Advertisement

Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 495–504 | Cite as

Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder: Isolation Enhances the Frequency of Mating in Coleomegilla maculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae)

  • Jason P. Harmon
  • Andrea Hayden
  • D. A. Andow
Article

Abstract

Mating behavior can be a dynamic process that depends upon the insects’ environment and condition. We performed a series of experiments to see if isolating individual ladybeetles changed the frequency of mating compared to when they were kept in mixed-sex groups. Our results indicate that individuals isolated for only 1 day were 26 times more likely to mate than individuals kept in a mixed-sex group. Isolation of either sex will increase the propensity to mate, but isolating males had a stronger effect than isolating females. We further demonstrate how isolating could be used as a technique for studying some aspects of mating behavior by showing that there is large variation in the frequency of remating amongst maternal lines.

Keywords

Coccinellid density-dependent behavior mating behavior polyandry 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors thank Jen White, Chad Harvey, and members of the Andow and Rosenheim labs for their critical reviews and helpful comments. JPH was primarily supported by a grant from the National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) STAR Program, EPA. All experiments comply with the laws of the USA.

References

  1. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav 60:145–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atallah YH, Newsom LD (1966) Ecological and nutritional studies on Coleomegilla maculata DeGeer (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). I. The development of an artificial diet and a laboratory rearing technique. J Econ Entomol 59:1173–1179Google Scholar
  3. Ball MA, Parker GA (2007) Sperm competition games: the risk model can generate higher sperm allocation to virgin females. J Evol Biol 20:767–779PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eckstrand IA, Seiger MB (1975) Population density and mating rates in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution 29:287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gromko MH, Gerhart PD (1984) Increased density does not increase remating frequency in laboratory populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 38:451–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Harmon JP (2003) Indirect interactions among a generalist predator and its multiple foods. Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MNGoogle Scholar
  7. Harmon JP, Stephens E, Losey J (2007) The decline of native coccinellids (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in the United States and Canada. J Insect Conserv 11:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harshman LG, Hoffmann AA, Prout T (1988) Environmental effects on remating in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 42:312–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hemptinne JL, Dixon AFG, Lognay G (1996) Searching behaviour and mate recognition by males of the two-spot ladybird beetle, Adalia bipunctata. Ecol Entomol 21:165–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hodek I, Ceryngier P (2000) Sexual activity in Coccinellidae (Coleoptera): a review. Eur J Entomol 97:449–456Google Scholar
  11. Hodek I, Honěk A (1996) Ecology of Coccinellidae. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  12. Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Luttbeg B (2004) Female mate assessment and choice behavior affect the frequency of alternative male mating tactics. Behav Ecol 15:239–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Majerus MEN (1994a) Female promiscuity maintains high fertility in ladybirds (Col., Coccinellidae). Entomol Mon Mag 130:205–209Google Scholar
  15. Majerus MEN (1994b) Ladybirds. Butler & Tanner, Frome, Somerset, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. Maklakov AA, Lubin Y (2006) Indirect genetic benefits of polyandry in a spider with direct costs of mating. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mangel M, Clark CW (1988) Dynamic modeling in behavioral ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Marks RW, Seager RD, Barr LG (1988) Local ecology and multiple mating in a natural population of Drosophila melanogaster. Am Nat 131:918–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Obata S (1988a) Mating behaviour and sperm transfer in the ladybird beetle, Harmonia axyridis Pallas (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). In: Niemczyk E, Dixon AFG (eds) Ecology and effectiveness of aphidophaga. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp 39–42Google Scholar
  20. Obata S (1988b) Mating refusal and its significance in females of the ladybird beetle, Harmonia axyridis. Physiol Entomol 13:193–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Omkar (2004) Reproductive behaviour of two aphidophagous ladybird beetles, Cheilomenes and Coccinella transversalis. Entomol Sin 11:47–60Google Scholar
  22. Omkar Mishra G (2005) Mating in aphidophagous ladybirds: costs and benefits. J Appl Entomol. 129:432–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Omkar Pervez A (2005) Mating behavior of an aphidophagous ladybird beetle, Propylea dissecta (Mulsant). Insect Sci 12:37–44Google Scholar
  24. Omkar Srivastava S (2002) The reproductive behaviour of an aphidophagous ladybeetle, Coccinella septempunctata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Eur J Entomol 99:465–470Google Scholar
  25. Parker GA, Ball MA, Stockley P, Gage MJG (1997) Sperm competition games: a prospective analysis of risk assessment. Proc R Soc Lond (Biol) 264:1793–1802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pervez A, Omkar, Richmond AS (2004) The influence of age on reproductive performance of the predatory ladybird beetle, Propylea dissecta. J Insect Sci 4:1–8Google Scholar
  27. SAS Institute Inc (2000) JMP statistics and graphics guide, version 4. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  28. Schellhorn NA (1998) Cannibalism and interspecific predation: the interaction among Coccinellid beetles, their aphid prey, and maize. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MNGoogle Scholar
  29. Schellhorn NA, Andow DA (2005) Response of coccinellids to their aphid prey at different spatial scales. Popul Ecol 47:71–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schwagmeyer PL, Parker GA (1990) Male mate choice as predicted by sperm competition in 13-lined ground-squirrels. Nature 348:62–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Semyanov VP (1970) Peculiarities of biology of Adalia bipunctata L. Coleoptera, Coccinellidae in the conditions of Leningrad region. Uchenye Zapiski Leningradskogo Selekohozjaistvennogo Instituta 127:105–112Google Scholar
  32. Simmons LW (2001) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in insects. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
  33. Singh SR, Singh BN (2001) Female remating in Drosophila ananassae: evidence for the effect of density on female remating frequency. J Insect Behav 14:659–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Spiess LD, Spiess EB (1969) Mating propensity, chromosomal polymorphism and dependent conditions in Drosophila persimilis. 11. Factors between larvae and adults. Evolution 23:225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Srivastava S, Omkar (2004) Age-specific mating and reproductive senescence in the seven-spotted ladybird, Coccinella septempunctata. J Appl Entomol 128:452–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Srivastava S, Omkar (2005a) Mate choice and reproductive success of two morphs of the seven spotted ladybird, Coccinella septempunctata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Eur J Entomol 102:189–194Google Scholar
  37. Srivastava S, Omkar (2005b) Short- and long-term benefits of promiscuity in the seven-spotted ladybird Coccinella septempunctata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Int J Trop Insect Sci 25:176–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thornhill R, Alcock J (1983) Sexual selection theory. In: The evolution of insect mating systems. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 51–89Google Scholar
  39. Torres-Vila LM, Rodriguez-Molina MC, Jennions MD (2004) Polyandry and fecundity in the Lepidoptera: can methodological and conceptual approaches bias outcomes? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:315–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Turner ME (1986) Multiple mating, sperm competition and the fertility component of fitness in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Fla Entomol 69:121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ueno H (1994) Intraspecific variation of P2-value in a coccinellid beetle, Harmonia axyridis. J Ethol 12:169–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Webberley KM, Hurst GDD, Buszko J, Majerus MEN (2002) Lack of parasite-mediated sexual selection in a ladybird/sexually transmitted disease system. Anim Behav 63:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wold SJ, Burkness EC, Hutchison WD, Venette RC (2001) In-field monitoring of beneficial insect populations in transgenic corn expressing a Bacillus thuringiensis toxin. J Entomol Sci 36:177–187Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jason P. Harmon
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andrea Hayden
    • 1
  • D. A. Andow
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Entomology and Minnesota Center for Community GeneticsUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations