Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 61, Issue 1, pp 31–38 | Cite as

Indirect genetic benefits of polyandry in a spider with direct costs of mating

  • Alexei A. Maklakov
  • Yael Lubin
Original Article

Abstract

The search for the evolutionary explanation of polyandry is increasingly focused on direct and indirect selection on female resistance. In a polyandrous spider Stegodyphus lineatus, males do not provide material benefits and females are resistant to remating. Nevertheless, polyandrous females may obtain indirect genetic benefits that offset the costs associated with multiple mating. We manipulated the opportunity for females to select between different partners and examined the effect of female mating history (mated once, mated twice, or rejected the second male) on offspring body mass, size, condition, and survival under high- and low-food rearing regimens. We found that multiple mating, not female choice, results in increased female offspring body mass and condition. However, these effects were present only in low-food regimen. We did not find any effects of female mating history on male offspring variables. Thus, the benefits of polyandry depend not only on sex, but also on offspring environment. Furthermore, the observed patterns suggest that indirect genetic benefits cannot explain the evolution of female resistance in this system.

Keywords

Indirect selection Female resistance Mate choice Sexual selection Sexual conflict Stegodyphus lineatus 

Notes

Acknowledgement

We thank David Saltz, Trine Bilde, Jutta Schneider, Ofer Eitan, and all members of the Spider Lab in Sede Boqer campus for fruitful discussions of the experiments and the data; David Saltz for statistical advice; and Ofer Eitan for outstanding laboratory assistance. Trine Bilde, Urban Friberg, and Jutta Schneider commented on the manuscript. A. A. M. was supported by the Krupp Fund (Blaustein Centre for Scientific Cooperation), American Arachnological Fund research grant, and Marie Curie (MEIF-CT-2003-50589) fellowship. Y. L. was supported by grant 2000259 from the US–Israel Bi-National Science Foundation. The experiments comply with the current laws of Israel. This is publication 528 for Mitrani Dept. of Desert Ecology.

References

  1. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnqvist G (1989) Multiple mating in a water strider: mutual benefits or intersexual conflict? Anim Behav 38:749–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnqvist G (1997) The evolution of water strider mating systems: causes and consequences of intersexual conflict of interest. In: Choe JC, Crespi BJ (eds) Social competition and cooperation in insects and arachnids: evolution of mating systems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 146–163Google Scholar
  4. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and fitness in insects. Anim Behav 60:145–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  6. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T, Katvala M (2005) Mating rate and fitness in female bean weevils. Behav Ecol 16:123–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blanckenhorn WU, Hosken DJ, Martin OY, Reim C, Teuschl Y, Ward PI (2002) The costs of copulating in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Behav Ecol 13:353–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cameron E, Day T, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict and indirect effects. J Evol Biol 16:1055–1060PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol 18:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choe JC, Crespi BJ (1997) The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Clutton-Brock TH, Parker GA (1995) Sexual coercion in animal societies. Anim Behav 49:1345–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cordero C, Eberhard WG (2003) Female choice of antagonistic male adaptations: a critical review of some current research. J Evol Biol 16:1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crawley MJ (1993) GLIM for ecologists. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Curtsinger JW (1991) Sperm competition and the evolution of multiple mating. Am Nat 138:93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daly M (1978) The cost of mating. Am Nat 112:771–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  17. Erez T, Schneider JM, Lubin Y (2005) Is male cohabitation costly for females in the spider Stegodyphus lineatus (Eresidae)? Ethology 111:693–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foelix RF (1996) Biology of spiders. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Gavrilets S, Arnqvist G, Friberg U (2001) The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:531–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Halliday T (1993) The study of mate choice. In: Bateson P (ed) Mate choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 2–3Google Scholar
  21. Head ML, Hunt J, Jennions MD, Brooks R (2005) The indirect benefits of mating with attractive males outweigh the direct costs. PLoS Biol 3:289–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heath DD, Fox CW, Heath JW (1999) Maternal effects on offspring size: Variation through early development of chinook salmon. Evolution 53:1605–1611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holland B, Rice WR (1998) Chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hunt J, Bussiere LF, Jennions MD, Brooks R (2004) What is genetic quality? Trends Ecol Evol 19:329–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hurst GDD, Sharpe RG, Broomfield AH, Walker LE, Majerus TMO, Zaharov AI, Majerus MEH (1995) Sexually transmitted disease in a promiscuous insect Adalia bipunctata. Ecol Entomol 20:230–236Google Scholar
  26. Ivy TM, Sakaluk SK (2005) Polyandry promotes enhanced offspring survival in decorated crickets. Evolution 59:152–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kirkpatrick M (1996) Good genes and direct selection in the evolution of mating preferences. Evolution 50:2125–2140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kirpatrick M, Barton NH (1997) The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:1282–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Konior M, Radwan J, Kolodziejczyk M (2001) Polyandry increases offspring fecundity in the bulb mite. Evolution 55:1893–1896PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maklakov AA, Lubin Y (2004) Sexual conflict over mating in a spider: increased fecundity does not compensate for the costs of polyandry. Evolution 58:1135–1140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maklakov AA, Bilde T, Lubin Y (2003) Vibratory courtship in a web-building spider: signalling quality or stimulating the female? Anim Behav 66:623–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maklakov AA, Bilde T, Lubin Y (2004) Sexual selection for increased male body size and protandry in a spider. Anim Behav 68:1041–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maklakov AA, Bilde T, Lubin Y (2005) Sexual conflict in the wild: elevated mating rate reduces female lifetime reproductive success. Am Nat 165:S38–S45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marshall SD, Gittleman JL (1994) Clutch size in spiders: is more better? Funct Ecol 8:118–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oreiza N, Linder JE, Rice WR (2005) Sexy sons from re-mating do not recoup the direct costs of harmful male interactions in the Drosophila melanogaster laboratory model system. J Evol Biol 18:1315–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Parker GA (1979) Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Blum MS, Blum NA (eds) Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. Academic, New York, pp 123–163Google Scholar
  38. Reznick D (1985) Cost of reproduction: an evaluation of the empirical evidence. Oikos 44:257–267Google Scholar
  39. Riechert SE (1978) Games spiders play—behavioural variability in territorial disputes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 3:135–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sakaluk SK, Schaus JM, Eggert AK, Snedden WA, Brady PL (2002) Polyandry and fitness of offspring reared under varying nutritional stress in decorated crickets. Evolution 56:1999–2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schneider JM (1995) Survival and growth in groups of a subsocial spider (Stegodyphus lineatus). Insectes Soc 42:237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schneider JM (1997) Timing of maturation and the mating system of the spider Stegodyphus lineatus (Eresidae): how important is body size? Biol J Linn Soc 60:517–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schneider JM, Lubin Y (1996) Infanticidal male eresid spiders. Nature 381:655–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schneider JM, Lubin Y (1997) Male infanticide in a spider with suicidal brood care Stegodyphus lineatus (Eresidae). Anim Behav 54:305–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schneider JM, Lubin Y (1998) Intersexual conflict in spiders. Oikos 83:469–506Google Scholar
  46. Schulte-Hostedde AI, Zinner B, Millar JS, Hickling GJ (2005) Restitution of mass-size residuals: validating body condition indices. Ecology 86:155–163Google Scholar
  47. Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  48. Stewart AD, Morrow ED, Rice WR (2005) Assessing putative interlocus sexual conflict in Drosophila melanogaster using experimental evolution. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:2029–2035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tregenza T, Wedell N, Hosken DJ, Ward PI (2003) Maternal effects on offspring depend on female mating pattern and offspring environment in yellow dung flies. Evolution 57:297–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Uhl G, Schmitt S, Schäfer MA (2005) Fitness benefits of multiple mating versus female mate choice in the cellar spider (Pholcus phalangioides). Behav Ecol Sociobiol online firstGoogle Scholar
  51. Vahed K (1998) The function of nuptial feeding in insects: a review of empirical studies. Biol Rev Camb Phil Soc 73:43–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vollrath F (1987) Growth, foraging and reproductive success. In: Nentwig W (ed) Ecophysiology of spiders. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Yasui Y (1998) The ‘genetic benefits’ of female multiple mating reconsidered. Trends Ecol Evol 13:246–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Life SciencesBen Gurion UniversityBeer-ShevaIsrael
  2. 2.Mitrani Department of Desert Ecology, Blaustein Institute for Desert ResearchBen Gurion UniversitySede BoqerIsrael
  3. 3.Animal Ecology/Department of Ecology and Evolution, Evolutionary Biology CentreUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations