Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Testing the direct and genetic benefit hypotheses of polyandry in the wood tiger moth

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Polyandry is widespread among many animal taxa, yet the benefits for females are still debated. The two main hypotheses to explain its evolution are the direct benefits and the genetic benefits hypotheses, which are not mutually exclusive. We tested both in the wood tiger moth Arctia plantaginis (Arctiidae) by comparing fitness components in single and multiple mated females. We measured female longevity and number of eggs laid (i.e. direct benefits), as well as offspring hatching success and survival (i.e. genetic benefits). Fitness components did not differ between single and multiple mated females; therefore, there was no evidence to support either direct or genetic benefits hypotheses, or any costs. After paternity analyses, we obtained qualitatively similar results by comparing clutches effectively sired by one male with clutches sired by two males, regardless of the number of times a female mated. We further investigated the proximate mechanisms driving the outcome of paternity patterns. First male precedence, last male precedence, and mixed paternity were present in equal proportions, although there was a trend towards last male sperm precedence in later clutches. Interestingly, in polyandric females, the age of the second male positively affected the number of eggs laid and the number of surviving offspring, indicating an advantage for older males, possibly due to a higher parental investment. We suggest in light of recent theoretical work that the acceptance of more partners in female A. plantaginis may have evolved to ensure fertilization and avoid the risk of virgin death.

Significance statement

Why do females mate with multiple males? Here, we investigate the effects of polyandry on female fitness components in the wood tiger moth Arctia plantaginis. We do not find any support for the direct or genetic benefits hypotheses, or any costs of polyandry. We do not find any clear paternity patterns as last male, first male, and mixed paternities are equally present. We suggest that in this species polyandry may have evolved to ensure fertilization and avoid the risk of virgin death.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alcock J, Thornhill R (1983) The evolution of insect mating systems. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

  • Arnqvist G (1989) Multiple mating in a water strider: mutual benefits or intersexual conflict? Anim Behav 38:749–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnqvist G, Nilsson T (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav 60:145–164

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman A (1948) Intrasexual selection. Heredity 2:349–368

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Birkhead TR (2000) Promiscuity: an evolutionary history of sperm competition. Harvard University Press

  • Birkhead TR, and Moller AP (1992) Sperm competition in birds. Evolutionary causes and consequences. Academic Press, San Diego (CA)

  • Birkhead TR, Parker GA (1997) Sperm competition and mating systems. Pp. 121–45 in. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, 4th edn. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bretman A, Newcombe D, Tregenza T (2009) Promiscuous females avoid inbreeding by controlling sperm storage. Mol Ecol 18:3340–3345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Britz H, Wingfield BD, Coutinho TA, Wingfield MJ (2002) Sequence characterized amplified polymorphic markers for the pitch canker pathogen, Fusarium circinatum. Mol Ecol Notes 2:577–580

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman T, Liddle LF, Kalb JM, Wolfner MF, Partridge L (1995) Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 373:241–244

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chargè R, Wedell N, Lindstedt C, Hämäläinen L, Övermark E, Mappes J (2016) Variation in male fertility in a polymorphic moth, Parasemia plantaginis. Anim Behav 111:33–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty LR, Simmons LW, Shuker DM (2016) Postcopulatory sexual selection when a female mates once. Anim Behav 116:13–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap-Pianka H, Boggs CL, and Gilbert LE (1977) Ovarian dynamics in heliconiine butterflies: programmed senescence versus eternal youth. Science 197(80-. ):487–90

  • Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press

  • Egan AL, Hook KA, Reeve HK, Iyengar VK (2016) Polyandrous females provide sons with more competitive sperm: support for the sexy-sperm hypothesis in the rattlebox moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Evolution 70:72–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Evans JP, Zane L, Francescato S, Pilastro A (2003) Directional postcopulatory sexual selection revealed by artificial insemination. Nature 421:360–363

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fedorka KM, Mousseau TA (2002) Material and genetic benefits of female multiple mating and polyandry. Anim Behav 64:361–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher RA (1915) The evolution of sexual preference. Eugen Rev.

  • Fricke C, Maklakov AA (2007) Male age does not affect female fitness in a polyandrous beetle , Callosobruchus maculatus. Anim Behav 74:541–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galarza JA, Nokelainen O, Ashrafi R, Hegna RH, Mappes J (2014) Temporal relationship between genetic and warning signal variation in the aposematic wood tiger moth (Parasemia plantaginis). Mol Ecol 23:4939–4957

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Galarza JA, Viinikainen SM, Ashrafi R, Mappes J (2011) First microsatellite panel for the wood tiger moth (Parasemia plantaginis). Conserv Genet Resour 3:197–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman A, Hill J (2006) Data analysis using regression and multilevel hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Gordon SP, Kokko H, Rojas B, Nokelainen O, Mappes J (2015) Colour polymorphism torn apart by opposing positive frequency-dependent selection, yet maintained in space. J Anim Ecol 84:1555–1564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gwynne DT (1984) Courtship feeding increases female reproductive success in bushcrickets. Nature 307:361–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gwynne DT (2008) Sexual conflict over nuptial gifts in insects. Annu Rev Entomol 53:83–101

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hegna RH, Nokelainen O, Hegna JR, Mappes J (2013) To quiver or to shiver: increased melanization benefits thermoregulation, but reduces warning signal efficacy in the wood tiger moth. Proc Biol Sci 280:20122812

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Holman L, Kokko H (2013) Extinction risk and conservation the consequences of polyandry for population viability, the consequences of polyandry for population viability, extinction risk and conservation. Phil Trans R Soc B 368:20120053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ivy TM, Sakaluk SK (2005) Polyandry promotes enhanced offspring survival in decorated crickets. Evolution 59:152–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 75:21–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jones TM, Elgar MA (2004) The role of male age, sperm age and mating history on fecundity and fertilization success in the hide beetle. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 271(1545):1311–1318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kehl T, Karl I, Fischer K (2013) Old-male paternity advantage is a function of accumulating sperm and last-male precedence in a butterfly. Mol Ecol 22:4289–4297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Knell RJ, Webberley KM (2004) Sexually transmitted diseases of insects: distribution, evolution, ecology and host behaviour. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 79:557–581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kokko H, Mappes J (2013) Multiple mating by females is a natural outcome of a null model of mate encounters. Entomol Exp Appl 146:26–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kokko H, Mappes J (2005) Sexual selection when fertilization is not guaranteed. Evolution 59:1876–1885

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • LaMunyon CW (2001) Determinants of sperm precedence in a noctuid moth Heliothis virescens: a role for male age. Ecol Entomol 26:388–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaMunyon CW, Eisner T (1993) Postcopulatory sexual selection in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 90:4689–4692

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lindstedt C, Eager H, Ihalainen E, Kahilainen A, Stevens M, Mappes J (2011) Direction and strength of selection by predators for the color of the aposematic wood tiger moth. Behav Ecol 22:580–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindstedt C, Lindström L, Mappes J (2008) Hairiness and warning colours as components of antipredator defence: additive or interactive benefits? Anim Behav 75:1703–1713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindstedt C, Morehouse N, Pakkanen H, Casas J, Christides J-P, Kemppainen K, Lindström L, Mappes J (2010) Characterizing the pigment composition of a variable warning signal of Parasemia plantaginis larvae. Funct Ecol 24:759–766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magurran AE, Seghers BH (1994) A cost of sexual harassment in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Proc R Soc B 258:89–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milonas PG, Andow DA (2010) Virgin male age and mating success in Ostrinia nubilalis ( Lepidoptera : Crambidae ). Anim Behav 79:509–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC (2007) Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 82:591–605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nokelainen O, Hegna RH, Reudler JH, Lindstedt C, Mappes J (2012) Trade-off between warning signal efficacy and mating success in the wood tiger moth. Proc Biol Sci 279:257–265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ojala K, Lindström L, Mappes J (2007) Life-history constraints and warning signal expression in an arctiid moth. Funct Ecol 21:1162–1167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osikowski A, Rafin’ski J (2001) Multiple insemination increases reproductive success of female Montandon’s newt ( Triturus montandoni , Caudata, Salamandridae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:145–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1970) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol Rev 45:525–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1984) Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating strategies. P. 1/60 in Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems

  • Parker GA (1982) Why are there so many tiny sperm ? Sperm competition and the maintenance of two sexes. J Theor Biol 96:281–294

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA, Birkhead TR (2013) Polyandry: the history of a revolution. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 368:20120335–20120335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pizzari T, Wedell N (2013) The polyandry revolution. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 368:20120041–20120041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical Computing R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/

  • Ridley M (1988) Mating frequency and fecundity in insects. Biol Rev 63:509–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rojas B, Gordon SP, Mappes J (2015) Frequency-dependent flight activity in the colour polymorphic wood tiger moth. Curr Zool 61:762–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuker DM, and Simmons LW (2014) The evolution of insect mating systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  • Simmons LW (2001) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Princeton University Press

  • Simmons LW (2005) The evolution of polyandry: sperm competition, sperm selection, and offspring viability. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:125–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons LW, Siva-Jothy MT (1998) Sperm competition in insects: mechanisms and the potential for selection. In: Sperm competition and sexual selection, pp 341–434

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Slatyer RA, Mautz BS, Backwell PRY, Jennions MD (2012) Estimating genetic benefits of polyandry from experimental studies: a meta-analysis. Biol Rev 87:1–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Snook RR (2014) The evolution of polyandry. Pp. 159–180 in The evolution of insect mating systems

  • South A, Lewis SM (2011) The influence of male ejaculate quantity on female fitness: a meta-analysis. Biol Rev 86:299–309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford Univ. Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Svärd L, Wiklund C (1988) Fecundity, egg weight and longevity in relation to multiple matings in females of the monarch butterfly. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 23:39–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svensson M (1996) Sexual selection in moths: the role of chemical communication. Biol Rev 71:113–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taggart JB (2007) FAP: an exclusion-based parental assignment program with enhanced predictive functions: program note. Mol Ecol Notes 7:412–415

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor ML, Price TAR, Wedell N (2014) Polyandry in nature: a global analysis. Trends Ecol Evol 29:376–383 Elsevier Ltd

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Teder T, Vellau H, Tammaru T (2014) Age and size at maturity: a quantitative review of diet-induced reaction norms in insects. Evolution 68:3217–3228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tregenza T, Wedell N (2000) Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol Ecol 9:1013–1027

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tregenza T, Wedell N (2002) Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature 415:71–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. P. in Sexual selection and the descent of man. Biological Laboratories, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

  • Tuni C, Albo MJ, Bilde T (2013) Polyandrous females acquire indirect benefits in a nuptial feeding species. J Evol Biol 26:1307–1316

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vahed K (1998) The function of nuptial feeding in insects: a review of empirical studies. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 73:43–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedell N (2005) Female receptivity in butterflies and moths. J Exp Biol 208:3433–3440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wedell N, Cook PA (1998) Determinants of paternity in a butterfly. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 265:625–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund C, Forsberg J (1986) Courtship and male discrimination between virgin and mated females in the orange tip butterfly Anthocharis cardamines. Anim Behav 34:328–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund C, Kaitala A, Wedell N (1998) Decoupling of reproductive rates and parental expenditure in a polyandrous butterfly. Behav Ecol 9:20–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund C, Karlsson B, Leimar O (2001) Sexual conflict and cooperation in butterfly reproduction: a comparative study of polyandry and female fitness. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 268:1661–1667

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Williams GC (1966) Natural selection, the costs of reproduction, and a refinement of lack ‘s principle. Am Nat 100:687–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu J, Wang Q (2009) A polyandrous female moth discriminates against previous mates to gain genetic diversity. Anim Behav 78:1309–1315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yasui Y (1998) The “genetic benefits” of female multiple mating reconsidered. Trends Ecol Evol 13:246–260

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zeh JA, Zeh DW (1996) The evolution of polyandry I: intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 263:1711–1717

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Kaisa Suisto for the maintenance of laboratory stock, Sari Viinikainen for the invaluable help with the molecular work, and Carol Gilsenan for the help with the experiments. We also thank Franzi Korner-Nievergelt for statistical advice, and Ossi Nokelainen, Remi Chargè, Federica Poli, and Cristina Tuni for the feedback.

Funding

This project was funded by the Centre of Excellence in Biological Interaction, via the Academy of Finland (Project No. 252411). FS was supported by an Erasmus scholarship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre of Excellence in Biological Interactions, Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, 40014, Jyväskylä, Finland

    Francesca Santostefano, Juan A. Galarza & Johanna Mappes

  2. Département de sciences biologiques, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), C.P. 8888, Succursale Centre-Ville, Montréal, Québec, H3C 3P8, Canada

    Francesca Santostefano

Authors
  1. Francesca Santostefano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juan A. Galarza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Johanna Mappes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesca Santostefano.

Additional information

Communicated by D. J. Hosken

Electronic supplementary material

Table S1

(DOCX 16 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Santostefano, F., Galarza, J.A. & Mappes, J. Testing the direct and genetic benefit hypotheses of polyandry in the wood tiger moth. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 72, 109 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-018-2525-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-018-2525-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation