Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:05:15.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Polyandry increases reproductive performance but does not decrease survival in female Brontispa longissima

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2016

K. Kawazu*
Affiliation:
National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8604, Japan Kyoyu Agri Co., Ltd., 173-2, Guze, Tomitake, Nagano 381-0006, Japan
W. Sugeno
Affiliation:
National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8604, Japan
A. Mochizuki
Affiliation:
National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8604, Japan
S. Nakamura
Affiliation:
Japan International Research Centre for Agricultural Sciences, 1-1 Owashi, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8686, Japan
*
*Author for correspondence Tel: +8126-296-2097 Fax: +8126-296-2037 E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

The costs and benefits of polyandry are still not well understood. We studied the effects of multiple mating on the reproductive performance of female Brontispa longissima (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), one of the most serious pests of the coconut palm, by using three experimental treatments: (1) singly-mated females (single treatment); (2) females that mated 10 times with the same male (repetition treatment); and (3) females that mated once with each of 10 different males (polyandry treatment). Both multiple mating treatments resulted in significantly greater total egg production and the proportion of eggs that successfully hatched (hatching success) than with the single mating treatment. Furthermore, the polyandry treatment resulted in greater total egg production and hatching success than with the repetition treatment. Thus, mate diversity may affect the direct and indirect benefits of multiple mating. Female longevity, the length of the preoviposition period, the length of the period from emergence to termination of oviposition, and the length of the ovipositing period did not differ among treatments. The pronounced fecundity and fertility benefits that females gain from multiple mating, coupled with a lack of longevity costs, apparently explain the extreme polyandry in B. longissima.

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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 spider: mutual benefits or intersexual conflict? Animal Behaviour 38, 749756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnqvist, G. & Nilsson, T. (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Animal Behaviour 60, 145164.Google Scholar
Arnqvist, G., Nilsson, T. & Katvala, M. (2004) Mating rates and fitness in female bean weevils. Behavioural Ecology 16, 123127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avila, F.W., Sirot, L.K., LaFlamme, B.A., Rubenstein, C.D. & Wolfner, M.F. (2011) Insect seminal fluid proteins: identification and function. Annual Review of Entomology 56, 2140.Google Scholar
Baer, B. & Schmid-Hempel, P. (1999) Experimental variation in polyandry affects parasite loads and fitness in a bumble-bee. Nature 397, 151154.Google 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 . Behavioral Ecology 13, 353358.Google Scholar
Boggs, C.L. & Gilbert, L.E. (1979) Male contribution to egg production in butterflies: evidence for transfer of nutrients at mating. Science 206, 8384.Google Scholar
Boulton, R.A. & Shuker, D.M. (2015) The costs and benefits of multiple mating in a mostly monandrous wasp. Evolution 69, 939949.Google Scholar
Burpee, D.M. & Sakaluk, S.K. (1993) Repeated matings offset costs of reproduction in female crickets. Evolutionary Ecology 7, 240250.Google Scholar
Butlin, R.K., Woodhatch, C.W. & Hewitt, G.M. (1987) Male spermatophore investment increases female fecundity in a grasshopper. Evolution 41, 221225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J.F. (2005) Fitness consequences of multiple mating on female Sitophilus oryzae L. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Environmental Entomology 34, 833843.Google Scholar
Chapman, T., Miyatake, T., Smith, H.K. & Partridge, L. (1998) Interactions of mating, egg production and death rates in females of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratilis capitata . Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biological Science 265, 18791894.Google Scholar
Collins, A.M. & Donoghue, A.M. (1999) Viability assessment of honey bee, Apis mellifera, sperm using dual fluorescent staining. Theriogenology 51, 15131523.Google Scholar
Cornell, S.J. & Tregenza, T. (2007) A new theory for the evolution of polyandry as a means of inbreeding avoidance. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biological Science 274, 28732879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drnevich, J.M., Papke, R.S., Rauser, C.L. & Rutowski, R.L. (2001) Material benefits from multiple mating in female mealworm beetles (Tenebrio molitor L.). Journal of Insect Behaviour 14, 215230.Google Scholar
Eady, P.E., Hamilton, L. & Lyons, R.E. (2007) Copulation, genital damage and early death in Callosobruchus maculatus . Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biological Science 274, 247252.Google Scholar
Edvardsson, M. (2007) Female Callosobruchus maculatus mate when they are thirsty: resource-rich ejaculates as mating effort in a beetle. Animal Behaviour 74, 183188.Google Scholar
Fisher, R.A. (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, D.O., Double, M.C., Blomberg, S.P., Jennions, M.D. & Cockburn, A. (2006) Post-mating sexual selection increases lifetime fitness of polyandrous females in the wild. Nature 444, 8992.Google Scholar
Fjerdingstad, E.J. & Boomsma, J.J. (1998) Multiple mating increases the sperm stores of Atta colombica leafcutter ant queens. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 42, 257261.Google Scholar
Fox, C.W. (1993) Multiple mating, lifetime fecundity and female mortality of the bruchid beetle, Callosobruchus masculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Functional Ecology 7, 203208.Google Scholar
Gillot, C. (2003) Male accessory gland secretions: modulators of female reproductive physiology and behavior. Annual Review of Entomology 48, 163184.Google Scholar
Hasson, O. & Stone, L. (2009) Male infertility, female fertility and extrapair copulations. Biological Reviews 84, 225244.Google Scholar
Jennions, M.D. & Petrie, M. (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 75, 2164.Google Scholar
Jones, A.G., Walker, D. & Avise, J.C. (2001) Genetic evidence for extream polyandry and extraordinary sex-role reversal in a pipefish. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biological Science 268, 25312535.Google Scholar
Kawazu, K., Ichiki, R.T., Dang, D.T. & Nakamura, S. (2011) Mating sequence and evidence for the existence of female contact sex pheromone in Brontispa longissima (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly-JARQ 45, 99106.Google Scholar
Kawazu, K., Sugeno, W., Mochizuki, A., Takano, S.I., Murata, M. & Nakamura, S. (2012) Age in relation to copulation, egg development, and multiple mating behavior in the coconut palm pest, Brontispa longissima (Gestro) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Annals of Entomological Society of America 105, 746750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, L. & Reeve, H.K. (1995) Why do females mate with multiple males? The sexually selected sperm hypothesis. Advances in the Study of Behavior 24, 291315.Google Scholar
Kraus, F.B., Neumann, P., Van Praagh, J. & Moritz, R.F.A. (2004) Sperm limitation and the evolution of extreme polyandry in honeybees (Apis mellifera L.). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 55, 494501.Google Scholar
Liebregts, W. & Chapman, K. (2004) Impact and control of the coconut hispine beetle, Brontispa longissima Gestro (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). pp. 1934 in. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (Ed.), Report of the expert consultation on coconut beetle outbreak in APPPC member countries. FAO, Bangkok, Thailand.Google Scholar
Lu, B., Tang, C., Peng, Z., Salle, J.L. & Wan, F. (2008) Biological assessment in quarantine of Asecodes hispinarum Bouček (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) as an imported biological control agent of Brontispa longissima (Gestro) (Coleoptera: Hispidae) in Hainan, China. Biological Control 45, 2935.Google Scholar
Mac-Diarmid, A.B. & Butler, A.B. (1999) Sperm economy and limitation in spiny lobsters. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 46, 1424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markow, T.A. & Ankney, P.F. (1984) Drosophila males contribute to oogenesis in a multiple mating species. Science 224, 302303.Google Scholar
Michiels, N. & Newman, L. (1998) Sex and violence in hermaphrodites. Nature 391, 647.Google Scholar
Nakamura, S. (1996) Inbreeding and rotational breeding of the parasitoid fly, Exorista japonica (Diptera: Tachinidae). Applied Entomology and Zoology 31, 433441.Google Scholar
Nakamura, S., Konishi, K. & Takasu, K. (2006) Invasion of the coconut hispine beetle, Brontispa longissima: Current situation and control measures in Southeast Asia. pp. 19 in Ku, T.Y., Chiang, M.Y. (Eds) Proceedings of international workshop on development of database (APASD) for biological invasion, vol 3. Taiwan Agricultural Chemicals and Toxic Substance Research Institute, Taichung, Taiwan, Food and Fertilizer Technology Center (FFTC) for the Asia and Pacific Region, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Osikowski, A. & Rafinski, J. (2001) Multiple insemination increases reproductive success of female Montandon's newt (Triturus montandoni, Caudata, Salamandridae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 49, 145149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pai, A., Bennett, L. & Yan, G.Y. (2005) Female multiple mating for fertility assurance in red flour beetles (Tribolium castaneum). Canadian Journal of Zoology 83, 913919.Google Scholar
Parker, G.A. (1970) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biological Reviews Cambridge Philosophical Society 45, 525567.Google Scholar
Pizzari, T. & Wedell, N. (2013) The polyandry revolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 368, 15.Google Scholar
Radwan, J. (2003) Male age, germ line mutations and the benefits of polyandry. Ecological Letter 6, 581586.Google Scholar
Reinhart, K. (2007) Evolutionary consequences of sperm cell aging. Quarterly Review of Biology 82, 375393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rethinam, P. & Singh, S.P. (2007) Current status of the coconut beetle outbreaks in the Asia-PaciTc region. pp. 1D23 in Appanah, S., Sim, H.C. and Sankaran, K.V. (Eds) Developing an Asia-Pacific strategy for forest invasive species: the coconut beetle problem-bridging agriculture and forestry. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and the PaciTc Bangkok 2007, RAP publication, Bangkok, Thailand.Google Scholar
Rönn, J., Katvala, M. & Arnqvist, G. (2007) Coevolution between harmful male genitalia and female resistance in seed beetles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 1092110925.Google Scholar
Rowe, L., Arnqvist, G., Sih, A. & Krupa, J. (1994) Sexual conflict and the evolutionary ecology of mating patterns: water striders as a model system. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 9, 289293.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S.K. & Peterson, M.A. (2006) Strong material benefits and no longevity costs of multiple mating in an extremely polyandrous leaf beetle, Chrysochus cobaltinus (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Behavioral Ecology 17, 10041010.Google Scholar
Simmons, L.W. (2001) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Simmons, L.W. (2005) The evolution of polyandry: sperm competition, sperm selection, and offspring viability. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 36, 125146.Google Scholar
Simmons, L.W. & Kotiaho, J.S. (2002) Evolution of ejaculates: patterns of phenotypic and genotypic variation and condition depence in sperm competition traits. Evolution 56, 16221631.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, F.J. (1995) Biometry. Freeman, New York. pp. 1937.Google Scholar
South, A. & Lewis, S.M. (2011) The influence of male ejaculate quantity of female fitness: a meta-analysis. Biological Reviews 86, 299309.Google Scholar
Slatyer, R.A., Mautz, B.S., Backwell, P.R.Y. & Jennions, M.D. (2012) Estimating genetic benefits of polyandry from experimental studies: a meta-analysis. Biological Reviews Cambridge Philosophical Society 87, 133.Google Scholar
Sugeno, W., Kawazu, K., Takano, S., Nakamura, S. & Mochizuki, A. (2011) Suitability of monocots for, rearing alien coconut pest Brontispa longissima (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Annals of Entomological Society of America 104, 682687.Google Scholar
Takasu, K., Takano, S., Konishi, K. & Nakamura, S. (2010) An invasive pest Brontispa longissima (Gestro) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) attacks an endemic palm in the Yaeyama Islands, Japan. Applied Entomology and Zoology 45, 137144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tregenza, T. & Wedell, N. (1998) Benefits of multiple mates in the cricket Gryllus bimaulatus . Evolution 52, 17261730.Google Scholar
Tregenza, T. & Wedell, N. (2002) Polyandrous females avoid cost of inbreeding. Nature 415, 7173.Google Scholar
Ursprung, C., Hollander, M. & Gwynne, D. (2009) Female seed beetles, Callosobruchus maculatus, remate for male-supplied water rather than ejaculate nutrition. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 63, 781788.Google Scholar
Velando, A., Torres, R. & Alonso-Alvarez, C. (2008) Avoiding bad genes: oxidatively damaged DNA in germ line and mate choice. Bioassays 30, 12121219.Google Scholar
Wagner, W.E., Kelley, R.J., Tucker, K.R. & Harper, C.J. (2001) Females receive a life-span benefit from male ejaculates in a field cricket. Evolution 55, 9941001.Google Scholar
Wang, Q. & Davis, L.K. (2006) Females remate for sperm replenishment in a seed bug: evidence from offspring viability. Journal of Insect Behaviour 19, 337346.Google Scholar
Watson, P.J., Arnqvist, G. & Stallman, R.R. (1998) Sexual conflict and the energetic costs of mating and mate choice in water spiders. American Naturalist 151, 4658.Google Scholar
Wigby, S. & Chapman, T. (2005) Sex peptide causes mating costs in female Drosophila melanogaster . Current Biology 15, 316321.Google Scholar
Wiklund, C., Kaitala, A., Lindfors, V. & Abenius, J. (1993) Polyandry and its effect on female reproduction in the green-veined white butterfly (Pieris napi L.). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 33, 2533.Google Scholar
Winotai, A., Sindhusake, C. & Morakote, R. (2007) Brief review on biological control of coconut hispine beetle Brontispa longissima in Thailand. pp. 228273 in Arancon, R.N. Jr. (Ed.) The APCC/FAORAP/ APPPC consultative meeting on the IPM of Brontispa longissima . FAO, Bangkok, Thailand.Google Scholar
Xu, J. & Wang, Q. (2009) A polyandrous female moth discriminates against previous mates to gain genetic diversity. Animal Behaviour 78, 13091315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamashita, A., Winotai, A. & Takasu, K. (2008) Use of mature leaves of coconut palm and narrowleaf cattail for laboratory rearing of the coconut leaf beetle Brontispa longissima . Bulletin of the Institute of Tropical Agriculture Kyushu University 31, 6167.Google Scholar
Yamauchi, S. (1985) Some notes of the Brontispa longissima Gestro (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Journal of Okinawa Agriculture 20, 4953. [In Japanese].Google Scholar
Yasui, Y. (1998) The genetic benefits of female multiple mating reconsidered. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13, 246250.Google Scholar
Yasui, Y. (2001) Female multiple mating as a genetic bet-hedging strategy when mate choice criteria are unreliable. Ecological Research 16, 605616.Google Scholar
Zeh, J.A. & Zeh, D.W. (1996) The evolution of polyandry 1: Intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biological Science 263, 17111717.Google Scholar
Zeh, J.A. & Zeh, D.W. (1997) The evolution of polyandry 2: post-copulatory defences against genetic incompatibility. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biological Science 264, 6975.Google Scholar