Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 61, Issue 8, pp 1177–1184 | Cite as

No cost of male mating experience on female reproductive success in the almond moth, Cadra cautella (Lepidoptera; Pyralidae)

  • Kathryn B. McNamara
  • Therésa M. Jones
  • Mark A. Elgar
Original Paper


Male copulation experience may have a profound impact on female reproductive success if male reproductive investment declines over consecutive copulations and if females are unlikely to re-mate. Male reproductive investment is particularly interesting in lepidopterans because males produce dimorphic sperm: a fertilizing (eupyrene) and a non-fertilising (apyrene) sperm. In two experiments, we explored the lifetime reproductive investment of male almond moths, Cadra cautella (also known as Ephestia cautella) and examined its influence on female reproductive success. In the almond moth, females re-mate infrequently and males transfer sperm in a spermatophore. Attached to the spermatophore is a large chitinous process, the function of which is unknown. One group of males were permitted consecutive copulations with virgin females and the amount of sperm and size of the spermatophore transferred were compared for all females. We found that the number of both eupyrene and apyrene sperm per ejaculate decreased with his increased mating frequency, while the size of the spermatophore process decreased dramatically after the male’s first copulation. In a second experiment, we allowed males to mate with females throughout their lives and then compared female fecundity and fertilisation success. We found no obvious decrease in female fecundity and fertilisation success with increased male copulation experience, despite the likely reduction in male gametic investment. We discuss potential explanations for the development of this enlarged and elaborate first spermatophore of male almond moths given that it confers no clear fitness advantage to females.


Spermatophore Apyrene sperm Eupyrene sperm 



We would like to thank the Stored Grain Research Laboratory (CSIRO) for providing the almond moth culture. We thank the Australian Research Council for their financial assistance (Grant DP0558265).


  1. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav 60:145–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateman A (1948) Intrasexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349–368PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bissoondath CJ, Wiklund C (1996) Male butterfly investment in successive ejaculates in relation to mating system. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 39:285–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carroll AL (1994) Interactions between body-size and mating history influence the reproductive success of males of a Tortricid moth, Zeiraphera canadensis. Can J Zool 72:2124–2132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clutton-Brock TH (1984) Reproductive effort and terminal investment in iteroparous animals. Am Nat 123:212–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook PA (1999) Sperm numbers and female fertility in the moth Plodia interpunctella (Hubner) (Lepidoptera; Pyralidae). J Insect Behav 12:767–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cook PA, Gage MJG (1995) Effects of risks of sperm competition on the numbers of eupyrene and apyrene sperm ejaculated by the moth Plodia interpunctella (Lepidoptera, Pyralidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 36:261–268Google Scholar
  9. Cook PA, Wedell N (1996) Ejaculate dynamics in butterflies: a strategy for maximizing fertilization success? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 263:1047–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cook PA, Wedell N (1999) Non-fertile sperm delay female remating. Nature 397:486–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook PA, Harvey IF, Parker GA (1997) Predicting variation in sperm precedence. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 352:771–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crudgington HS, Siva-Jothy MT (2000) Genital damage, kicking and early death—the battle of the sexes takes a sinister turn in the bean weevil. Nature 407:855–856PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Delisle J, Bouchard A (1995) Male larval nutrition in Choristoneura rosaceana (Lepidoptera, Tortricidae)—an important factor in reproductive success. Oecologia 104:508–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dewsbury DA (1982) Ejaculate cost and male choice. Am Nat 119:601–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drummond BA (1984) Multiple mating and sperm competition in the Lepidoptera. In: Smith RL (ed) Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic, London, pp 291–370Google Scholar
  16. GenStat 7 Committee (2003) GenStat for windows. Release 7.1. Lawes agricultural trust, Rothamsted. VSN International, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Hughes L, Chang BSW, Wagner D, Pierce NE (2000) Effects of mating history on ejaculate size, fecundity, longevity, and copulation duration in the ant-tended lycaenid butterfly, Jalmenus evagoras. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 47:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Karlsson B (1998) Nuptial gifts, resource budgets, and reproductive output in a polyandrous butterfly. Ecology 79:2931–2940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marcotte M, Delisle J, McNeil JN (2005) Impact of male mating history on the temporal sperm dynamics of Choristoneura rosaceana and C. fumiferana females. J Insect Physiol 51:537–544PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marshall LD, McNeil JN (1989) Spermatophore mass as an estimate of male nutrient investment—a closer look in Pseudaletia unipuncta (Haworth) (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae). Funct Ecol 3:605–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morrow EH, Arnqvist G, Pitnick S (2003) Adaptation versus pleiotropy: why do males harm their mates? Behav Ecol 14:802–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Norris M (1932) Contributions towards the study of insect fertility I. The structure and the operation of the reproductive organs of the genera Ephestia and Plodia (Lepidoptera, Phycitidae). Proc Zool Soc Lond 1932:595–611Google Scholar
  23. Parker GA (1990) Sperm competition games—raffles and roles. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 242:120–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pivnick KA, McNeil JN (1987) Puddling in butterflies—sodium affects reproductive success in Thymelicus lineola. Physiol Entomol 12:461–472Google Scholar
  25. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Royer L, McNeil JN (1993) Male investment in the European corn-borer, Ostrinia nubilalis (Lepidoptera, Pyralidae)—impact on female longevity and reproductive performance. Funct Ecol 7:209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ryne C, Zhu JW, Van Dongen S, Lofstedt C (2001) Spermatophore size and multiple mating: effects on reproductive success and post-mating behaviour in the Indian meal moth. Behaviour 138:947–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Simmons LW (2001) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  29. Svärd L, Wiklund C (1986) Different ejaculate delivery strategies in first versus subsequent matings in the swallowtail butterfly Papilio machaon L. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 18:325–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Torres-Vila LM, Jennions MD (2005) Male mating history and female fecundity in the Lepidoptera: do male virgins make better partners? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:318–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Torres-Vila LM, Rodriguez-Molina MC, Jennions MD (2004) Polyandry and fecundity in the Lepidoptera: can methodological and conceptual approaches bias outcomes? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:315–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971. Aldine-Atherton, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  33. Watanabe M, Wiklund C, Bon’no M (1998) The effect of repeated matings on sperm numbers in successive ejaculates of the cabbage white butterfly Pieris rapae (Lepidoptera : Pieridae). J Insect Behav 11:559–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wedell N, Ritchie MG (2004) Male age, mating status and nuptial gift quality in a bushcricket. Anim Behav 67:1059–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA (2002) Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol Evol 17:313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathryn B. McNamara
    • 1
  • Therésa M. Jones
    • 1
  • Mark A. Elgar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations