Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 66, Issue 7, pp 995–1003 | Cite as

Size-assortative pairing across three developmental stages in the Zeus bug, Phoreticovelia disparata

  • Therésa M. Jones
  • Göran Arnqvist
  • Kathryn B. McNamara
  • Mark A. Elgar
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

The mechanisms underlying size-assortative pairing have received considerable attention. Typically, pairing is assumed to occur at, or just prior to, the adult phase of the life cycle. However, in many invertebrates, males commence associations with juvenile females who are more than a single moult away from sexual maturity. These species are ideal to explore the importance of reproductive and survival benefits as mechanisms driving size-assortative pairing. In the Zeus bug, Phoreticovelia disparata, adult males are found riding on juvenile (fourth and fifth instar) and adult females—a behaviour that is costly for females but has survival benefits for males. Using a combination of field collections and laboratory manipulations, we show that pairing is size-assortative both within and between female age classes and that riding males are smaller than non-riding males. In a series of mating trials, we revealed that males attempt to ride any female but that their riding success is dependent on female age. We also provide the first direct evidence of female resistance to male riding attempts in P. disparata. We propose that size-assortative pairing arises through adaptations that have evolved to minimise the potential costs of sexual conflict. We suggest that the selective pressure on males to maximise survival benefits is sufficiently high that it outweighs the reproductive benefits of discriminating against fourth instar females. Finally, given that female resistance is under direct selection in juvenile females, it is likely to be the main form of selective pressure for adult females.

Keywords

Size-assortative pairing Developmental stages Zeus bug Phoreticovelia disparata Juveniles 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

TMJ was funded by an Australian Research Council grant (DP0558265) and GA by the Swedish Research Council and the European Research Council.

References

  1. Amano H, Hayashi K (1998) Costs and benefits for water strider (Aquarius paludum) females of carrying guarding, reproductive males. Ecol Res 13(3):263–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen NM, Weir TA (2001) New genera of Veliidae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) from Australia, with notes on the generic classification of the subfamily Microveliinae. Invert Taxon 15(2):217–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  4. Arakaki N, Kishita M, Nagayama A, Fukaya M, Yasui H, Akino T, Hirai Y, Wakamura S (2004) Pre-copulatory mate guarding by the male green chafer, Anomala albopilosa sakishimana Nomura (Coleoptera: Searabaeidae). Appl Entomol Zool 39(3):455–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnqvist G (1989) Multiple mating in a water strider—mutual benefits or intersexual conflict. Anim Behav 38:749–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arnqvist G (1997) The evolution of water strider mating systems: causes and consequences of sexual conflicts. In: Choe JC, Crespi BJ (eds) The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 146–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Monographs in behavior and ecology. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  8. Arnqvist G, Rowe L, Krupa JJ, Sih A (1996) Assortative mating by size: a meta-analysis of mating patterns in water striders. Evol Ecol 10(3):265–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Arnqvist G, Thornhill R, Rowe L (1997) Evolution of animal genitalia: morphological correlates of fitness components in a water strider. J Evol Biol 10(4):613–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Arnqvist G, Jones TM, Elgar MA (2003) Insect behaviour: reversal of sex roles in nuptial feeding. Nature 424(6947):387–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Arnqvist G, Jones TM, Elgar MA (2006) Sex-role reversed nuptial feeding reduces male kleptoparasitism of females in Zeus bugs (Heteroptera: Veliidae). Biol Lett 2(4):491–493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Arnqvist G, Jones TM, Elgar MA (2007) The extraordinary mating system of Zeus bugs (Heteroptera: Veliidae: Phoreticovelia sp). Aus J Zool 55(2):131–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Baldauf SA, Kullmann H, Schroth SH, Thunken T, Bakker TCM (2009) You can’t always get what you want: size assortative mating by mutual mate choice as a resolution of sexual conflict. Bmc Evol Biol 9:article 129Google Scholar
  14. Beeching SC, Wack CL, Ruffner GL (2004) Female convict cichlids (Archocentrus nigrofasciatus) prefer to consort with same-sized males. Ethol Ecol Evol 16:209–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bel-Venner MC, Venner S (2006) Mate-guarding strategies and male competitive ability in an orb-weaving spider: results from a field study. Anim Behav 71:1315–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Benesh DP, Valtonen ET, Jormalainen V (2007) Reduced survival associated with precopulatory mate guarding in male Asellus aquaticus (Isopoda). Ann Zool Fenn 44(6):425–434Google Scholar
  17. Blyth J, Gilburn A (2011) The function of female behaviours adopted during premating struggles in the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida. Anim Behav 81:77–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Boxshall GA (1990) Precopulatory mate guarding in copepods. Bijdr Tot Dierkunde 60(3–4):209–213Google Scholar
  19. Burton RS (1985) Mating system of the intertidal copepod Tigriopus californicus. Mar Biol 86(3):247–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cothran RD (2004) Precopulatory mate guarding affects predation risk in two freshwater amphipod species. Anim Behav 68:1133–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cothran RD (2008) Phenotypic manipulation reveals sexual conflict over precopula duration. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62(9):1409–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Crespi BJ (1989) Causes of assortative mating in arthropods. Anim Behav 38:980–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Day TH, Butlin RK (1987) Non-random mating in natural populations of the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida. Heredity 58:213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dick JTA (1995) The cannibalistic behavior of 2 Gammarus species (Crustacea, Amphipoda). J Zool 236:697–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dick JTA, Montgomery I, Elwood RW (1993) Replacement of the indigenous amphipod Gammarus duebeni celticus by the introduced Gammarus pulex—differential cannibalism and mutual predation. J Anim Ecol 62(1):79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dick JTA, Elwood RW, Montgomery WI (1995) The behavioral basis of a species replacement—differential aggression and predation between the introduced Gammarus pulex and the Native G duebeni celticus (Amphipoda). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 37(6):393–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Durbaum J (1995) Discovery of postcopulatory mate guarding in Copepoda harpacticoida (Crustacea). Mar Biol 123(1):81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eberhard W (2002) The function of female resistance behavior: Intromission by male coercion vs. female cooperation in sepsid flies (Diptera: Sepsidae). Rev Biol Trop 50(2):485–505PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Elgar MA, Fahey BF (1996) Sexual cannibalism, competition, and size dimorphism in the orb-weaving spider Nephila plumipes Latreille (Araneae: Araneoidea). Behav Ecol 7(2):195–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Evstigneeva TD (1993) Precopulatory mate guarding in Harpacticella inopinata Sars (Copepoda, Harpacticoida) from Lake Baikal. Hydrobiologia 254(2):107–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fairbairn DJ (1993) Costs of loading associated with mate carrying in the waterstrider, Aquarius remigis. Behav Ecol 4(3):224–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fawcett TW, Johnstone RA (2003) Mate choice in the face of costly competition. Behav Ecol 14(6):771–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fiers F (1998) Female leg 4 development in Laophontidae (Harpacticoida): a juvenile adaptation to precopulatory behaviour. J Mar Sys 15(1–4):41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Franceschi N, Lemaitre JF, Cezilly F, Bollache L (2010) Size-assortative pairing in Gammarus pulex (Crustacea: Amphipoda): a test of the prudent choice hypothesis. Anim Behav 79(4):911–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grafen A, Ridley M (1983) A model of mate guarding. J Theor Biol 102:549–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Han CS, Jablonski PG, Kim B, Park FC (2010) Size-assortative mating and sexual size dimorphism are predictable from simple mechanics of mate-grasping behavior. BMC Evol Biol 10:359Google Scholar
  37. Harari AR, Handler AM, Landolt PJ (1999) Size-assortative mating, male choice and female choice in the curculionid beetle Diaprepes abbreviatus. Anim Behav 58:1191–1200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hardling R, Kokko H (2005) The evolution of prudent choice. Evol Ecol Res 7(5):697–715Google Scholar
  39. Johnson LJ (1999) Size assortative mating in the marine snail Littorina neglecta. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 79(6):1131–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jones TM, Elgar MA, Arnqvist G (2010) Extreme cost of male riding behaviour for juvenile females of the Zeus bug. Anim Behav 79(1):11–16. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.10.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jormalainen V (1998) Precopulatory mate guarding in crustaceans: male competitive strategy and intersexual conflict. Quart Rev Biol 73:275–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jormalainen V, Merilaita S (1993) Female resistance and pre-copulatory guarding in the isopod Idotea baltica (Pallas). Behaviour 125:219–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jormalainen V, Merilaita S, Tuomi J (1994a) Male choice and male-male competition in Idotea baltica (Crustacea, Isopoda). Ethology 96(1):46–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jormalainen V, Tuomi J, Merilaita S (1994b) Effect of female resistance on size-dependent precopula duration in mate-guarding crustacea. Anim Behav 47(6):1471–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jormalainen V, Merilaita S, Riihimaki J (2001) Costs of intersexual conflict in the isopod Idotea baltica. J Evol Biol 14(5):763–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Maklakov A, Arnqvist G (2009) Testing for direct and indirect effects of mate choice by manipulating female choosiness. Curr Biol 19:1903–1906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Masumoto T (1999) Size assortative mating and reproductive success of the funnel-web spider, Agelena limbata (Araneae; Agelenidae). J Insect Behav 12(3):353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Miyashita T (1994) Size-related mating and mate guarding in the orb-web spider Nephila clavata (Araneae, Araneidae). J Insect Behav 7(3):289–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oku K (2009) Female mating strategy during precopulatory mate guarding in spider mites. Anim Behav 77(1):207–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Otronen M (1993) Size assortative mating in the yellow dung fly Scatophaga stercoraria. Behaviour 126:63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Parker GA (1974) Courtship persistence and female guarding as male time investment strategies. Behaviour 48:157–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Parker GA (2006) Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Phil Trans R Soc B 361:235–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Plaistow SJ, Bollache L, Cezilly F (2003) Energetically costly precopulatory mate guarding in the amphipod Gammarus pulex: causes and consequences. Anim Behav 65:683–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ritchie G, Mordue AJ, Pike AW, Rae GH (1996) Observations on mating and reproductive behaviour of Lepeophtheirus salmonis, Kroyer (Copepoda: Caligidae). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 201(1–2):285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Robinson B, Doyle R (1985) Trade-off between male reproduction (amplexus) and growth in the amphipod Gammarus lawrencianus. Biol Bull 168:482–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rowe L (1994) The costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. Anim Behav 48(5):1049–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rowe L, Arnqvist G (1996) Analysis of the causal components of assortative mating in water striders. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38(4):279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shine R, O'Connor D, Lemaster MP, Mason RT (2001) Pick on someone your own size: ontogenetic shifts in mate choice by male garter snakes result in size-assortative mating. Anim Behav 61:1133–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Simmons LW (2001) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  60. Slooten E, Lambert DM (1983) Evolutionary studies of the New Zealand coastal mosquito Opifex fuscus (Hutton). I. Mating behavior. Behaviour 84:157–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sparkes TC, Keogh DP, Pary RA (1996) Energetic costs of mate guarding behavior in male stream-dwelling isopods. Oecologia 106(2):166–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sutherland DL, Hogg ID, Waas JR (2007) Is size assortative mating in Paracalliope fluviatilis (Crustacea: Amphipoda) explained by male-male competition or female choice? Biol J Linn Soc 92(1):173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Taborsky B, Guyer L, Taborsky M (2009) Size-assortative mating in the absence of mate choice. Anim Behav 77(2):439–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thiel M (2002) Reproductive biology of a small isopod symbiont living on a large isopod host: from the maternal marsupium to the protective grip of guarding males. Mar Biol 141(1):175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Titelman J, Varpe O, Eliassen S, Fiksen O (2007) Copepod mating: chance or choice? J Plankton Res 29(12):1023–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Venner S, Bernstein C, Dray S, Bel-Venner MC (2010) Make love not war: when should less competitive males choose low-quality but defendable females? Am Nat 175(6):650–661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ward PI (1986) A comparative field study of the breeding behavior of a stream and a pond population of Gammarus pulex (Amphipoda). Oikos 46(1):29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Watson PJ, Arnqvist G, Stallmann RR (1998) Sexual conflict and the energetic costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. Am Nat 151(1):46–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wedell N, Kvarnemo C, Lessells CKM, Tregenza T (2006) Sexual conflict and life histories. Anim Behav 71:999–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wong BBM, Candolin U (2005) How is female mate choice affected by male competition? Biol Rev Cam Phil Soc 80(4):559–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zhu DH, Tanaka S (2002) Prolonged precopulatory mounting increases the length of copulation and sperm precedence in Locusta migratoria (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 95(3):370–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Therésa M. Jones
    • 1
  • Göran Arnqvist
    • 2
  • Kathryn B. McNamara
    • 3
  • Mark A. Elgar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyThe University of MelbourneVictoriaAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Genetics, Evolutionary Biology CentreUniversity of UppsalaUppsalaSweden
  3. 3.School of Animal BiologyUniversity of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations