Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 61, Issue 7, pp 1121–1131 | Cite as

Lack of innate preference for morph and species identity in mate-searching Enallagma damselflies

  • Ola M. Fincke
  • Amélie Fargevieille
  • Tom D. Schultz
Original Paper

Abstract

Insect mate recognition is often viewed as stereotypic, innate, and species-specific. However, male damselflies can learn to identify female-specific color morphs as potential mates. A suite of male mimicry hypotheses assume that heteromorphic females, which differ from males in color pattern, are more easily recognized as “female” and thus lack the inherent, anti-harassment advantage that the more male-like signal provides for andromorphs. Using two measures of male preference, we investigated whether naïve males have a preexisting sensory bias for a given morph color in Enallagma civile, a species that appeared to exhibit extreme plasticity in morph expression across generations within a breeding season. E. civile males raised in the absence of females exhibited no preference for either morph, whereas males raised with one female type exhibited a learned sensory bias for that morph. Male Enallagma also lacked a bias toward conspecific females over a congeneric sister species. In a naturally naïve population of Enallagma ebrium, males reacted sexually to both morphs of Enallagma hageni as often as they did to conspecific females, whose thoracic spectra were nearly identical with those of E. hageni. Moreover, despite the similar thoracic spectra of males and andromorphs, both of which reflected UV, males rarely reacted sexually to other males. Our results falsified implicit assumptions of male mimicry hypotheses, supported learned mate recognition, and suggested a scenario for speciation via sexual conflict.

Keywords

Color polymorphism Harassment Sexual conflict Learned mate choice Pre-existing sensory bias Reflectance spectra 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank J. Chou, C. Jalicon, C. Marsh, B. Mollard, R. Smith, and R. Zamor for field assistance; the University of Oklahoma for financial support; and three anonymous reviewers for constructive comments.

References

  1. Andrés JA, Cordero A (1999) The inheritance of female colour morphs in the damselfly Ceriagrion tenellum (Odonata, Coengrionidae). Heredity 82:328–335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (1995) Sexual conflict and arms races between the sexes: a morphological adaptation for control of mating in a female insect. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 261:123–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnqvist G, Edvardsson M, Friberg U, Nilsson T (2000) Sexual conflict promotes speciation in insects. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:10460–10464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beukema JJ (2004) Recognition of conspecific females by males of Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis (Vander Linden)(Zygoptera: Calopterygidae). Odonatologica 33:147–156Google Scholar
  5. Bick GH, Bick JC (1963) Behavior and population structure of the damselfly, Enallagma civile (Hagen) (Odonata Coenagrionidae). Southwest Nat 8:57–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bick GH, Hornuff LE (1966) Reproductive behavior in the damselflies Enallagma aspersum (Hagen) and Enallagma exsulans (Hagen) (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Proc Entomol Soc Wash 68:78–85Google Scholar
  7. Bond AB, Kamil AC (2002) Visual predators select for crypticity and polymorphism in virtual prey. Nature 415:609–613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapman RF (1971) The Insects: structure and function. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Charlton RE, Webster FX, Zhang A, Schal C, Liang D, Sreng I, Roelofs WL (1993) Sex pheromone of the brownbanded cockroach is an unusual dialkyl-substituted alpha-pyrone. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:10202–10205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corbet PS (1999) Dragonflies: behavior and ecology of Odonata. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  11. Cordero A (1989) Reproductive behaviour of Ischnura graellsii (Rambur) (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae). Odonatologica 18:237–244Google Scholar
  12. Cordero A (1990) The inheritance of female polymorphism in the damselfly Ischnura graellsii (Rambur) (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Heredity 64:341–346Google Scholar
  13. Cunningham JP, West SA, Zalucki (2001) Host selection in phytophagous insects: a new explanation for learning in adults. Oikos 95:537–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dukas R (2005) Experience improves courtship in male fruit flies. Anim Behav 69:1203–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dukas R, Bernays EA (2000) Learning improves growth rate in grasshopper. Proc NatL Acad Sci USA 97:2637–2640PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunkle SW (1990) Damselflies of Florida, Bermuda and the Bahamas. Scientific, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
  17. Endler JA (1993) On the measurement and classification of colour in studies of animal colour patterns. Biol J Linn Soc 41:315–352Google Scholar
  18. Fincke OM (1982) Lifetime mating success in a natural population of the damselfly, Enallagma hageni (Walsh) (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 10:293–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fincke OM (1986) Lifetime reproductive success and the opportunity for selection in a nonterritorial damselfly (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Evolution 40:791–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fincke OM (1994) Female dimorphism in damselflies: failure to reject the null hypothesis. Anim Behav 47:1249–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fincke OM (1997) Conflict resolution in the Odonata: implications for understanding female mating patterns and female choice. Biol J Linn Soc 60:201–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fincke OM (2004) Polymorphic signals of harassed female odonates and the males that learn them support a novel frequency-dependent model. Anim Behav 67:833–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fincke OM, Jödicke R, Paulson DR, Schultz TD (2005) The evolution and frequency of female color morphs in Holarctic Odonata: why are male-like females typically the minority? Inter J Odonatol 8:183–212Google Scholar
  24. Fric Z, Konvicka M, Zrzavy J (2004) Red & black or black & white? Phylogeny of Araschnia butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) and evolution of seasonal polymorphism. J Evol Biol 17:265–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gavrilets S, Waxman D (2002) Sympatric speciation by sexual conflict. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:10533–10538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gavrilets S, Arnqvist G, Friberg U (2001) The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:531–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gemeno C, Schal C (2004) Sex pheromones of cockroaches. In: Cardè RT Millar JG (eds) Advances in insect chemical ecology. Cambridge University Press, New York pp 179–247Google Scholar
  28. Godfray HCJ, Waage JK (1988) Learning in parasitic wasps. Nature 331:211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gorb SN (1998) Visual cues in mate recognition by males of the damselfly Coenagrion puella (L.) (Odonata: Coengarionidae). J Insect Behav 11:73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greenfield MD (2002) Signalers and receivers: mechanisms and evolution of arthropod communication. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  31. Hebets EA (2003) Subadult experience influences adult mate choice in an arthropod: exposed female wolf spiders prefer males of a familiar phenotype. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:13390–13395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hinnekint BON (1987) Population dynamics of Ischnura e. elegans (Vander Linden) (Insecta: Odonata) with special reference to morphological colour changes, female polymorphism, multiannual cycles and their influence on behaviour. Hydrobiology 146:3–31Google Scholar
  33. Holland B, Rice WR (1999) Experimental removal of sexual selection reversed intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:5083–5088PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Irwin DE, Price T (1999) Sexual imprinting, learning, and speciation. Heredity 82:347–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jacobson M (1972) Insect sex pheromones. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson C (1964) The inheritance of the female dimorphism in the damselfly, Ischnura damula. Genetics 49:513–519PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson C (1966) Genetics of female dimorphism in Ischnura demorsa. Heredity 21:453–459Google Scholar
  38. Johnson C (1975) Polymorphism and natural selection in ischnuran damselflies. Evol Theory 1:81–90Google Scholar
  39. Labhart T, Nilsson D-E (1995) The dorsal eye of the dragonflies Sympetrum: specializations for prey detection against the blue sky. J Comp Physiol A 176:437–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lam E (2004) Damselflies of the northeast: a guide to the species of eastern Canada and the northeastern United States. Biodiversity Books, Forest Hills, NYGoogle Scholar
  41. Magurran AE, Ramnarine IW (2004) Learned mate recognition and reproductive isolation in guppies. Anim Behav 67:1077–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McLain KD, Pratt AE (1999) The cost of sexual coercion and heterospecific sexual harassment on the fecundity of host-specific, seed-eating insect (Neacoryphyus bicrucis) Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miller MN, Fincke OM (1999) Cues for mate recognition and the effect of prior experience on mate recognition in Enallagma damselflies. J Insect Behav 12:801–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miller MN, Fincke OM (2004) Mistakes in sexual recognition among sympatric zygoptera vary with time of day and color morphism (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Intl J Odonatol 7:471–491Google Scholar
  45. Nielsen MG, Watt WB (2000) Interference competition and sexual selection promote polymorphism in Colias (Lepidoptera, Pieridae). Funct Ecol 14:718–730Google Scholar
  46. Oxford GS, Gillespie RG (1998) Color polymorphisms in spiders. Annu Rev Entomol 43:619–643PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Panhuis TM, Butlin R, Zuk M, Tregenza T (2001) Sexual selection and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 16:364–371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Paulson DR (1974) Reproductive isolation in damselflies. Syst Zool 23:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Papaj DR, Prokopy RJ (1989) Ecological and evolutionary aspects of learning in phytophagous insects. Annu Rev Entomol 34:315–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Phelan PL (1997) Evolution of mate-signaling in moths: phylogenetic considerations and predictions from the asymmetric tracking hypothesis. In: Choe CJ, Crespi BJ (eds) The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 240–256Google Scholar
  51. Robertson HM (1985) Female dimorphisms and mating behaviour in a damselfly, Ischnura ramburii: females mimicking males. Anim Behav 33:805–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Robertson HM, Paterson HEH (1982) Mate recognition and mechanical isolation in Enallagma damselflies (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Evolution 36:243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ryan MJ (1998) Sexual selection, receiver biases, and the evolution of sex differences. Science 281:1999–2003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sánchez-Guillén RA, Van Gossum H, Cordero Rivera A (2005) Hybridization and the inheritance of female colour polymorphism in two ischnurid damselflies (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Biol J Linn Soc 85:471–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sirot LK, Brockman HJ (2001) Costs of sexual interactions to females in Rambur’s forktail damselfly, Ischnura ramburi (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae). Anim Behav 61:415–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sirot LK, Brockmann HJ, Marinis C, Muschett G (2003) Maintenance of a female-limited polymorphism in Ischnura ramburi (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae). Anim Behav 66:763–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sherratt TN (2001) The evolution of female-limited polymorphisms in damselflies: a signal detection model. Ecol Lett 4:22–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Slagsvold T, Hansen BT, Johannessen LE, Lifjeld JT (2002) Mate choice and imprinting in birds studied by cross-fostering in the wild. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1449–1455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Svensson EI, Abbott J, Härdling R (2005) Female polymorphism, frequency dependence, and rapid evolutionary dynamics in natural populations. Am Nat 165:567–576PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Turgeon J, McPeek M (2002) Phylogenetic analysis of a recent radiation of Enallagma damselflies (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Mol Ecol 11:1989–2001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Turgeon JR, Soks RA, Thum JM, Brown, McPeek MA (2005) Simultaneous quaternary radiations of three damselfly clades across the Holarctic. Am Nat 165:78–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Gossum H, Stoks R, Matthysen E, Valck F, De Bruyn L (1999) Male choice for female colour morphs in Ischnura elegans (Odonata: Coenagrionidae): testing the hypotheses. Anim Behav 57:1229–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Gossum H, Stoks R, De Bruyn L (2001a) Reversible frequency-dependent switches in male mate choice. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:83–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Van Gossum H, Stoks R, De Bruyn L (2001b) Frequency dependent male mate harassment and intra-specific variation in its avoidance by females of the damselfly, Ischnura elegans. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Van Gossum H, DeBruyn L, Stoks R (2005a) Reversible switches between male–male and male–female mating behaviour by male damselflies. Biol Lett 1:268–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Van Gossum H, DeBruyn L, Stoks R (2005b) Male harassment on female colour morphs in Ischnura elegans (Vander Linden): testing two frequency-dependent hypotheses (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae). Odonatologica 34:407–414Google Scholar
  67. Walker EM (1953) The Odonata of Canada and Alaska, Vol. I. University of Toronto, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  68. Watson P, Arnqvist G, Stallmann RR (1998) Sexual conflict and the energetic costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. Am Nat 151:46–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weiss MR, Papaj DR (2003) Colour learning in two behavioural contexts: how much can a butterfly keep in mind? Anim Behav 65:425–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wiklund C, Tullberg BS (2004) Seasonal polyphenism and leaf mimicry in the common butterfly. Anim Behav 68:621–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yang EC, Osorio D (1996) Spectral responses and chromatic processing in the dragonfly lamina. J Comp Physiol A 178:5443–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ola M. Fincke
    • 1
  • Amélie Fargevieille
    • 1
  • Tom D. Schultz
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyDenison UniversityGranvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations