Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 35, Issue 6, pp 385–388 | Cite as

Polyandrous female butterflies forage for matings

  • Arja Kaitala
  • Christer Wiklund
Article

Abstract

Butterfly mating systems exhibit great variation and range from strict monandry to strong polyandry. During mating males transfer ejaculates containing both sperm and accessory substances to females. In the polyandrous green-veined white butterfly, Pieris napi (Lepidoptera, Pieridae) these ejaculates average 15% of male body mass, but can represent up to 23% of body mass for individual males. Hence, mating is costly to males, and recently mated males increase copula duration but decrease ejaculate mass transferred to females. Substances transferred to females during mating are later incorporated into female soma and reproductive tissues, and multiply mated female butterflies have higher lifetime fecundity, lay proportionately larger eggs, and live longer compared to once mated females. Here we report that females of P. napi allowed to mate at liberty with recently mated males only (i.e. males that delivered a small ejaculate) increased their lifetime number of matings compared to females allowed to mate with virgin males only (i.e. males that delivered large ejaculates), the former group mating on average 5.1 times (range 2–10) and the latter group mating on average 2.8 times (range 1–4). The lifetime fecundity of the two groups of females did not differ significantly. Because nutrient donation from males is essential for females to realize their potential fecundity, we conclude that females of the polyandrous green-veined white actively forage for matings.

Key words

Mating frequency Butterfly Ejaculate Pieris napi 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boggs CL (1990) A general model of the role of male-donated nutrients in female insects' reproduction. Amer Nat 136:598–617Google Scholar
  2. Boggs CL, Gilbert LE (1979) Male contribution to egg production in butterflies: Evidence for transfer of nutrients at mating. Science 206:83–84Google Scholar
  3. Burns JM (1968) Mating frequency in natural populations of skippers and butterflies as determined by spermatophore counts. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 61:852–859Google Scholar
  4. Drummond BA III (1984) Multiple mating and sperm competition in the Lepidoptera. In Smith RL (ed) Sperm Competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic Press, New York, pp. 291–370Google Scholar
  5. Forsberg J, Wiklund C (1989) Mating in the afternoon: Time-saving in courtship and remating by females of a polyandrous butterfly Pieris napi. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:349–356Google Scholar
  6. Gwynne DT (1984) Courtship feeding increases female reproductive success in bushcrickets. Nature 307:361–363Google Scholar
  7. Gwynne DT (1988) Courtship feeding and the fitness of female katydids. Evolution 42:545–5Google Scholar
  8. Gwynne DT (1990) Testing parental investment and the control of sexual selection in katydids: the operational sex ratio. Am Nat 136:474–484Google Scholar
  9. Gwynne DT, and Simmons LW (1990) Experimental reversal of courtship roles in an insect. Nature 346:172–174Google Scholar
  10. Kaitala A, and Wiklund C (1994) Female mate choice and mating costs in the polyandrous butterfly Pieris napi. J Insect Behav, in pressGoogle Scholar
  11. Oberhauser K (1989) Effects of spermatophores on male and female monarch butterfly reproductive success. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:237–246Google Scholar
  12. Oberhauser K (1992) Rate of ejaculate breakdown and intermating intervals in monarch butterflies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:367–373Google Scholar
  13. Rutowski RL, Gilchrist GW, Terkanian B (1987) Female butterflies mated with recently mated males show reduced reproductive output. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 209:319–322Google Scholar
  14. Rutowski RL (1979) The butterfly as an honest salesman. Anim Behav 7:1269–1270Google Scholar
  15. Simmons LW (1990) Nuptial feeding in tettigoniids: Male costs and the rates of fecundity increase. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:43–47Google Scholar
  16. Simmons LW (1992) Quantification of role reversal in relative parental investment in a bush cricket. Nature 358:61–63Google Scholar
  17. Simmons LW, Bailey W (1990) Resource influenced sex roles of zaprochiline tettigoniids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Evolution 44:1853–1868Google Scholar
  18. Sugawara T (1979) Stretch reception in the bursa copulatrix of the butterfly, Pieris rapae crucivora, and its role in behaviour. J Comp Physiol 130:191–199Google Scholar
  19. Svärd L, Wiklund C (1986) Different ejaculate delivery strategies in the first versus subsequent matings in the swallowtail butterfly Papilio machaon. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 18:325–330Google Scholar
  20. Svärd L, Wiklund C (1989) Mass and production rate of ejaculates in relation to monandry/polyandry in butterflies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:395–402Google Scholar
  21. Watanabe, MJ (1988) Multiple matings increase the fecundity of the yellow swallowtail butterfly, Papilio xuthus L. in summer generations. J Insect Behav 1:17–30Google Scholar
  22. Wiklund C, Forsberg J (1991) Sexual size dimorphism in relation to female polygamy in butterflies: a comparative study of Swedish Pieridae and Satyridae. Oikos 60:373–381Google Scholar
  23. 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.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 33:25–33Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arja Kaitala
    • 1
  • Christer Wiklund
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of StockholmStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations