Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 61, Issue 5, pp 703–710 | Cite as

Sex, food and conflicts: nutrition dependent nuptial feeding and pre-mating struggles in scorpionflies

Original Article

Abstract

Female and male reproductive interests often differ. In species in which matings are accompanied by a transfer of resources valuable for both participants, such as nuptial prey gifts, conflicts may readily occur. Scorpionflies may use alternative mating tactics. One is to offer a prey item (dead arthropod) to females in exchange for mating. This prey gift tactic includes a conflict because a male must decide on whether to offer the gift rather than to fight the female and consume the gift. The outcome may depend on the nutritional status of both males and females. Males may be more willing to give if they themselves are satiated and the condition of the females may influence the payoff from the males’ investment. Similarly, females may be more willing to accept food gifts if they are in poor nutritional condition. In this study of the scorpionfly Panorpa cognata, I experimentally manipulated the feeding history of both males and females. I observed the outcome of the direct interactions that followed when males that were holding prey were approached by females. I found that well-fed males offered the food gift sooner than males in poor nutritional condition that fed extensively on the food item before offering. Female condition had no significant influence on whether prey items were offered by males or accepted by females. I also found that well-fed males rarely searched for prey to pursue the prey gift tactic in courtship. Thus, the prey tactic does not seem to be the males’ first option.

Keywords

Alternative mating tactics Nuptial gifts Life history trade-offs Resource defence Sexual conflict 

References

  1. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bockwinkel G, Sauer KP (1994) Resource dependence of male mating tactics in the scorpionfly, Panorpa vulgaris (Mecoptera, Panorpidae). Anim Behav 47:203–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonduriansky R (2001) The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol Rev 76:305–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byers GW, Thornhill R (1983) Biology of the Mecoptera. Annu Rev Entomol 28:203–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol 18:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cumming JM (1994) Sexual selection and the evolution of dance fly mating systems (Diptera: Empididae; Empidinae). Can Entomol 126:907–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dewsbury DA (1982) Ejaculate cost and male choice. Am Nat 119:601–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Engqvist L, Sauer KP (2001) Strategic male mating effort and cryptic male choice in a scorpionfly. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:729–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Engqvist L, Sauer KP (2002a) Amorous scorpionflies: causes and consequences of the long pairing prelude of Panorpa cognata. Anim Behav 63:667–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engqvist L, Sauer KP (2002b) A life-history perspective on strategic mating effort in male scorpionflies. Behav Ecol 13:632–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engqvist L, Sauer KP (2003a) Determinants of sperm transfer in the scorpionfly Panorpa cognata: male variation, female condition and copulation duration. J Evol Biol 16:1196–1204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Engqvist L, Sauer KP (2003b) Influence of nutrition on courtship and mating in the scorpionfly Panorpa cognata (Mecoptera, Insecta). Ethology 109:911–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fox GA (1993) Failure-time analysis: Emergence, flowering, survivorship, and other waiting times. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 253–289Google Scholar
  15. Gross MR (1996) Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: diversity within sexes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:92–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gwynne DT (1981) Sexual difference theory: mormon crickets show role reversal in mate choice. Science 213:779–780CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gwynne DT, Simmons LW (1990) Experimental reversal of courtship roles in an insect. Nature 346:172–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ihaka R, Gentleman R (1996) R: A language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Graph Stat 5:299–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jönsson KI (1997) Capital and income breeding as alternative tactics of resource use in reproduction. Oikos 78:57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Roff DA (1992) The evolution of life histories: theory and analysis, 1st edn. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Sauer KP (1970) Zur Monotopbindung einheimischer Arten der Gattung Panorpa (Mecoptera) nach Untersuchungen im Freiland und im Laboratorium. Zool Jahrb Syst 97:201–284Google Scholar
  22. Sauer KP (1977) The adaptive significance of genetic variability of photoperiodic response in Panorpa vulgaris. Zool Jahrb Syst 104:489–538Google Scholar
  23. Sauer KP, Sindern J, Kall N (1997) Nutritional status of males and sperm transfer in the scorpionfly Panorpa vulgaris (Mecoptera: Panorpidae). Entomol Gen 21:189–204Google Scholar
  24. Sauer KP, Lubjuhn T, Sindern J, Kullmann H, Kurtz J, Epplen C, Epplen JT (1998) Mating system and sexual selection in the scorpionfly Panorpa vulgaris (Mecoptera: Panorpidae). Naturwissenschaften 85:219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sauer KP, Epplen C, Over I, Lubjuhn T, Schmidt A, Gerken T, Epplen JT (1999) Molecular genetic analysis of remating frequencies and sperm competition in the scorpionfly Panorpa vulgaris (Imhoff and Labram). Behaviour 136:1107–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sauer KP, Vermeulen A, Aumann N (2003) Temperature-dependent competition hierarchy: a mechanism stabilizing the phenological strategy in the scorpionfly Panorpa communis L. J Zool Syst Evol Res 41:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Simmons LW (1992) Quantification of role reversal in relative parental investment in a bush cricket. Nature 358:61–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Stockley P (1997) Sexual conflict resulting from adaptations to sperm competition. Trends Ecol Evol 12:154–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Therneau TM, Grambsch PM (2000) Modeling survival data: extending the Cox model, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Thornhill R (1980a) Competition and coexistence among Panorpa scorpionflies (Mecoptera: Panorpidae). Ecol Monogr 50:179–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thornhill R (1980b) Rape in Panorpa scorpionflies and a general rape hypothesis. Anim Behav 28:52–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thornhill R (1981) Panorpa (Mecoptera: Panorpidae) scorpionflies: systems for understanding resource-defense polygyny and alternative male reproductive efforts. Ann Rev Ecolog Syst 12:355–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thornhill R (1983) Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps. Am Nat 122:765–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thornhill R (1987) The relative importance of intra- and interspecific competition in scorpionfly mating systems. Am Nat 130:711–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thornhill R, Alcock J (1983) The evolution of insect mating systems. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  37. Thornhill R, Sauer KP (1991) The notal organ of the scorpionfly (Panorpa vulgaris): an adaptation to coerce mating duration. Behav Ecol 2:156–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thornhill R, Sauer KP (1992) Genetic sire effects on the fighting ability of sons and daughters and mating success of sons in a scorpionfly. Anim Behav 43:255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Evolutionary Biology and EcologyUniversity of BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations