, 98:855 | Cite as

A contact anti-aphrodisiac pheromone supplied by the spermatophore in the rove beetle Aleochara curtula: mode of transfer and evolutionary significance

  • Jerry Schlechter-Helas
  • Thomas Schmitt
  • Klaus Peschke
Original Paper


By reducing the attractiveness of their mating partner via an anti-aphrodisiac pheromone, males can prevent a remating of the female and thus reduce the risk of sperm competition. For females, the main benefit from allowing the chemical manipulation of their attractiveness is probably the avoidance of sexual harassments from rival males. While mating plugs generally constitute a physical barrier which hinders male mating attempts, chemical manipulations must trustfully inform the responding male of the female’s reluctance to mate; otherwise, it would be beneficial to ignore the repellent information. In our experiments, males of the polyandrous rove beetle Aleochara curtula chemically manipulated the attractiveness of their mating partner. Coincident with the deposition of a spermatophore into the female genital chamber, an anti-aphrodisiac pheromone was transferred and readily spread onto the female surface, where it was subsequently perceived by rival males via parameres, the claspers of the male genitalia. Males aborted contact with the mated female to avoid further time- and energy-consuming elements of the mating sequence. The chemical mode of action was demonstrated inter alia by spicing virgin females with spermatophore extracts. The action of the anti-aphrodisiac correlated with the persistence of the spermatophore in the female genital chamber and corresponded to the length of stay of the mated female at a carcass, where the density of rival males is highest. The ensuing benefits for all three parties involved in this communication system, which render this post-copulatory mate guarding strategy evolutionary stable, are discussed.


Rove beetle Post-copulatory mate guarding Chemical manipulation Sexual attractiveness Spermatophore Gustatory perception 



We would like to thank Marc Spelleken for assistance with the beetle culture, Axel Zimmermann for preliminary data, and the anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by the Fonds National de la Recherche, Luxembourg (EXT-BFR-04/023 to JS-H).


  1. Alcock J (1994) Postinsemination associations between males and females in insects: the mate-guarding hypothesis. Ann Rev Entomol 39:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson J, Borg-Karlson A, Wiklund C (2000) Sexual cooperation and conflict in butterflies: a male-transferred anti-aphrodisiac reduces harassment of recently mated females. Proc R Soc Biol Sci (B) 267:1271–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersson J, Borg-Karlson A, Wiklund C (2003) Antiaphrodisiacs in pierid butterflies: a theme with variation! J Chem Ecol 29:1489–1499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersson J, Borg-Karlson A, Wiklund C (2004) Sexual conflict and anti-aphrodisiac titre in a polyandrous butterfly: male ejaculate tailoring and absence of female control. Proc R Soc Biol Sci (B) 271:1765–1770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baer B, Morgan ED, Schmid-Hempel P (2001) A nonspecific fatty acid within the bumblebee mating plug prevents females from remating. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 98:3926–3928PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benken T, Knaak A, Gack C, Eberle M, Peschke K (1999) Variation of sperm precedence in the rove beetle Aleochara curtula (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Behaviour 136:1065–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlson DA, Schlein Y (1991) Unusual polymethyl alkenes in tsetse flies acting as abstinon in Glossina morsitans. J Chem Ecol 17:267–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman T, Bangham J, Vinti G, Seifried B, Lung O, Wolfner MF, Smith HK, Partridge L (2003) The sex peptide of Drosophila melanogaster: female post-mating responses analyzed by using RNA interference. Proc Nat Acad Sci 100:9923–9928PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ejima A, Smith BP, Lucas C, van der Goes van Naters W, Miller CJ, Carlson JR, Levine JD, Griffith LC (2007) Generalization of courtship learning in Drosophila is mediated by cis-vaccenyl acetate. Curr Biol 17:599–605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Förster M, Gack C, Peschke K (1998) Morphology and function of the spermatophore in the rove beetle, Aleochara curtula (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Zoology 101:34–44Google Scholar
  12. Fuldner D (1968) Experimentelle Analyse des Orientierungsverhaltens der Eilarve von Aleochara curtula Goeze (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) am Wirt. J Comp Physiol A 61:298–354Google Scholar
  13. Gack C, Peschke K (1994) Spermathecal morphology, sperm transfer and a novel mechanism of sperm displacement in the rove beetle, Aleochara curtula (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Zoomorphology 114:227–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giebultowicz JM, Raina AK, Uebel EC, Ridgway RL (1991) Two-step regulation of sex-pheromone decline in mated gypsy moth females. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 16:95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilbert LE (1976) Postmating female odor in Heliconius butterflies: a male-contributed antiaphrodisiac? Science 193:419–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gillott C (2003) Male accessory gland secretions: modulators of female reproductive physiology and behavior. Ann Rev Entomol 48:163–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Happ GM (1969) Multiple sex pheromones of the mealworm beetle, Tenebrio molitor L. Nature 222:180–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hosken D, Stockley P, Tregenza T, Wedell N (2009) Monogamy and the battle of the sexes. Annu Rev Entomol 54:361–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kingan TG, Bodnar WM, Raina AK, Shabanowitz J, Hunt DF (1995) The loss of female sex pheromone after mating in the corn earworm moth Helicoverpa zea: identification of a male pheromonostatic peptide. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:5082–5086PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kukuk P (1985) Evidence for an antiaphrodisiac in the sweat bee Lasioglossum (Dialictus) zephyrum. Science 227:656–657PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miyamoto T, Amrein H (2008) Suppression of male courtship by a Drosophila pheromone receptor. Nat Neurosci 11:874–876PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peschke K (1978) Funktionsmorphologische Untersuchungen zur Kopulation von Aleochara curtula Goeze (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Zoomorphologie 89:157–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peschke K (1979) Tactile orientation by mating males of the staphylinid beetle, Aleochara curtula, relative to the setal fields of the female. Physiol Entomol 4:155–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peschke K (1983) Defensive and pheromonal secretion of the tergal gland of Aleochara curtula. II. Release and inhibition of male copulatory behavior. J Chem Ecol 9:13–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peschke K (1986) Development, sex specificity, and site of production of aphrodisiac pheromones in Aleochara curtula. J Insect Physiol 32:687–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peschke K (1987a) Male aggression, female mimicry and female choice in the rove beetle, Aleochara curtula (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Ethology 75:265–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peschke K (1987b) Cuticular hydrocarbons regulate mate recognition, male aggression, and female choice of the rove beetle, Aleochara curtula. J Chem Ecol 13:1993–2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peschke K, Metzler M (1987) Cuticular hydrocarbons and female sex pheromones of the rove beetle, Aleochara curtula (Goeze) (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Insect Biochem 17:167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peschke K, Krapf D, Fuldner D (1987a) Ecological separation, functional relationships, and limited resources in a carrion insect community. Zool Jb Syst 114:241–265Google Scholar
  30. Peschke K, Hahn P, Fuldner D (1987b) Adaptations of the blow fly parasitoid Aleochara curtula (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae) to the temporal availability of hosts at carrion. Zool Jb 114:471–486Google Scholar
  31. R Development Core Team (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. ISBN 3-900051-07-0Google Scholar
  32. Raina AK (1989) Male-induced termination of sex pheromone production and receptivity in mated females of Heliothis zea. J Insect Physiol 35:821–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ramaswamy SB, Qiu Y, Park YI (1996) Neuronal control of post-coital pheromone production in the moth Heliothis virescens. J Exp Zool 274:255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schiestl FP, Ayasse M (2000) Post-mating odor in females of the solitary bee, Andrena nigroaenea (Apoidea, Andrenidae), inhibits male mating behavior. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48:303–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schulz S, Estrada C, Yildizhan S, Boppre M, Gilbert LE (2008) An antiaphrodisiac in Heliconius melpomene butterflies. J Chem Ecol 34:82–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scott D, Jackson LL (1988) Interstrain comparison of male-predominat antiaphrodisiacs in Drosophila melanogaster. J Insect Physiol 34:863–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simmons LW (2001) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  38. Vosshall LB, Stocker RF (2007) Molecular architecture of smell and taste in Drosophila. Ann Rev Neurosci 30:505–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wedell N (2005) Female receptivity in butterflies and moths. J Exp Biol 208:3433–3440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wyatt TD (2010) Pheromones and signature mixtures: defining species-wide signals and variable cues for identity in both invertebrates and vertebrates. J Comp Physiol A 196:685–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jerry Schlechter-Helas
    • 1
  • Thomas Schmitt
    • 1
  • Klaus Peschke
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Evolutionary Biology and Animal Ecology, Faculty of BiologyUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations