict in some but not all aspects of genitalic function during copulation. There are possible male genitalic functions that might stiU be in conflict with female interests in species with protected females : damage to the female reproductive tract that makes remating less likely or less effective, or facilitates entry of manipulative male seminal products into her body cavity (Wing, 1982;Eberhard, 1993 a;Crudgington & SivaJothy, 2000;Johnstone & Keller, 2000;Blanckenhorn et at., 2002); removal of sperm from previous males (Waage, 1979;Birkhead & MoUer, 1998; but see discussion in Section II) ; and holding the female in copula for longer than is desirable from the female's point of view or to deposit plugs in her genitalia (e.g. to protect her against copulations by other males).…”

Section: (2) Comparisons Of Groups With Protected and Unprotected Femmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There could be conflict, for instance, over whether the female oviposits without mating with additional males ; over whether the male damages the female's reproductive tract so as to make it less likely that she will remate or that rematings will result in sperm transfer (Wing, 1982;Eberhard, 1993«;Crudgington & Siva-Jothy, 2001; Blanckenhorn et at., 2002); over whether the male uses his genitalia to grasp the female for longer than necessary for sperm transfer so as to guard her from other males (Alcock, 1994), and thus interferes with other female activities such as feeding or predator defence ; over whether Table 1. Mechanical functions attributed to male genitalic structures in published studies of Diptera.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Male–female conflict and genitalia: failure to confirm predictions in insects and spiders

Eberhard¹

2004

Biological Reviews

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some recent models suggest a new role for evolutionary arms races between males and females in sexual selection. Female resistance to males is proposed to be driven by the direct advantage to the female of avoiding maleimposed reductions in the number of offspring she can produce, rather than by the indirect advantage of selecting among possible sires for her offspring, as in some traditional models of sexual selection by female choice. This article uses the massive but hitherto under-utilized taxonomic literature on genitalic evolution to test, in a twostep process, whether such new models of arms races between males and females have been responsible for rapid divergent evolution of male genitalia. The test revolves around the prediction that 'new arms races' are less likely to occur in species in which females are largely or completely protected from unwanted sexual attentions from males (e.g. species which mate in leks or in male swarms, in which males attract females from a distance, or in which females initiate contact by attracting males from a distance).The multiple possible mechanical functions of male genitalia are summarized, and functions of male genitalic structures in 43 species in 21 families of Diptera are compiled. Functions associated with intromission and insemination (e.g. seizing and positioning the female appropriately, pushing past possible barriers within the female, orienting within the female to achieve sperm transfer), which are unlikely to be involved in new arms races when females are protected, are shown to be common ( > 50 % of documented cases). This information is then used to generate the new arms race prediction: differences in genitalic form among congeneric species in which females are protected should be less common than differences among congeneric species in which females are vulnerable to harassment by males. This prediction was tested using a sample of 361 genera of insects and spiders. The prediction clearly failed, even when the data were adjusted to take into account several possible biases. Comparative analyses within particular taxonomic groups also failed to show the predicted trends, as did less extensive data on other non-genitalic male display traits. Arms races, as defined in some recent models, seem to have been less important in male•female coevolution of genitalic structures than has been suggested. By elimination, alternative interpretations, such as traditional female choice, which do not predict associations between female protection from harassment and rapid divergent evolution, are strengthened.

show abstract

Section: (2) Comparisons Of Groups With Protected and Unprotected Femmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Male–female conflict and genitalia: failure to confirm predictions in insects and spiders

Eberhard¹

2004

Biological Reviews

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, in polyandrous species, mating may reduce female lifespan as a consequence of male manipulation [6][7][8][9]. Manipulation comprises both the transfer of toxic compounds, such as those found in Drosophila fruit flies [10], the bruchid Acanthoscelides obtectus [11], or the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans [12], and physical damage, such as that brought about by bed bugs [13], the bruchid Callosobruchus maculatus [14], or the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea [15]. Considering these negative effects, it may seem surprising that multiple mating is the rule in insects at rates that are often much higher than required for fertilizing the total egg content of a female [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Cost of Mating: Influences of Life History Traits and Mating Strategies on Lifespan in Two Closely RelatedYponomeutaSpecies

Bakker

Louçã

Roessingh

et al. 2011

International Journal of Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theory predicts that in monandrous butterfly species males should not invest in a long lifespan because receptive females quickly disappear from the mating population. In polyandrous species, however, it pays for males to invest in longevity, which increases the number of mating opportunities and thus reproductive fitness. We tested an extension of this idea and compared male and female lifespan of two closely related Yponomeuta species with different degree of polyandry. Our results confirmed the theoretical prediction that male lifespan is fine-tuned to female receptive lifespan; once-mated males and females of both polyandrous species had an equal lifespan. However, the degree of polyandry was not reflected in male relative to female lifespan. The observed similar female and male lifespan could largely be attributed to a dramatic reduction of female lifespan after mating.

show abstract

“…Yet it is now apparent that females of many species mate more than is required to fertilize a full complement of their eggs (Birkhead & Møller 1995;Fedorka & Mousseau 2002). Furthermore, multiple mating appears to be costly in a number of ways, including increased risk of predation, exhaustion of time and energy, risk of injury, parasites and diseases, and harmful effects of the male ejaculate (Daly 1978;Fowler & Partridge 1989;Chapman et al 1995;Stockley & Seal 2001;Stutt & Siva-Jothy 2001;Blanckenhorn et al 2002;Martin & Hosken 2003;Maklakov & Lubin 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%