Advertisement

Researches on Population Ecology

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 209–218 | Cite as

Spatio-temporal variation of natural and sexual selection in breeding populations of the coreid bug,Colpula lativentris (Heteroptera: Coreidae)

  • Takayoshi Nishida
Original Paper

Abstract

Spatio-temporal variations of lifetime reproductive succes (LRS) of both male and female individuals of a coreid bugColpula lativentris were measured and analyzed using the multiple regression method of Arnold and Wade (1984a, b). The standardized variance of LRS was larger in males than that in females as males often to secure mates for a long period whereas females could easily find mates and oviposit simply dependent on ovarial maturation. LRS was partitioned into 4 consecutive fitness components: (1) reproductive lifespan, (2) copulating efficiency, (3) guarding efficiency (for males) or oviposition efficiency (for females), and (4) number of eggs per clutch. In males copulating efficiency was the largest determining factor of LRS, whereas in females reproductive lifespan was the most important factor. Such tendencies were stable on both a yearly and local basis. Patterns of relative contribution of natural selection (reproductive lifespan and number of eggs per clutch) and sexual selection (copulating efficiency and guarding or oviposition efficiency) to LRS were clearly different between males and females. This sexual difference is, at least to some extent, thought to be brought about by sexual selection among males for mating opportunity, though no physical fight was observed among males. Directional selection on body length was found only in relation to the clutch size of females because large females tended to lay larger clutches. No significant directional selection was found in other fitness components.

Key words

natural selection sexual selection reproductive success spatio-temporal variation Colpula lativentris 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnold, S. J. and M. J. Wade (1984a) On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: theory.Evolution 38: 709–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold, S. J. and M. J. Wade (1984b) On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: applications.Evolution 38: 720–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Charlesworth, B. (1987) The heritability of fitness. pp. 21–40.In J. W. Bradbury and M. B. Andersson (eds.)Sexual selection: testing the alternatives. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
  4. Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1983) Selection in relation to sex. In D. S. Bendall (ed.)Evolution from molecule to men pp. 457–481. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  5. Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1988) Introduction. pp. 1–6.In T. H. Clutton-Brock (ed.)Reproductive success. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  6. Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1991) Lifetime data and the measurement of selection.Evolution 45: 454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Endler, J. A. (1986)Natural selection in the wild. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  8. Falconer, D. S. (1989)Introduction to quantitative genetics, 3rd ed. Longman, London.Google Scholar
  9. Fincke, O. M. (1988) Sources of variation in lefetime reproductive success in a nonterritorial damselfly (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). pp. 24–43.In T. H. Clutton-Brock (ed.)Reproductive success, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  10. Fujisaki, K. (1981) Studies on the mating system of the winter cherry bug,Acanthocoris sordidus Thunberg (Heteroptera: Coreidae). II. Harem defence polygyny.Res. Popul. Ecol. 23: 262–279.Google Scholar
  11. Gwynne, G. T. (1984) Male mating effort, confidence of paternity, and insect sperm competiton. pp. 117–149.In R. L. Smith (ed.) Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic Press, Orland.Google Scholar
  12. Hafernik, J. E. and R. W. Garrison (1986) Mating success and survival rate in a population of damselflies: Results at variance with theory?Amer. Natur. 128: 353–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harris, V. E. and J. W. Todd (1980) Temporal and numerical patterns of reproductive behavior in the southern green stinkbug,Nezara viridula (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae).Entomol. Exp. Appl. 27: 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hibino, Y. and Y. Ito (1983) Mating aggregations in a stink bug,Megacopta punctissimum (Montandon) (Heteroptera: Plataspidae).Res. Popul. Ecol. 25: 180–188.Google Scholar
  15. Hubbell, S. P. and L. K. Johnson (1987) Environmental variance in lifetime mating success, mate choice, and sexual selection.Amer. Natur. 130: 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maruta, E. (1981) Size structure inPoygonum cuspidatum on Mt. Fuji.Jap. J. Ecol. 31: 441–445 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  17. McLain, D. K. (1980) Female choice and the adaptive significance of prolonged copulation inNezara viridula (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae).Psyche 87: 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McLain, D. K. (1984) Host plant density and territorial behavior of the seed bug,Neacoryphus bicrucis (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae).Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 14: 181–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McVey, M. E. (1988) The opportunity for sexual selection in a territorial dragonfly,Erythemis simplicicollis. pp. 44–58.In T. H. Clutton-Brock (ed.)Reproductive success, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  20. Mitchell, P. L. (1980) Combat and territorial defense ofAcanthocephala femorata (Hemiptera: Coreidae).Ann. Ent. Soc. Am. 73: 404–408.Google Scholar
  21. Nakamura, K. (1990) Maternal care and survival in a Sumatran bug,Physomerus grossipes (Hemiptera, Coreidae). pp. 233–243.In S. F. Sakagami, R. Ohgushi, and D. W. Roubik (eds.)Natural history of social wasps and bees in equatorial Sumatra. Hokkaido University Press, Sapporo.Google Scholar
  22. Newton, I. (1988) Age and reproduction in the sparrow hawk. pp. 201–219.In T. H. Clutton-Brock (ed.)Reproductive success. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  23. Nishida, T. (1987) Measurement of the opportunity for natural and sexual selection in a breeding population of the coreid bug (Colpula lativentris).Res. Popul. Ecol. 29: 271–289.Google Scholar
  24. Nishida, T. (1989a) Scramble competition polygyny in the coreid bug (Colpula lativentris).Res. Popul. Ecol. 31: 211–224.Google Scholar
  25. Nishida, T. (1989b) Is lefetime data always necessary for evaluating the “intensity” of selection?Evolution 43: 1826–1827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nishida, T. (1992) A measure of sexual selection for interspectific comparisons of species with diversified mating systems and different mortality schedules.Res. Popul. Ecol. 34: 373–382.Google Scholar
  27. Numata, H. (1986)Physiological analysis of communication systems of heteropteran bugs. Osaka.Google Scholar
  28. Ohgushi, T. (1986) Population dynamics of an herbivorous lady beetle,Henosepilachna niponica, in a seasonal environment.J. Anim. Ecol. 55: 861–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parker, G. A. (1970) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in insects.Biol. Rev. 47: 223–243.Google Scholar
  30. Parker, G. A. (1984) Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating strategies. pp. 1–60.In R. L. Smith (ed.)Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic Press, Orland.Google Scholar
  31. Rose, M. R. (1982) Antagonistic pleiotropy, dominance and genetic variation.Heredity 48: 63–78.Google Scholar
  32. Sillen-Tullberg, B. (1981) Prolonged copulation: a male “post-copulatory” strategy in a promiscuous species,Lygaeus equestris (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae).Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 9: 283–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sutherland, W. J. (1985a) Chance can produce a sex difference in variance in mating success and explain Bateman's data.Anim. Behav. 33: 1349–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sutherland, W. J. (1985b) Measures of sexual selection.Oxford Surv. Evol. Biol. 2: 90–101.Google Scholar
  35. Thornhill, R. and J. Alcock (1983)The evolution of insect mating systems. Harvard University Press. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  36. Trail, P. (1985) The intensity of selection: intersexual and interspecific comparisons require consistent measures.Amer. Natur. 126: 434–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Population Ecology 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takayoshi Nishida
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Entomology, Faculty of AgricultureKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations