Resource defense polygyny shifts to female defense polygyny over the course of the reproductive season of a Neotropical harvestman

Abstract

Although studies classify the polygynous mating system of a given species into female defense polygyny (FDP) or resource defense polygyny (RDP), the boundary between these two categories is often slight. Males of some species may even shift between these two types of polygyny in response to temporal variation in social and environmental conditions. Here, we examine the mating system of the Neotropical harvestman Acutisoma proximum and, in order to assess if mate acquisition in males corresponds to FDP or RDP, we tested four contrasting predictions derived from the mating system theory. At the beginning of the reproductive season, males fight with other males for the possession of territories on the vegetation where females will later oviposit, as expected in RDP. Females present a marked preference for specific host plant species, and males establish their territories in areas where these host plants are specially abundant, which is also expected in RDP. Later in the reproductive season, males reduce their patrolling activity and focus on defending individual females that are ovipositing inside their territories, as what occurs in FDP. This is the first described case of an arachnid that exhibits a shift in mating system over the reproductive season, revealing that we should be cautious when defining the mating system of a species based on few observations concentrated in a brief period.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Alcock J, Houston TF (1996) Mating systems and male size in Australian hylaeine bees (Hymenoptera: Colletidae). Ethology 102:591–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alcock J, Jones CE, Buchmann SL (1977) Male mating strategies in the bee Centris pallida Fox (Anthophoridae: Hymenoptera). Am Nat 111:145–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aluja M, Lozada N, Piñero J, Birke A, Hernández-Ortiz V, Díaz-Fleischer F (2001) Basic behavior of Rhagoletis turpiniae (Diptera: Tephritidae) with comparative notes on the sexual behavior of Rhagoletis pomonella and Rhagoletis zoqui. Ann Entomol Soc Am 94:268–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Buzatto BA, Requena GS, Martins EG, Machado G (2007) Effects of maternal care on the lifetime reproductive success of females in a Neotropical harvestman. J Anim Ecol 76:937–945

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Choe JC (1994) Sexual selection and mating system in Zorotypus gurneyi Choe (Insecta, Zoraptera) 1. Dominance hierarchy and mating success. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 34:87–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Choe JC (1997) The evolution of mating systems in the Zoraptera: mating variations and sexual conflicts. In: Choe JC, Crespi BJ (eds) The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 130–145

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cokendolpher JC, Mitov PG (2007) Natural enemies. In: Pinto-da-Rocha R, Machado G, Giribet G (eds) Harvestmen: the biology of Opiliones. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 339–373

    Google Scholar 

  8. Crespi BJ (1988) Risks and benefits of lethal male fighting in the colonial, polygynous thrips Hoplothrips karnyi (Insecta, Thysanoptera). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:293–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Curtis DJ, Machado G (2007) Ecology. In: Pinto-da-Rocha R, Machado G, Giribet G (eds) Harvestmen: the biology of Opiliones. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 280–308

    Google Scholar 

  10. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dimock Jr RV (1985) Population dynamics of Unionicola formosa (Acari: Unionicolidae), a water mite with a harem. Am Midl Nat 114:168–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Eberhard WG (1975) The ecology and behavior of a subsocial pentatomid bug and two scelionid wasps: strategy and counterstrategy in a host and its parasites. Smithson Contrib Zool 205:1–39

    Google Scholar 

  13. Eberhard WG (1998) Sexual behavior of Acanthocephala declivis guatemalana (Hemiptera: Coreidae) and the allometric scaling of their modified hind legs. Ann Entomol Soc Am 91:863–871

    Google Scholar 

  14. Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 23:232–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gnaspini P (1995) Reproduction and postembryonic development of Goniosoma spelaeum, a cavernicolous harvestman from southeastern Brazil (Arachnida: Opiliones: Gonyleptidae). Invertebr Reprod Dev 28:137–151

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gnaspini P, Hara MR (2007) Defense mechanisms. In: Pinto-da-Rocha R, Machado G, Giribet G (eds) Harvestmen: the biology of Opiliones. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 347–399

    Google Scholar 

  18. Greenfield MD (1997) Sexual selection in resource defense polygyny: lessons from territorial grasshoppers. In: Choe JC, Crespi BJ (eds) The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 75–88

    Google Scholar 

  19. Groddeck J, Mauss V, Reinhold K (2004) The resource-based mating system of the Mediterranean pollen wasp Ceramius fonscolombei Latreille 1810 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Masarinae). J Insect Behav 17:397–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gwynne DT (1980) Female defense polygyny in the bumblebee wolf, Philanthus bicinctus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:213–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gwynne DT, Morris GK (1983) Orthopteran mating systems: sexual competition in a diverse group of insects. Westview, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hamilton WJ III, Buskirk RE, Buskirk WH (1976) Social organization of the Namib Desert tenebrionid beetle Onymacris rugatipennis. Can Entomol 108:305–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hastings JM, Dodson GN, Heckman JL (1994) Male perch selection and the mating system of the robber fly, Promachus albifacies (Diptera: Asilidae). J Insect Behav 7:829–841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kelly CD (2008) The interrelationships between resource holding potential, resource-value and reproductive success in territorial males: how much variation can we explain? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:855–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kirkendall LR (1983) The evolution of mating systems in bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae and Platypodidae). Zool J Linn Soc 77:293–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kirkendall LR, Kent DS, Raffa KA (1997) Interactions among males, females and offspring in bark and ambrosia beetles: the significance of living in tunnels for the evolution of social behavior. In: Choe JC, Crespi BJ (eds) The evolution of social behavior in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 181–215

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lloyd JE (1981) Sexual selection: individuality, identification, and recognition in a bumblebee and other insects. Fla Entomol 64:89–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Machado G, Oliveira PS (1998) Reproductive biology of the Neotropical harvestman (Goniosoma longipes) (Arachnida, Opiliones: Gonyleptidae): mating and oviposition behaviour, brood mortality, and parental care. J Zool 246:359–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Machado G, Oliveira PS (2002) Maternal care in the Neotropical harvestman Bourguyia albiornata (Arachnida: Opiliones): oviposition site selection and egg protection. Behaviour 139:1509–1524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Macías-Ordóñez R (1997) The mating system of Leiobunum vittatum Say 1821 (Arachnida: Opiliones: Palpatores): resource defense polygyny in the striped harvestman. PhD thesis, Lehigh University, USA, pp 167

  31. Macías-Ordóñez R (2000) Touchy harvestmen. Nat Hist 109:58–61

    Google Scholar 

  32. Martin P, Bateson P (1986) Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  33. McCurdy DG, Boates JS, Forbes MR (2000) Reproductive synchrony in the intertidal amphipod Corophium volutator. Oikos 88:301–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mitchell PL (1980) Combat and territorial defense of Acanthocephala femorata (Hemiptera, Coreidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 73:404–408

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mora G (1990) Parental care in a Neotropical harvestman, Zygopachylus albomarginis (Arachnida, Opiliones: Gonyleptidae). Anim Behav 39:582–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Osses F, Martins EG, Machado G (2008) Oviposition site selection by the Neotropical bromeliad-dweller harvestman Bourguyia hamata (Arachnida: Opiliones). J Ethol 26:233–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ostfeld RS (1987) On the distinction between female defense and resource defense polygyny. Oikos 48:238–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Poston JP (1997) Dominance, access to colonies, and queues for mating opportunities by male boat-tailed grackles. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41:89–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Reid ML, Stamps JA (1997) Female mate choice tactics in a resource-based mating system: field tests of alternative models. Am Nat 150:98–121

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Robinson SK (1986) Benefits, costs, and determinants of dominance in a polygynous oriole. Anim Behav 34:241–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Saito Y (1990) Factors determining harem ownership in a subsocial spider mite (Acari, Tetranychidae). J Ethol 8:37–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Scott MP (1998) The ecology and behavior of burying beetles. Annu Rev Entomol 43:595–618

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Shuster SM, Wade MJ (2003) Mating systems and strategies. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  44. Smith AP, Alcock J (1980) A comparative-study of the mating systems of Australian eumenid wasps (Hymenoptera). Z Tierpsychol 53:41–60

    Google Scholar 

  45. Starks PT, Reeve HK (1999) Condition-based alternative reproductive tactics in the wool-carder bee, Anthidium manicatum. Ethol Ecol Evol 11:71–75

    Google Scholar 

  46. Suzuki S, Nagano M, Kobayashi N (2006) Mating competition and parentage assessment in Ptomascopus morio (Coleoptera: Silphidae): a case for resource defense polygyny. Eur J Entomol 103:751–755

    Google Scholar 

  47. Thomas RH, Zeh DW (1984) Sperm transfer and utilization strategies in arachnids: ecological and morphological constraints. In: Smith RL (ed) Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic, London, pp 179–221

    Google Scholar 

  48. Thornhill R, Alcock J (1983) The evolution of insect mating systems. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  49. Webster MS (1994) Female-defence polygyny in a Neotropical bird, the Montezuma oropendola. Anim Behav 48:779–794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Webster MS, Robinson SK (1999) Courtship disruptions and male mating strategies: examples from female-defense mating systems. Am Nat 154:717–729

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Wiley RH, Poston J (1996) Perspective: indirect mate choice, competition for mates, and coevolution of the sexes. Evolution 50:1371–1381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Wilkinson GS, Dodson GN (1997) Function and evolution of antlers and eye stalks in flies. In: Choe JC, Crespi BJ (eds) The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 310–328

    Google Scholar 

  53. Willemart RH, Gnaspini P (2004) Breeding biology of the cavernicolous harvestman Goniosoma albiscriptum (Arachnida, Opiliones, Laniatores): sites of oviposition, egg-batches characteristics and subsocial behaviour. Invertebr Reprod Dev 45:15–28

    Google Scholar 

  54. Wolf LL, Waltz EC, Klockowski D, Wakeley K (1997) Influences on variation in territorial tenures of male white-faced dragonflies (Leucorrhinia intacta) (Odonata: Libellulidae). J Insect Behav 10:31–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to the staff of Intervales State Park for logistical support, to T.M. Del Corso, N. Leiner, C.F. Lerche, P.M. Nassar, T.M. Nazareth, R.L. Paiva, and specially to G.S. Requena for helping with the fieldwork, to M. Almeida-Neto, S. Koehler, and L.D. Meirelles for the identification of host plant species, and to Drs. John Alcock, Carlos Cordero, Marcelo O. Gonzaga, Darryl Gwynne, and three anonymous reviewers who kindly provided useful comments on a previous version of the manuscript. The study was supported by fellowships from the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP, 02/00381-0 and 03/05427-0) and Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Glauco Machado.

Additional information

Communicated by D. Gwynne

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Fig. S2
figure5

Relationship among resource value (RV, measured as the ITQ of males’ territories), male resource holding potential (RHP, measured as the length of the males’ sexually dimorphic leg II), and male reproductive success (RS, indirectly measured as the number of egg-guarding females inside males’ harems) in the harvestman Acutisoma proximum. (a) RHP vs. RS (r = 0.64; n = 15; P = 0.010); (b) RHP vs. RV (r = -0.276; n = 15; P = 0.320); (c) RV vs. RS (r = -0.198; n = 15; P = 0.479). For comparative purposes, see Table 4 from Kelly (2008), which provides effect sizes (r) for 22 animal species in which these three relationships have been investigated.

Electronic Supplemental Material S1

(DOC 59.5 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Buzatto, B.A., Machado, G. Resource defense polygyny shifts to female defense polygyny over the course of the reproductive season of a Neotropical harvestman. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63, 85–94 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-008-0638-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Gonyleptidae
  • Harem
  • Host plant selection
  • Male territoriality
  • Opiliones
  • Resource holding potential
  • Resource value