Advertisement

Journal of Ethology

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 35–41 | Cite as

Last-male paternity of Euborellia plebeja, an earwig with elongated genitalia and sperm-removal behavior

  • Yoshitaka KamimuraEmail author
Article

Abstract

Both sexes of the earwig Euborellia plebeja (Dermaptera: Anisolabididae) mate frequently. The elongated intromittent organs of males are as long as their bodies. Previous studies have revealed that this organ is used to remove rival sperm from the female sperm-storage organ (spermatheca), the length of which is twice that of the female body. The fitness benefit of sperm removal was quantified using two mating experiments with paternity analysis. As expected, given that the sperm-removal organ is shorter than the sperm-storage organ, males gained only about 20% of paternity per single mating with sperm-saturated females. The significance of frequent repeated matings with the same female by males is discussed.

Keywords

Anisolabididae Earwigs Euborellia plebeja Last male paternity Multiple matings Sperm competition Sperm displacement Sperm storage 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I acknowledge valuable discussions with T. Suzuki, T. Kusano, and F. Hayashi (Tokyo Metropolitan University). I am grateful to T. Suzuki and two anonymous referees for their helpful comments on previous versions of the manuscript. This research was supported by a research fellowship from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists (no. 02404).

References

  1. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav 60:145–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baijal HN, Srivastava GK (1974) Notes on the biology of Euborellia plebeja (Dohrn). Indian J Entomol 36:23–27Google Scholar
  3. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (ed) (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  4. Birkhead TR, Pringle S (1986) Multiple mating and paternity in Gammarus pulex. Anim Behav 34:611–613Google Scholar
  5. Corbet PS (1999) Dragonflies: behavior and ecology of Odonata. Cornell University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Dewsbury DA (1981) Effects of novelty on copulatory behavior—the Coolidge effect and related phenomena. Psychol Bull 89:464–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dickinson JL (1986) Prolonged mating in the milkweed leaf beetle Labidomera clivicollis clivicollis (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae): a test of the “sperm-loading” hypothesis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 18:331–338Google Scholar
  8. Dickinson JL (1988) Determinants of paternity in the milkweed leaf beetle. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 23:9–19Google Scholar
  9. Eberhard WG (1985) Sexual selection and animal genitalia. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  11. Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kamimura Y (2000) Possible removal of rival sperm by the elongated genitalia of the earwig, Euborellia plebeja. Zool Sci 17:667–672Google Scholar
  13. Kamimura Y (2003a) Effects of broken male intromittent organs on the sperm storage capacity of female earwigs, Euborellia plebeja. J Ethol 21:29–35Google Scholar
  14. Kamimura Y (2003b) Effects of repeated mating and polyandry on the fecundity, fertility and maternal behaviour of female earwigs, Euborellia plebeja. Anim Behav 65:205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kamimura Y, Matsuo Y (2001) A “spare” compensates for the risk of destruction of the elongated penis of earwigs (Insecta: Dermaptera). Naturwissenschaften 88:468–471CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Manly BFJ (1997) Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Mason LJ, Pashley DP (1991) Sperm competition in the soybean looper (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 84:268–271Google Scholar
  18. Parker GA (1970) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol Rev 45:525–567Google Scholar
  19. Parker GA (1978) Searching for mates. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, 1st edn. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 214–244Google Scholar
  20. Pizzari T, Birkhead TR (2000) Female feral fowl eject sperm of subdominant males. Nature 405:787–789CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ridley M (1989) The incidence of sperm displacement in insects: four conjectures, one corroboration. Biol J Linn Soc 38:349–367Google Scholar
  22. Simmons LW (2001) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  23. Simmons LW, Siva-Jothy MJ (1998) Sperm competition in insects: mechanisms and the potential for selection. In: Birkhead TR, Møller AP (eds) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic, London, pp 341–434Google Scholar
  24. Thornhill R (1976) Sexual selection and nuptial feeding behaviour in Bittacus apicalis (Insecta: Mecoptera). Am Nat 110:529–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Walker WF (1980) Sperm utilization strategies in nonsocial insects. Am Nat 115:780–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA (2002) Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol Evol 17:313–320Google Scholar
  27. Yasui Y (1997) A ‘good-sperm’ model can explain the evolution of costly multiple mating by females. Am Nat 149:573–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yasui Y (1998) The ‘genetic benefits’ of female multiple mating reconsidered. Trends Ecol Evol 13:246–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (1994) Last-male sperm precedence breaks down when females mate with three males. Proc R Soc Lond B 257:287–292Google Scholar
  30. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (1996) The evolution of polyandry I: intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1711–1717Google Scholar
  31. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (1997) The evolution of polyandry II: post-copulatory defenses against genetic incompatibility. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (2001) Reproductive mode and the genetic benefits of polyandry. Anim Behav 61:1051–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Ethological Society and Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyTokyo Metropolitan UniversityTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Laboratory of Evolutionary and Community Ecology, Department of Environmental Systems, Faculty of Geo-Environmental ScienceRissho UniversitySaitama 360-0194Japan

Personalised recommendations