Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 68, Issue 8, pp 1321–1328 | Cite as

Do the size and age of mating plugs alter their efficacy in protecting paternity?

Original Paper

Abstract

An obvious means to secure paternity is the production of a mating plug that blocks the female genital opening after mating. Although the mechanical efficacy and persistence of plugs on/in the female genital openings are key traits that determine the degree of paternity protection, these factors have hardly been explored. We therefore investigated the influence of the size of the amorphous plug material (experimentally terminated mating duration as a proxy) and age of the mating plug (time interval between copulations with two successive males) on the efficacy of the plug by analysing the mating success of subsequent males in the dwarf spider Oedothorax retusus (Linyphiidae: Erigoninae). Overall, subsequent males attempted to mate in 82 % of trials but only 32.5 % of these resulted in copulation, demonstrating that the plugs are effective safeguards against remating. Remating probability was significantly higher after previous short copulations (~small plug size) compared to long copulations (~large plug size). In the small plug group, fresh plugs (short remating intervals) were significantly less effective compared to older plugs. In the large plug group, remating probability was similarly low over all remating intervals. The observed copulations, however, do not necessarily result in sperm transfer, since sperm masses were found on the plugged female genital area. Our study on O. retusus shows that mating plugs are a powerful mechanical safeguard whose efficacy varies with plug size and age. We discuss these findings in the light of theoretical considerations on the evolution of effective mating plugs.

Keywords

Mating plug Sexual selection Sperm competition Monopolization Paternity protection Dwarf spider Erigoninae 

References

  1. Aisenberg A, Barrantes G (2011) Sexual behavior, cannibalism, and mating plugs as sticky traps in the orb weaver spider Leucauge argyra (Tetragnathidae). Naturwissenschaften 98:605–613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aisenberg A, Eberhard WG (2009) Female cooperation in plug formation in a spider: effects of male copulatory courtship. Behav Ecol 20:1236–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson J, Borg-Karlson AK, Wiklund C (2003) Antiaphrodisiacs in pierid butterflies: a theme with variation! J Chem Ecol 29:1489–1499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Austad SN (1984) Evolution of sperm priority patterns in spiders. In: Smith RL (ed) Sperm competition and the evolution of mating systems. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 223–249Google Scholar
  5. Avila FW, Sirot LK, LaFlamme BA, Rubinstein CD, Wolfner MF (2011) Insect seminal fluid proteins: identification and function. Annu Rev Entomol 56:21–40PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Colonello NA, Hartfelder K (2005) She’s my girl—male accessory gland products and their function in the reproductive biology of social bees. Apidologie 36:231–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diesel R (1990) Sperm competition and reproductive success in the decapod Inachus phalangium (Majidae): a male ghost spider crab that seals off rivals’ sperm. J Zool 220:213–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eberhard WG (2004) Why study spider sex: special traits of spiders facilitate studies of sperm competition and cryptic female choice. J Arachnol 32:545–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eberhard WG (2009) Postcopulatory sexual selection: Darwin’s omission and its consequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:10025–10032PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elgar MA (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection in spiders and other arachnids. In: Birkhead TR, Møller AP (eds) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, London, pp 307–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fromhage L (2011) Mating unplugged: a model for the evolution of mating plug (dis-)placement. Evolution 66–1:31–39Google Scholar
  13. Gack C, Peschke K (1994) Spermathecal morphology, sperm transfer and a novel mechanism of sperm displacement in the rove beetle, Aleochara curtula (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Zoomorphology 114:227–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herberstein ME, Wignall AE, Nessler SH, Harmer AMT, Schneider JM (2012) How effective and persistent are fragments of male genitalia as mating plugs? Behav Ecol 23:1140–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huber BA, Senglet A (1997) Copulation with contralateral insertion in entelegyne spiders (Araeneae: Entelegynae: Tetragnathidae). Neth J Zool 47:99–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jackson RR (1980) The mating strategy of Phidippus johnsoni (Araneae, Salticidae): II. Sperm competition and the function of copulation. J Arachnol 8:217–240Google Scholar
  17. Kuntner M, Gregorič M, Zhang S, Kralj-Fišer S, Li D (2012) Mating plugs in polyandrous giants: which sex produces them, when, how and why? PLoS ONE 7:e40939. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040939 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kunz K, Garbe S, Uhl G (2012) The function of the secretory cephalic hump in males of the dwarf spider Oedothorax retusus (Linyphiidae: Erigoninae). Anim Behav 83:511–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Masumoto T (1993) The effect of the copulatory plug in the funnel-web spider, Agelena limbata (Araneae: Agelenidae). J Arachnol 21:55–59Google Scholar
  20. Matsumoto K, Suzuki N (1992) Effectiveness of the mating plug in Atrophaneura alcinous (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 30:157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miller JA, Hormiga G (2004) Clade stability and the addition of data: a case study from erigonine spiders (Araneae: Linyphiidae, Erigoninae). Cladistics 20:385–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mulisch M, Welsch U (2010) Romeis - Mikroskopische Technik. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  23. O’Donnell RP, Ford NB, Shine R, Mason RT (2004) Male red-sided garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis) determine female mating status from pheromone trails. Anim Behav 68:677–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Orr AG, Rutowski RL (1991) The function of the sphragis in Cressida cressida (Fab) (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae): a visual deterrent to copulation attempts. J Nat Hist 25:703–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parker GA (1970) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol Rev 45:525–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parker GA (1998) Sperm competition and the evolution of ejaculates: towards a theory base. In: Birkhead TR, Møller AP (eds) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, London, pp 3–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Polak M, Wolf LL, Starmer WT, Barker JSF (2001) Function of the mating plug in Drosophila hibisci Bock. Anim Behav 49:196–205Google Scholar
  28. Richter N (2006) Zur Funktion der Kopfsekrete männlicher Zwergspinnen. Diploma thesis, University of BonnGoogle Scholar
  29. Schlechter-Helas J, Schmitt T, Peschke K (2011) A contact anti-aphrodisiac pheromone supplied by the spermatophore in the rove beetle Aleochara curtula: mode of transfer and evolutionary significance. Naturwissenschaften 98:855–862PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schulz S, Estrada C, Yildizhan S, Boppré M, Gilbert LE (2008) An antiaphrodisiac in Heliconius melpomene butterflies. J Chem Ecol 34:82–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shine R, Olsson MM, Mason RT (2000) Chastity belts in gartersnakes: the functional significance of mating plugs. Biol J Linn Soc 70:377–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simmons LW (2001) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  33. Simmons LW, Siva-Jothy MT (1998) Sperm competition in insects: mechanisms and the potential for selection. In: Birkhead TR, Møller AP (eds) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, London, pp 341–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Uhl G, Busch M (2009) Securing paternity: mating plugs in the dwarf spider Oedothorax retusus (Araneae: Erigoninae). Biol J Linn Soc 96:574–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Uhl G, Kunz K, Vöcking O, Lipke E (2014) A spider mating plug: origin and constraints of production. Biol J Linn Soc, in pressGoogle Scholar
  36. Uhl G, Nessler SH, Schneider JM (2010) Securing paternity in spiders? A review on occurrence and effects of mating plugs and male genital mutilation. Genetica 138:75–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wedell N (2005) Female receptivity in butterflies and moths. J Exp Biol 208:3433–3440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zoological Institute and Museum, Department of General and Systematic ZoologyUniversity of GreifswaldGreifswaldGermany

Personalised recommendations