Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 89–100 | Cite as

Effect of Drosophila melanogaster Female Size on Male Mating Success

  • Enrique TurieganoEmail author
  • Ignacio Monedero
  • Miguel Pita
  • Laura Torroja
  • Inmaculada Canal


In this study, we examined the influence of female size on mating success in Drosophila melanogaster. The results that were obtained from experiments performed in mating chambers allowed us to confirm the results of previous studies, demonstrating higher mating success of larger D. melanogaster males, and to conclude that female size also affects mating success, either when considering a single male or two competing males. We observed that the advantage for larger males depends on their size relative to that of the female, demonstrating a previously unknown role for female size in mating behavior studies. This effect of female size on mating success depends on various factors: males take longer to initiate courtship toward larger females, large females receive more wing vibrations from males prior to mating, and large females tend to keep moving for longer periods during male courtship. The importance of this finding is discussed in the context of recent reports on sexual conflict in D. melanogaster, in which males were observed to depress fitness in females as a result of intercourse.


Mating behavior Drosophila melanogaster male size female size 



We are most grateful to J. de la Horra, P. Martinez, R. Matesanz and S. Sanchez-Pagés for their comments on the manuscript, and L. P. Wilson for style corrections. This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology (Grant No. BFU-2004-03894).


  1. Byrne PG, Rice WR (2006) Evidence for adaptive male mate choice in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Proc R Soc B 273:917–922PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chapman T, Liddle LF, Kalb JM, Wolfner MF, Partridge L (1995) Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 373:241–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Connolly K, Cook K (1973) Rejection responses by female Drosophila melanogaster: their ontogeny, causality and effects upon behaviour of the courting males. Behaviour 44:122–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crossley SA, Bennet-Clarck HC, Evert HT (1995) Courtship song components affect male and female Drosophila differently. Anim Behav 50:827–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dickson BJ (2008) Wired for sex: the neurobiology of Drosophila mating decisions. Science 322:904–909PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dillon ME, Frazier MR (2006) Drosophila melanogaster locomotion in cold thin air. J Exp Biol 209:364–371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ewing LS, Ewing AW (1984) Courtship in Drosophila melanogaster: behavior of mixed-sex groups in large observation chambers. Behaviour 90:184–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Friberg U, Arnqvist G (2003) Fitness effects of female mate choice: preferred males are detrimental for Drosophila melanogaster females. J Evolution Biol 16:797–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Friberg U (2005) Genetic variation in male and female reproductive characters associated with sexual conflict in Drosophila melanogaster. Behav Genet 35:455–462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hegde SN, Krishna MS (1997) Size-assortative mating in Drosophila malerkotliana. Anim Behav 54:419–426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Innocenti P, Morrow EH (2009) Inmunogenic males: a genome-wide analysis of reproduction and the cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females. J Evol Biol 22:964–973PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Joshi A, Do MH, Mueller LD (1999) Poisson distribution of male mating success in laboratory populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Genet Res 73:239–249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kamimura Y (2007) Twin intromittent organs of Drosophila for traumatic insemination. Biol Lett 3:401–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lefranc A, Bundgaard J (2000) The influence of male and female body size on copulation duration and fecundity in Drosophila melanogaster. Hereditas 132:243–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Long TAF, Pischedda A, Stewart AD, Rice WR (2009) A cost of sexual attractiveness to high fitness females. PLoS Biol 7:e1000254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lüpold S, Manier MK, Ala-Honkola O, Belote JM, Pitnick S (2011) Male Drosophila melanogaster adjust ejaculate size based on female mating status, fecundity, and age. Behav Ecol 22:184–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Markow TA (1988) Reproductive behavior of Drosophila melanogaster and D. nigrospiracula in the field and in the laboratory. J Comp Psychol 102:169–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Markow TA, Sawka S (1992) Dynamics of mating success in experimental groups of Drosophila melanogaster (Diptera: Drosophilidae). J Insect Behav 5:375–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Markow TA, Bustoz D, Pitnick S (1996) Sexual selection and a secondary sexual character in two Drosophila species. Anim Behav 52:759–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McKean KA, Nunney L (2001) Increased sexual activity reduces mate immune function in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:7904–7909PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Møller AP, Alatalo RV (1999) Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc R Soc B 266:85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Dell KM (2003) The voyeurs’ guide to Drosophila melanogaster courtship. Behav Process 64:211–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Partridge L, Farquhar M (1983) Lifetime mating success of male fruit flies Drosophila melanogaster is related to their size. Anim Behav 31:871–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Partridge L, Ewing A, Chandler A (1987a) Male size and mating success in Drosophila melanogaster the roles of male and female behavior. Anim Behav 35:555–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Partridge L, Hoffmann A, Jones JS (1987b) Male size and mating success in Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila pseudoobscura under field conditions. Anim Behav 35:468–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Partridge L, Fowler K (1990) Non-mating costs of exposure to males in female Drosophila melanogaster. J Insect Physiol 36:419–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pitnick S (1991) Male size influences mate fecundity and remating interval in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim Behav 41:735–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pitnick S, García-González F (2002) Harm to females increases with male body size in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc R Soc B 269:1821–1828PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Promislow DEL, Smith EA, Pearse L (1998) Adult fitness consequences of sexual selection in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:10687–10692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reeve MW, Fowler K, Partridge L (2000) Increased body size confers greater fitness at lower experimental temperature in male Drosophila melanogaster. J Evolution Biol 13:836–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rice WR (2000) Dangerous liaisons. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:12953–12955PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rice WR, Stewart AD, Morrow EH, Linder JE, Orteiza N, Byrne GB (2006) Assessing sexual conflict in the Drosophila melanogaster laboratory model system. Phil Trans R Soc B 361:287–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sakai T, Ishida N (2001) Circadian rhythms of female mating activity governed by clock genes in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:9221–9225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Santos M, Ruiz A, Barbadilla A, Quezada-Diaz JE, Hasson E, Fontdevila A (1988) The evolutionary history of Drosophila buzzatii. XIV. Larger flies mate more often in nature. Heredity 61:255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sharp PM (1984) The effect of inbreeding on competitive male mating ability in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 106:601–612PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Sisodia S, Singh BN (2004) Size dependent sexual selection in Drosophila ananassae. Genetica 121:207–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Villella A, Hall JC (2008) Neurogenetics of courtship and mating in Drosophila. Adv Genet 62:67–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zamudio KR, Huey RB, Crill WD (1995) Bigger isn’t always better: body size, developmental and parental temperature and male territorial success in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim Behav 49:671–677Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enrique Turiegano
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ignacio Monedero
    • 1
  • Miguel Pita
    • 1
  • Laura Torroja
    • 1
  • Inmaculada Canal
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de BiologíaUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations