Skip to main content
Log in

Experimental evidence for female-driven monandry in the wolf spider, Pardosa astrigera

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Females of many species mate multiply, yet some taxon females mate with only one male, also known as monandry. Although the underlying mechanism behind female monandry is poorly understood relative to female polyandry, there are two contrasting hypotheses, male control and female control, for the maintenance of monandry. Since females generally benefit from multiple mating for material and/or genetic benefits, cases of monandry may reflect male manipulation on female remating at the expense of female fitness (male control). Alternatively, monandry may be favored by females, if females maximize their fitness by mating once (female control). Here, we tested two hypotheses by manipulating the number of mating (repeated mating and polyandry) on female fitness in a largely monandrous wolf spider, Pardosa astrigera. We allowed females to be inseminated once, twice with the same males (repeated mating) or with two males (polyandry) and determined female fitness consequences. The number of female mating, regardless of a single mating, repeated mating, or polyandry, had no significant effects on female fecundity, fertility, and survival and size of their spiderlings. However, the fitness cost of female multiple mating may to some extent be underestimated under laboratory conditions. In addition, female survival was adversely affected by induced multiple mating. Therefore, our results suggest that monandry of the wolf spider (P. astrigera) may be under the control of females, rather than under the control of males.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnqvist G (1989) Multiple mating in a water strider: mutual benefits or intersexual conflict. Anim Behav 38:749–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnqvist G, Andrés JA (2006) The effects of experimentally induced polyandry on female reproduction in a monandrous mating system. Ethology 112:748–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnqvist G, Nilsson T (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav 60:145–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Baer B, Morgan ED, Schmid-Hempel P (2001) A nonspecific fatty acid within the bumblebee mating plug prevents females from remating. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:3926–3928

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman AJ (1948) Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349–368

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman T, Liddle LF, Kalb JM, Wolfner M, Partridge L (1995) Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 373:211–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol 18:42–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook PA (1999) Sperm numbers and female fertility in the moth Plodia interpunctella. J Insect Behav 12:767–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly M (1978) The cost of mating. Am Nat 112:771–774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiBattista JD, Feldheim KA, Gruber SH, Hendry AP (2008) Are indirect genetic benefits associated with polyandry? Testing predictions in a natural population of lemon sharks. Mol Ecol 17:783–795

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Drnevich JM, Papke RS, Rauser CL, Rutowski RL (2001) Material benefits from multiple mating in female mealworm beetles. J Insect Behav 14:215–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engqvist L (2006) Female benefits from mating with different males in the scorpionfly Panorpa cognata. Behav Ecol 17:435–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fedorka KM, Mousseau TA (2002) Material and genetic benefits of female multiple mating and polyandry. Anim Behav 64:361–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox CW, Rauter CM (2003) Bet-hedging and the evolution of multiple mating. Evol Ecol Res 5:273–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillot C (2003) Male accessory gland secretions: modulators of female reproductive physiology and behavior. Annu Rev Entomol 48:163–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland B, Rice WR (1999) Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes reproductive load. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:5083–5088

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hosken DJ, Blanckenhorn WU (1999) Female multiple mating, inbreeding avoidance, and fitness: it is not only the magnitude of costs and benefits that counts. Behav Ecol 10:462–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosken DJ, Stockley P, Tregenza T, Wedell N (2009) Monogamy and the battle of the sexes. Annu Rev Entomol 54:361–378

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ivy TM, Sakaluk SK (2005) Polyandry promotes enhanced offspring survival in decorated crickets. Evolution 59:152–159

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jennions MD, Drayton JM, Brooks R, Hunt J (2007) Do female black field crickets Teleogryllus commodus benefit from polyandry? J Evol Biol 20:1469–1477

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jiao XG, Chen ZQ, Wu J, Du HY, Liu FX, Chen J, Li DQ (2011) Male remating and female fitness in the wolf spider Pardosa astrigera: the role of male mating history. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:325–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson SL, Brockmann HJ (2010) Costs of multiple mates: an experimental study in horseshoe crabs. Anim Behav 80:773–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone RA, Keller L (2000) How males can gain by harming their mates: sexual conflict, seminal toxins and the cost of mating. Am Nat 156:368–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones TM (2001) A potential cost of monandry in the lekking sandfly Lutzomyia longipalpis. J Insect Behav 14:385–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King BH, Bressac C (2010) No fitness consequences of experimentally induced polyandry in a monandrous wasp. Behaviour 147:85–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klowden MJ (1999) The check is in the male: male mosquitoes affect female physiology and behavior. J Am Mosquito Contr 15:213–220

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Klowden MJ (2001) Sexual receptivity in Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes: absence of control by male accessory gland substances. J Insect Physiol 47:661–666

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kraus FB, Neumann P, Praagh J, Moritz RFA (2004) Sperm limitation and the evolution of extreme polyandry in honeybees (Apis mellifera L.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:494–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mair J, Blackwell A (1998) Effect of age and multiple mating on the mating behavior of Culicoides nubeculosus. J Med Entomol 35:996–1001

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maklakov AA, Lubin Y (2004) Sexual conflict over mating in a spider: increased fecundity does not compensate for the costs of polyandry. Evolution 58:1135–1140

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maklakov AA, Lubin Y (2006) Indirect genetic benefits of polyandry in a spider with direct costs of mating. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:31–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maklakov AA, Bilde T, Lubin Y (2005) Sexual conflict in the wild: elevated mating rate reduces female lifetime reproductive success. Am Nat 165:S38–S45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Michalik P, Uhl G (2005) The male genital system of the cellar spider Pholcus phalangioides: development of spermatozoa and seminal secretion. Front Zool 2:12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Montrose VT, Harris WE, Moore PJ (2004) Sexual conflict and cooperation under naturally occurring male enforced monogamy. J Evol Biol 17:443–452

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Norton S, Uetz GW (2005) Mating rate in Schizocosa ocreata wolf spiders: evidence for a mating system with female monandry and male polygyny. J Arachnol 33:16–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ojanguren AF, Evans JP, Magurran AE (2005) Multiple mating influences offspring size in guppies. J Fish Biol 67:1184–1188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1979) Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Blum MS, Blum NA (eds) Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhardt K, Kohler G, Schumacher J (1999) Females of the grasshopper Chorthippus parallelus do not remate for fresh sperm. Proc Roy Soc Lond B Biol 266:2003–2009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridley M (1988) Mating rate and fecundity in insects. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 63:509–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riemann JG, Thorson BJ (1969) Effect of accessory material on oviposition and mating by female houseflies. Ann Entomol Soc Am 62:828–834

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Riemann JG, Moen JM, Thorson BJ (1967) Female monogamy and its control in houseflies. J Insect Physiol 13:407–418

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ronkainen K, Kaitala A, Kivelä SM (2009) Polyandry, multiple mating, and female fitness in a water strider Aquarius paludum. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:657–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider JM, Lubin Y (1998) Intersexual conflict in spiders. Oikos 83:496–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons LW (2001) The evolution of polyandry: an examination of the genetic incompatibility and good-sperm hypotheses. J Evol Biol 14:585–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song SD, Drew RAI, Hughes JM (2007) Multiple paternity in a natural population of a wild tobacco fly, Bactocera cacuminata, assessed by microsatellite DNA markers. Mol Ecol 16:2353–2361

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • South A, Lewis SM (2011) The influence of male ejaculate quantity on female fitness: a meta-analysis. Biol Rev 86:299–309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sprenger D, Anthes N, Michiels NK (2008a) Multiple mating affects offspring size in the opisthobranch Chelidonura sandrana. Mar Biol 153:891–897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprenger D, Faber J, Michiels NK, Anthes N (2008b) Natural female mating rate maximizes hatching size in a marine invertebrate. J Anim Ecol 77:696–701

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner S, Henrich N, Ruther J (2008) Mating with sperm-depleted males does not increase female mating frequency in the parasitoid Lariophagus distinguendus. Entomol Exp Appl 126:131–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szirányi A, Kiss B, Samu F, Harand W (2005) The function of long copulation in the wolf spider Pardosa agrestis (Araneae, Lycosidae) investigated in a controlled copulation. J Arachnol 33:408–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Tregenza T, Wedell N (1998) Benefits of multiple mates in the crickets Gryllus bimaculatus. Evolution 52:1726–1730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tregenza T, Wedell N (2002) Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature 415:71–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 59:69–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Q, Davis LK (2006) Females remate for sperm replenishment in a seed bug: evidence from offspring viability. J Insect Behav 19:337–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson PJ (1998) Multi-male mating and female choice increase offspring growth in the spider Neriene litigiosa. Anim Behav 55:387–403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilder SM, Rypstra AL (2007) Male control of copulation duration in a wolf spider (Araneae, Lycosidae). Behaviour 144:471–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Jiao XG, Chen J, Peng Y, Liu FX (2008) Courtship and mating of the wolf spider Pardosa astrigera. Chin J Zool 43:9–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Yasui Y (1997) A ‘good-sperm’ model can explain the evolution of costly multiple mating by females. Am Nat 149:573–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yasui Y (1998) The ‘genetic benefits’ of female multiple mating reconsidered. Trends Ecol Evol 13:246–250

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zeh JA, Zeh DW (2003) Toward a new sexual selection paradigm: polyandry, conflict and incompatibility. Ethology 109:929–950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao JZ (1993) Spiders in the cotton fields in China. Wuhan Press, Wuhan

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (30800121).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaoguo Jiao.

Additional information

Communicated by M. Elgar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jiao, X., Guo, L., Chen, Z. et al. Experimental evidence for female-driven monandry in the wolf spider, Pardosa astrigera . Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65, 2117–2123 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-011-1220-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-011-1220-4

Keywords

Navigation