Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 237–246 | Cite as

Effects of spermatophores on male and female monarch butterfly reproductive success

  • Karen S. Oberhauser
Article

Summary

I present the results of experiments designed to measure the effects of spermatophores produced by male monarch butterflies on male and female reproductive success. There was wide variation in the number of matings by captive males, suggesting the potential for strong sexual selection on males. Male lifespan was not affected by total number of matings, nor did it differ between males that were allowed to mate and those not exposed to females. Two effects of spermatophores on female behavior or fecundity are reported; (1) Females that received large spermatophores delayed remating longer than those receiving small ones. (2) Females allowed to mate several times laid more eggs than singly-mated females. The relative importance of these effects is discussed in relation to monarch mating patterns.

Keywords

Reproductive Success Sexual Selection Mating Pattern Female Behavior Female Reproductive Success 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boggs CL (1979) Resource allocation and reproductive strategies in several heliconiine butterfly species. PhD Thesis, University of Texas, AustinGoogle Scholar
  2. Boggs CL (1981) Selection pressures affecting male nutrient investment at mating in heliconiine butterflies. Evolution 35:931–940Google Scholar
  3. Boggs CL, Gilbert LE (1979) Male contribution to egg production in butterflies: Evidence for transfer of nutrients at mating. Science 206:83–84Google Scholar
  4. Boggs CL, Watt WW (1981) Population structure of Pierid butterflies IV. Genetic and physiological investment in offspring by male Colias. Oecologia 50:320–324Google Scholar
  5. Drummond BA III (1984) Multiple mating and sperm competition in the Lepidoptera. In: Smith RL (ed) Sperm Competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic Press, Orlando, pp. 291–371Google Scholar
  6. Greenfield MD (1982) The question of paternal investment in Lepidoptera: male-contributed proteins in Plodia interpunctella. Int J Inv Repro 5:323–330Google Scholar
  7. Gwynne DT (1984) Male mating effort, confidence of paternity, and insect sperm competition In: Smith RL (ed) Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic Press, Orlando, pp 117–150Google Scholar
  8. Johnson CGD (1979) The accessory reproductive glands of the male monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus: their development, fine structure and biochemistry. PhD Thesis, Univ Minnesota, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  9. Jones KN, Odendaal FJ, Ehrlich PR (1986) Evidence against the spermatophore as paternal investment in checkerspot butterflies (Euphydryas: Nymphalidae). Am Midl Natur 116:1–6Google Scholar
  10. Lederhouse RC (1981) The effect of female mating frequency on egg fertility in the black swallowtail, Papilio polyxenes asterius (Papilionidae). J Lep Soc 34:266–277Google Scholar
  11. Leopold RA (1976) The role of male accessory glands in insect reproduction. Ann Rev Ent 21:199–222Google Scholar
  12. Low BS (1978) Environmental uncertainty and the parental strategies of marsupials and placentals. Amer Nat 112:197–213Google Scholar
  13. Marshall LD (1980) Paternal investment in Colias philodiceeurytheme butterflies (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Master's Thesis, Arizona State Univ., TempeGoogle Scholar
  14. Marshall LD (1982) Male nutrient investment in the Lepidoptera: what nutrients should males invest? Amer Nat 120:273–279Google Scholar
  15. Oberhauser KS (1988) Male monarch butterfly spermatophore mass and mating strategies. Anim Behav 36:1384–1388Google Scholar
  16. Pliske TE (1973) Factors determining mating frequencies in some new world butterflies and skippers. Ann Ent Soc Amer 66:164–169Google Scholar
  17. Pliske TE (1975) Courtship behavior of the monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus L. Ann Ent Soc Amer 68:143–151Google Scholar
  18. Rutowski RL (1979) The butterfly as an honest salesman. Anim Behav 27:1269–1270Google Scholar
  19. Rutowski RL (1980) Courtship solicitation by females of the checkered white butterfly, Pieris protodice. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:113–117Google Scholar
  20. Rutowski RL (1984) Production and use of secretions passed by males at copulation in Pieris protodice (Lepidoptera, Pieridae). Psyche 91:141–152Google Scholar
  21. Rutowski RL, Gilchrist GW (1986) Copulation in Colias eurytheme (Lepidoptera: Pieridae): patterns and frequency. J Zool 207:115–124Google Scholar
  22. Rutowski RL, Long CE, Marshall LD, Vetter RS (1981) Courtship solicitation by Colias females. Am Midl Natur 105: 334–340Google Scholar
  23. Rutowski RL, Gilchrist GW, Terkanian B (1987) Female butterflies mated with recently mated males show reduced reproductive output. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 20:319–322Google Scholar
  24. Shapiro AM (1982) Survival of refrigerated Tatochila butterflies (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) as an indicator of male nutrient investment in reproduction. Oecologia 53:139–140Google Scholar
  25. Sims SR (1979) Aspects of mating frequency and reproductive maturity in Papilio zelicaon. Am Midl Natur 102:36–50Google Scholar
  26. Sugawara P (1979) Stretch reception in the bursa copulatrix of the butterfly, Pieris rapae crucivora, and its role in behaviour. J Comp Physiol 130:191–199Google Scholar
  27. Suzuki Y (1978) Adult longevity and reproductive potential of the small cabbage white, Pieris rapae crucivora Boisduval. (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Appl Entom Zool 13:312–313Google Scholar
  28. Suzuki Y, Zalucki MP (1986) The influence of sex ratio on female dispersal in Danaus plexippus (L) (Lepidoptera: Danaidae). J Aust Ent Soc 25:31–35Google Scholar
  29. Svärd L (1985) Paternal investment in a monandrous butterfly, Pararge aegeria. Oikos 45:66–70Google Scholar
  30. Svärd L, Wiklund C (1986) Different ejaculate delivery strategies in first versus subsequent matings in the swallowtail butterfly Papilio machaon L. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 18:325–330Google Scholar
  31. Svärd L, Wiklund C (1988a) Fecundity, egg weight, and longevity in relation to multiple matings in females of the monarch butterfly. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 23:39–43Google Scholar
  32. Svärd L, Wiklund C (1988b) Prolonged mating in the monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus and nightfall as a cue for sperm transfer. Oikos 52:351–354Google Scholar
  33. Trivers RL (1972) Paternal investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971. Aldine-Atherton, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  34. Watanabe M (1988) Multiple matings increase the fecundity of the yellow swallowtail butterfly, Papilio xuthus L., in summer generations. J Ins Behav 1:17–30Google Scholar
  35. Williams GC (1966) Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen S. Oberhauser
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Behavioral BiologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations