Advertisement

A pheromone that coordinates parental care is evolutionary conserved among burying beetles (Silphidae: Nicrophorus)

  • Katharina C. Engel
  • Wenbe Hwang
  • Sandra SteigerEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Pheromones regulating mating behavior are diverse in structure and typically show high species specificity. However, depending on their information content they can also be quite conserved across species. Here, we demonstrate that methyl geranate, an anti-aphrodisiac produced during brood care, is a conserved volatile organic compound within the genus Nicrophorus (burying beetles). Burying beetles are well known for their elaborate biparental care. They reproduce on small vertebrate carcasses and typically it is a pair of beetles, a male and a female, which cooperate in feeding and defending their young. During the intensive period of parental care, female Nicrophorus vespilloides have been shown to emit a volatile substance, methyl geranate, which acts as an anti-aphrodisiac and deters males from copulating. Methyl geranate is biosynthetically linked to juvenile hormone III, a hormone mediating a temporary infertility in this species. By investigating volatile emission of seven geographically and phylogenetically distinct burying beetle species, we provide evidence that methyl geranate is a conserved substance released by parenting adults throughout the genus. We, furthermore, show that there is high quantitative variation (1) between species, which can partly be explained by species differences in body size and (2) within species, which can be attributed to sex differences and individual brood size differences. Moreover, we demonstrate that a species of the genus Ptomascopus, which is closely related to Nicrophorus, but shows no elaborate post-hatching parental behavior, emits only trace amounts of methyl geranate during breeding. Our results, therefore, suggest that the synthesis of an anti-aphrodisiac was an important step in the evolution of concerted parental care in burying beetles. However, behavioral experiments are needed to further corroborate our hypothesis.

Keywords

Anti-aphrodisiac Fertility signal Methyl geranate Parental care Juvenile hormone 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to Josef K. Müller for providing access to some Nicrophorus species and for valuable discussion. We thank Madlen Prang and Rainer Blum for helping to rear and maintain the beetles and Wolf Haberer, Johannes Stökl and Alexandra Capodeanu-Nägler for discussion and statistical advice. Furthermore, we thank Allen Moore and two anonymous reviewers for helpful and constructive comments on the manuscript. The research was supported by grants of the German Research Foundation (DFG) to S.S. (STE 1874/3-1 and STE 187/7-1).

Supplementary material

49_2018_271_MOESM1_ESM.docx (120 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 120 KB)

References

  1. Alonso-Alvarez C, Bertrand S, Devevey G, Gaillard M, Prost J, Faivre B, Sorci G (2004) An experimental test of the dose-dependent effect of carotenoids and immune activation on sexual signals and antioxidant activity. Am Nat 164:651–659PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Blomberg SP, Garland T, Ives AR (2003) Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57:717–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blum MS (1996) Semiochemical parsimony in the Arthropoda. Annu Rev Entomol 41:353–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chemnitz J, Jentschke PC, Ayasse M, Steiger S (2015) Beyond species recognition: somatic state affects long-distance sex pheromone communication. Proc R Soc B 282:20150832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chemnitz J, Bagrii N, Ayasse M, Steiger S (2017) Variation in sex pheromone emission does not reflect immunocompetence but affects attractiveness of male burying beetles—a combination of laboratory and field experiments. Sci Nat 104:53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dingemanse NJ, Dochtermann NA (2013) Quantifying individual variation in behaviour: mixed-effect modelling approaches. J Anim Ecol 82:39–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dötterl S, Wolfe LM, Jürgens A (2005) Qualitative and quantitative analyses of flower scent in Silene latifolia. Phytochemistry 66:203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eggert AK, Müller JK (1989) Pheromone-mediated attraction in burying beetles. Ecol Entomol 14:235–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eggert A-K, Müller JK (1997) Biparental care and social evolution in burying beetles: Lessons from the larder. In: Choe JC, Crespi BJ (eds) The evolution of social behavior in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 216–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Endler JA (1980) Natural selection on color patterns in Poecilia reticulata. Evolution 34:76–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engel KC, von Hoermann C, Eggert A-K, Müller JK, Steiger S (2014) When males stop having sex: adaptive insect mating tactics during parental care. Anim Behav 90:245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engel KC, Stökl J, Schweizer R, Vogel H, Ayasse M, Ruther J, Steiger S (2016) A hormone-related female anti-aphrodisiac signals temporary infertility and causes sexual abstinence to synchronize parental care. Nat Commun 7:11035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Faivre B, Grégoire A, Préault M, Cézilly F, Sorci G (2003) Immune activation rapidly mirrored in a secondary sexual trait. Science 300:103–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haberer W, Schmitt T, Peschke K, Schreier P, Müller JK (2008) Ethyl 4-methyl heptanoate: a male-produced pheromone of Nicrophorus vespilloides. J Chem Ecol 34:94–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haberer W, Schmitt T, Schreier P, Müller JK (2011) Intended and unintended receivers of the male pheromones of the burying beetles Nicrophorus humator and Nicrophorus vespilloides. Entomol Exp Appl 140:122–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haberer W, Steiger S, Müller JK (2014) Dynamic changes in volatile emissions of breeding burying beetles. Physiol Entomol 39:153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haberer W, Schmitt T, Schreier P, Eggert A-K, Müller JK (2017) Volatiles emitted by calling males of burying beetles and Ptomascopus morio (Coleoptera: Silphidae: Nicrophorinae) are biogenetically related. J Chem Ecol 43:971–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holman L, Lanfear R, d’Ettorre P (2013) The evolution of queen pheromones in the ant genus Lasius. J Evol Biol 26:1549–1558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holman L, Hanley B, Millar JG (2016) Highly specific responses to queen pheromone in three Lasius ant species. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70:387–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keppner EM, Prang M, Engel KC, Ayasse M, Stökl J, Steiger S (2017) Beyond cuticular hydrocarbons: chemically mediated mate recognition in the subsocial burying beetle Nicrophorus vespilloides. J Chem Ecol 43:84–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koch RE, Kavazis AN, Hasselquist D, Hood WR, Zhang Y, Toomey MB, Hill GE (2018) No evidence that carotenoid pigments boost either immune or antioxidant defenses in a songbird. Nat Commun 9:491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kumar S, Stecher G, Suleski M, Hedges SB (2017) TimeTree: a resource for timelines, timetrees, and divergence times. Mol Biol Evol 34:1812–1819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ligon RA, Simpson RK, Mason NA, Hill GE, McGraw KJ (2016) Evolutionary innovation and diversification of carotenoid-based pigmentation in finches. Evolution 70:2839–2852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lozano GA (1994) Carotenoids, parasites, and sexual selection. Oikos 70:309–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McGraw KJ, Ardia DR (2003) Carotenoids, immunocompetence, and the information content of sexual colors: an experimental test. Am Nat 162:704–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Müller JK (1987) Replacement of a lost clutch—a strategy for optimal resource utilization in Nicrophorus vespilloides (Coleoptera, Silphidae). Ethology 76:74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Müller JK, Eggert A-K (1987) Effects of carrion-independent pheromone emission by male burying beetles (Silphidae: Nicrophorus). Ethology 76:297–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nehring V, Steiger S (2018) Sociality and communicative complexity: insights from the other insect societies. Curr Opin Insect Sci 28:19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oi CA, van Zweden JS, Oliveira RC, Van Oystaeyen A, Nascimento FS, Wenseleers T (2015) The origin and evolution of social insect queen pheromones: Novel hypotheses and outstanding problems. BioEssays 37:808–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Panaitof SC, Scott MP, Borst DW (2004) Plasticity in juvenile hormone in male burying beetles during breeding: physiological consequences of the loss of a mate. J Insect Physiol 50:715–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peck SB (1982) The life history of the Japanese carrion beetle, Ptomascopus morio and the origins of parental care in Nicrophorus (Coleoptera, Silphidae, Nicrophini). Psyche 89:107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pukowski E (1933) Ökologische untersuchungen an Necrophorus F. Z Morphol Ökol Tiere 27:518–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scott MP (1998) The ecology and behavior of burying beetles. Annu Rev Entomol 43:595–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scott MP, Panaitof SC (2004) Social stimuli affect juvenile hormone during breeding in biparental burying beetles (Silphidae: Nicrophorus). Horm Behav 45:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sikes DS, Venables C (2013) Molecular phylogeny of the burying beetles (Coleoptera: Silphidae: Nicrophorinae). Mol Phylogenet Evol 69:552–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith AA, Liebig J (2017) The evolution of cuticular fertility signals in eusocial insects. Curr Opin Insect Sci 22:79–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith AA, Hölldober B, Liebig J (2009) Cuticular hydrocarbons reliably identify cheaters and allow enforcement of altruism in a social insect. Curr Biol 19:78–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Steiger S (2015) Recognition and family life: recognition mechanisms in the biparental burying beetle. In: Aquiloni L, Tricarico E (eds) Social recognition in invertebrates. Springer, Basel, pp 249–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Steiger S, Stökl J (2017) Pheromones involved in insect parental care and family life. Curr Opin Insect Sci 24:89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Steiger S, Stökl J (2018) Pheromones regulating reproduction in subsocial beetles: Insights with references to eusocial insects. J Chem Ecol 44:785–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Steiger S, Peschke K, Francke W, Müller JK (2007) The smell of parents: breeding status influences cuticular hydrocarbon pattern in the burying beetle Nicrophorus vespilloides. Proc R Soc B 274:2211–2220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Steiger S, Whitlow S, Peschke K, Müller JK (2009) Surface chemicals inform about sex and breeding status in the biparental Burying beetle Nicrophorus vespilloides. Ethology 115:178–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Steiger S, Haberer W, Müller JK (2011) Social environment determines degree of chemical signalling. Biol Lett 7:822–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stökl J, Steiger S (2017) Evolutionary origin of insect pheromones. Curr Opin Insect Sci 24:36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Suzuki S, Nagano M, Kobayashi N (2006) Mating competition and parentage assessment in Ptomascopus morio (Coleoptera: Silphidae): a case for resource defense polygyny. Eur J Entomol 103:751–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Symonds MRE, Elgar MA (2008) The evolution of pheromone diversity. Trends Ecol Evol 23:220–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Symonds MRE, Wertheim B (2005) The mode of evolution of aggregation pheromones in Drosophila species. J Evol Biol 18:1253–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tibbetts EA, Dale J (2007) Individual recognition: it is good to be different. Trends Ecol Evol 22:529–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Trumbo ST, Robinson GE (2008) Social and nonsocial stimuli and juvenile hormone titer in a male burying beetle, Nicrophorus orbicollis. J Insect Physiol 54:630–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Trumbo ST, Kon M, Sikes D (2001) The reproductive biology of Ptomascopus morio, a brood parasite of Nicrophorus. J Zool 255:543–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Oystaeyen A, Oliveira RC, Holman L, van Zweden JS, Romero C, Oi CA, d’Ettorre P, Khalesi M, Billen J, Wäckers F, Millar JG, Wenseleers T (2014) Conserved class of queen pheromones stops social insect workers from reproducing. Science 343:287–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van de Pol M, Wright J (2009) A simple method for distinguishing within- versus between-subject effects using mixed models. Anim Behav 77:753–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Whitlow S (2003) Chemical and behavioural investigations into species and partner recognition in burying beetles, Ph.D. thesis. University of Freiburg, FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  54. Wyatt TD (2014) Pheromones and animal behavior: chemical signals and signatures. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation GenomicsUniversity of UlmUlmGermany
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Environmental ResourcesNational University of TainanTainanTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of Evolutionary Animal EcologyUniversity of BayreuthBayreuthGermany

Personalised recommendations