Advertisement

Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 99–113 | Cite as

Competition from large males and the alternative mating tactics of small males of dawson’s burrowing bee (Amegilla dawsoni) (apidae, apinae, anthophorini)

  • John Alcock
Article

Abstract

Males of Dawson’s burrowing bees (Amegilla dawsoni) search for virgin females at three locations: (1) open clay patches where females are emerging from underground brood cells, (2) the vegetated peripheral zone adjacent to emergence areas (through which females pass after emerging), and (3) clusters of flowering plants, which are often some distance from emergence areas. Males of Dawson’s burrowing bees exhibit a size dimorphism with large major and small minors. Major males patrol only the open emergence sites, whereas minor males may be found in all three locations. Although most females are mounted and presumably mated immediately upon emergence, some are not, and these females make up a pool of potential mates for the small males patrolling the peripheral zone and flower patches. The density of males at emergence sites and the probability of male-male aggression change over the course of a day and over the entire flight season. When the level of competition is low, some minor males hunt for mates at emergence areas, where potential mates are relatively numerous. But when the presence of many large rivals makes it unlikely that a small male can avoid being displaced from emerging females, minors make the best of a bad job by shifting to areas where majors are absent.

Key words

alternative mating tactics bees body size male dimorphism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alcock, J. (1996a). The relation between male body size, fighting, and mating success in Dawson’s burrowing bee,Amegilla dawsoni (Apidae, Apinae, Anthophorini).J. Zool. 239: 663–674.Google Scholar
  2. Alcock, J. (1996b). Provisional rejection of three alternative hypotheses on the maintenance of a size dichotomy in males of Dawson’s burrowing bee,Amegilla dawsoni (Apidae, Anthophorini).Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 39: 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alcock, J. (1996c). Small males emerge earlier than large males in Dawson’s burrowing bees (Amegilla dawsoni) (Hymenoptera: Anthophorini).J. Zool. (in press).Google Scholar
  4. Alcock, J., Jones, C. E. and Buchmann, S. L. (1977). Male mating strategies in the beeCentris pallida Fox (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae).Am. Nat. 111: 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersson, M. (1994).Sexual Selection, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  6. Barthell, J. F., and Daly, H. V. (1995). Male size variation and mating site fidelity in a population ofHabropoda depressa Fowler (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae).Pan-Pac. Entomol. 71: 149–156.Google Scholar
  7. Borgia, G. (1980). Sexual competition inScatophaga stercoraria: Size- and density-related changes in male ability to capture females.Behaviour 75: 185–205.Google Scholar
  8. Crespi, B. J. (1986). Size assessment and alternative fighting tactics inElaphrothrips tuberculatus (Insecta: Thysanoptera).Anim. Behav. 34: 1324–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Danforth, B. N. (1991). The morphology and behavior of dimorphic males inPerdita portalis (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae).Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 29: 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dawkins, R. (1980). Good strategy or evolutionarily stable strategy? In Barlow, G. W., and Silverberg, S. (eds.),Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture? Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 331–367.Google Scholar
  11. Dominey, W. J. (1984). Alternative mating tactics and evolutionary stable strategies.Am. Zool. 24: 384–396.Google Scholar
  12. Eberhard, W. G. (1982). Beetle horn dimorphism: making the best of a bad lot.Am. Nat. 119: 420–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldsmith, S. K. (1987). The mating system and alternative reproductive behaviors ofDendrobias mandibularis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae).Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 20: 111–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gross, M. R. (1996). Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: Diversity within the sexes.Trends Ecol. Evol. 11: 92–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Houston, T. F. (1991). Ecology and behaviour of the beeAmegilla (Asaropoda) dawsoni (Rayment) with notes on a related species (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae).Rec. West. Aus. Mus. 15: 591–609.Google Scholar
  16. Larsson, F. E., and Tengo, J. (1989). The effects of temperature and body size on the mating pattern of a gregariously nesting bee,Colletes cunicularius (Hymenoptera: Colletidae).Ecol. Entomol. 14: 279–286.Google Scholar
  17. May, M. L. (1976). Warming rates as a function of body size in periodic endotherms.J. Comp. Physiol. 111: 55–70.Google Scholar
  18. O’Neill, K. M., and Evans, H. E. (1983). Alternative mating tactics inBembicinus quinquespinosus (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae): Correlation with size and color variation.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 14: 39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. O’Neill, K. M., Evans, H. E., and O’Neill, R. P. (1989). Phenotypic correlates of mating success in the sand waspBembicinus quinquespinosus (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae).Can. J. Zool. 67: 2557–2568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Parker, G. A. (1970). The reproductive behaviour and the nature of sexual selection inScatophaga stercoraria L. IV. Epigamic recognition and competition between males for the possession of females.Behaviour 37: 113–139.Google Scholar
  21. Rasmussen, J. L. (1994). The influence of horn and body size on the reproductive behavior of the horned rainbow scarab beetlePhanaeus difformis (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae).J. Insect Behav. 7: 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sigurjónsdóttir, H., and Snorrason, S. S. (1995). Distribution of male yellow dungflies around oviposition sites: the effect of body size.Ecol. Entomol. 20: 84–90.Google Scholar
  23. Stone, G. N., and Willmer, P. G. (1989). Warm-up rates and body temperatures in bees: The importance of body size, thermal regime and phylogeny.J. Exp. Biol. 147: 303–328.Google Scholar
  24. Stone, G. N., Loder, P. M. J., and Blackburn, T. M. (1995). Foraging and courtship behavior in males of the solitary beeAnthophora plumipes (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae): Thermal physiology and the role of body size.Ecol. Entomol. 20: 169–183.Google Scholar
  25. Stubblefield, J. W., and Seger, J. (1994). Sexual dimorphism in the Hymenoptera. In Short, R. V., and Balaban, E. (eds),The Differences between the Sexes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 71–103.Google Scholar
  26. Thornhill, R. (1981).Panorpa (Mecoptera: Panorpidae) scorpionflies: Systems for understanding resource-defence polygyny and alternative male reproductive efforts.Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 12: 355–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thornhill, R., and Alcock, J. (1983).The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  28. Ward, P. I. (1983). The effects of size on the mating behaviour of the dung flySepsis cynipsea.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 13: 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. West-Eberhard, M. J. (1979). Sexual selection, social competition, and evolution.Proc. Philos. Soc. Am. 123: 222–2234.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Alcock
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyArizona State UniversityTempe

Personalised recommendations