Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 66, Issue 8, pp 1141–1147 | Cite as

A female preference for experienced males in the almond moth, Cadra cautella

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

Abstract

Male mating status can affect female reproductive output if male ejaculate investment declines over consecutive matings. Accordingly, females are predicted to mate preferentially with virgin males. In mildly polyandrous lepidopterans, female fitness is less affected by reduced male investment than in more polyandrous species, and so the predictions for female mating preferences are less clear. We examined female mating preferences in the mildly polyandrous almond moth, Cadra cautella, in which ejaculate size does not affect female reproductive output. First, we allowed females to mate with virgin or once-mated males, in which the males were presented individually or simultaneously. We recorded the latency to mating and, in the case of the simultaneously presented trials, the identity of the successful, copulating male. We found that females mated more frequently with mated males (when simultaneously presented with both males), yet females did not differ in the time taken to initiate copulation with any male. We further examined if this mated male advantage was due to differential mate detection or locomotory behaviour of the male treatments. We tested the ability of virgin and mated males to locate a receptive female within a wind tunnel using long-distance pheromone cues and recorded their activity budget. We found no difference in the ability of mated or virgin males to locate or approach a receptive female, or in their activity levels. These data suggest a female preference for mated males in this species, a preference that may minimise other potential costs of mating.

Keywords

Ephestia cautella Mate choice Polyandry Monandry 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Stored Grain Research Laboratory at the CSIRO for providing the moth culture. KBM was assisted by the David Hay Memorial Fund, University of Melbourne, and received funding from the Australian Research Council (grant DP110101163). TMJ received funding from the Australian Research Council (grant DP0558265) and a University of Melbourne Research Fellowship.

References

  1. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson M, Simmons LW (2006) Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol 21(6):296–302. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2006.03.015 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cook DF (1995) Influence of previous mating experience on future mating success in male Lucilia cuprina (Diptera, Calliphoridae). J Insect Behav 8(2):207–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cook PA, Wedell N (1999) Non-fertile sperm delay female remating. Nature 397(6719):486–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dewsbury DA (1982) Ejaculate cost and male choice. Am Nat 119:601–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dukas R (2005) Experience improves courtship in male fruit flies. Anim Behav 69(5):1203–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edvardsson M, Hunt J, Moore PJ, Moore AJ (2008) Female agreement over male attractiveness is not affected by cost of mating with experienced males. Behav Ecol 19(4):854–859. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arn047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grant GG, Brady UE (1975) Courtship behavior of Phycitid moths.1. Comparison of Plodia interpunctella and Cadra cautella and role of male scent glands. Can J Zool 53(6):813–826. doi: 10.1139/z75-095 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Head ML, Hunt J, Jennions MD, Brooks R (2005) The indirect benefits of mating with attractive males outweigh the direct costs. PLoS Biol 3(2):289–294. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. SAS Institute Inc (2000) JMP Version 9. Cary, N.C.Google Scholar
  11. Iyengar VK (2009) Experience counts: females favor multiply mated males over chemically endowed virgins in a moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63(6):847–855. doi: 10.1007/s00265-009-0724-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johansson BG, Jones TM (2007) The role of chemical communication in mate choice. Biol Rev 82(2):265–289. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00009.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones TM (2001) A potential cost of monandry in the lekking sandfly Lutzomyia longipalpis. J Insect Behav 14(3):385–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaitala A, Wiklund C (1995) Female mate choice and mating costs in the polyandrous butterfly Pieris napi (Lepidoptera, Pieridae). J Insect Behav 8(3):355–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kendall MS, Wolcott TG (1999) The influence of male mating history on male-male competition and female choice in mating associations in the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus (Rathbun). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 239(1):23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klepetka B, Gould F (1996) Effects of age and size on mating in Heliothis virescens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): implications for resistance management. Environ Entomol 25(5):993–1001Google Scholar
  17. Krupke CH, Brunner JF, Jones VP (2008) Factors influencing mate choice in Euschistus conspersus Uhler (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Environ Entomol 37(1):192–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liggett AC, Harvey IF, Manning JT (1993) Fluctuating asymmetry in Scatophaga stercoraria: successful males are more symmetrical. Anim Behav 45:1041–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marcotte M, Delisle J, McNeil JN (2006) Impact of male mating history on the postmating resumption of sexual receptivity and lifetime reproductive success in Choristoneura rosaceana females. Physiol Entomol 31(3):227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Markow TA, Quaid M, Kerr S (1978) Male mating experience and competitive courtship success in Drosophila melanogaster. Nature 276(5690):821–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McNamara KB, Jones TM, Elgar MA (2007) No cost of male mating experience on female reproductive success in the almond moth, Cadra cautella (Lepidoptera; Pyralidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1177–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McNamara KB, Elgar MA, Jones TM (2008) Causes and consequences of variation in female mating frequency in the almond moth, Cadra cautella. Behaviour 145:779–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McNamara KB, Elgar MA, Jones TM (2009) Large spermatophores reduce female receptivity and increase male paternity success in the almond moth, Cadra cautella. Anim Behav 77:931–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Milonas PG, Farrell SL, Andow DA (2011) Experienced males have higher mating success than virgin males despite fitness costs to females. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65(6):1249–1256. doi: 10.1007/s00265-011-1138-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Molina Y, Christenson T (2008) Effects of mating experience on subsequent reproductive behaviour and sperm release in the spider Nesticodes rufipes. Anim Behav 76:1327–1334. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.04.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nakatsuru K, Kramer DL (1982) Is sperm cheap-limited male fertility and female choice in the lemon tetra (Pisces, Characidae). Science 216(4547):753–755PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Oberhauser KS (1997) Fecundity, lifespan and egg mass in butterflies: effects of male-derived nutrients and female size. Funct Ecol 11(2):166–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Phelan PL, Baker TC (1986) Male-size-related courtship success and intersexual selection in the tobacco moth, Ephestia elutella. Experientia 42(11–12):1291–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sanders CJ (1975) Factors affecting adult emergence and mating behavior of the Eastern Spruce Budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Can Entomol 107:967–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sato T, Goshima S (2007) Female choice in response to risk of sperm limitation by the stone crab, Hapalogaster dentata. Anim Behav 73:331–338. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.05.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schlaepfer MA, McNeil JN (2000) Are virgin male lepidopterans more successful in mate acquisition than previously mated individuals? A study of the European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Can J Zool 78(11):2045–2050Google Scholar
  33. Schwartz JM (1991) Effect of sexual experience on male mating success in Drosophila silvestris. Anim Behav 42(6):1017–1019. doi: 10.1016/s0003-3472(05)80155-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. South A, Lewis SM (2011) The influence of male ejaculate quantity on female fitness: a meta-analysis. Biol Rev 86(2):299–309. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00145.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Svensson M (1996) Sexual selection in moths: the role of chemical communication. Biol Rev 71:113–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Teal PEA, Gomez-Simuta Y, Proveaux AT (2000) Mating experience and juvenile hormone enhance sexual signaling and mating in male Caribbean fruit flies. Proc Natl Acad Sci 97:3708–3712PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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(4):318–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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(4):315–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vahed K (1998) The function of nuptial feeding in insects: review of empirical studies. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 73(1):43–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. van Dongen S, Matthysen E, Sprengers E, Dhondt AA (1998) Mate selection by male winter moths Operophtera brumata (Lepidoptera, Geometridae): adaptive male choice or female control? Behaviour 135:29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Velde LV, Damiens D, Van Dyck H (2011) Spermatophore and sperm allocation in males of the monandrous butterfly Pararge aegeria: the female’s perspective. Ethology 117(7):645–654. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2011.01914.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wedell N, Cook PA (1999) Butterflies tailor their ejaculate in response to sperm competition risk and intensity. Proc R Soc B 266(1423):1033–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA (2002) Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol Evol 17(7):313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wyatt T (2003) Pheromones and animal behaviour: communication by smell and taste. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathryn B. McNamara
    • 1
    • 2
  • Julia L. McKenzie
    • 3
  • Mark A. Elgar
    • 3
  • Therésa M. Jones
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Evolutionary Biology, School of Animal Biology (M092)University of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  3. 3.Department of ZoologyUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations