Benefit of polyandry in a highly monandrous species when females mate with already mated males

Original Article

Abstract

Female mating frequency varies among animal taxa. A benefit to females of remating has usually been found, but almost all tests have been with polyandrous species. A species being monandrous does not guarantee that mating only once benefits the female, instead the monandry may result from sexual conflict, where her failure to remate benefits her mate, but not her. The parasitoid wasp Spalangia endius (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) is highly monandrous. Females do not benefit from either immediate or delayed remating when their first mate is virgin. However, some females are likely to mate with already mated males because sex ratios are female-biased. Here, the effect of experimentally induced polyandry on female fitness was examined for females whose first mate had already mated four times, i.e., for fifth females. Fifth female S. endius produce significantly fewer daughters than first females. Production of daughters, but not sons, requires sperm in hymenopterans. Fifth females were experimentally induced to mate with a second male, by preventing such females’ first mate from providing postcopulatory courtship. The proportion of female offspring produced by these polyandrous fifth females was greater than by monandrous fifth females and not significantly different than by monandrous first females. Total number of offspring did not differ among the three treatments. These results show that there are conditions under which females benefit from polyandry in this highly monandrous species and that the benefit is through effects on offspring sex ratio, not fecundity.

Significance statement

Mating frequency varies widely among animals. In most of the more than 100 past studies of insect species in which females mate multiply, females benefit from remating. However, this same question has been addressed in few species in which females mate just once. In the tiny parasitic wasp studied here, females were tricked into remating. Females benefited from remating if their first mate had previously mated multiple times. The benefit was not producing more offspring, but rather being able to produce a greater proportion of daughters. Sons can be produced without sperm in wasps and wasp relatives. Explanations for why females do not normally remate include that they have been manipulated by their first mate and that waiting for a male means sacrificing searching for hosts.

Keywords

Monandry Remating Polyandry Mating history Sex ratio Sexual conflict 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to H. Hildebrand for the assistance counting wasps; to J. Cooper and W. Nichols, Jr. for the assistance with colony maintenance; to C. Geden for wasps to start a colony; and to A. Kremer for the feedback on the writing.

Funding information

This research was funded by the Northern Illinois University’s Department of Biological Sciences.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution at which the studies were conducted.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required as no human participants were involved.

References

  1. Arnqvist G, Andres JA (2006) The effects of experimentally induced polyandry on female reproduction in a monandrous mating system. Ethology 112:748–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav 60:145–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baer B, Schmid-Hempel P (2005) Sperm influences female hibernation success, survival and fitness in the bumble-bee Bombus terrestris. Proc Roy Soc Lond B Bio 272:319–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boulton RA, Shuker DM (2015) The costs and benefits of multiple mating in a mostly monandrous wasp. Evolution 69:939–949CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Boulton RA, Collins LA, Shuker DM (2015) Beyond sex allocation: the role of mating systems in sexual selection in parasitoid wasps. Biol Rev 90:599–627CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Broski SA, King BH (2017) Effects of size and age of the host Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) on production of the parasitoid wasp Spalangia endius (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). J Econ Entomol 110:282–287PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham T, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol 18:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charnov EL (1982) The theory of sex allocation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheng LI, Howard RW, Campbell JF, Charlton RE, Nechols JR, Ramaswamy SB (2004) Mating behavior of Cephalonomia tarsalis (Ashmead) (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae) and the effect of female mating frequency on offspring production. J Insect Behav 17:227–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chevrier C, Bressac C (2002) Sperm storage and use after multiple mating in Dinarmus basalis (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). J Insect Behav 15:385–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Geden CJ (2002) Effect of habitat depth on host location by five species of parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae, Chalcididae) of house flies (Diptera: Muscidae) in three types of substrates. Environ Entomol 31:411–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gerling D, Legner EF (1968) Developmental history and reproduction of Spalangia cameroni, parasite of synanthropic flies. Ann Entomol Soc Am 61:1436–1443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamilton WD (1967) Extraordinary sex ratios. Science 156:477–488CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hardy ICW (1994) Sex ratio and mating structure in the parasitoid Hymenoptera. Oikos 69:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heimpel GE, Lundgren JG (2000) Sex ratios of commercially reared biological control agents. Biol Control 19:77–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IBM Corp. Released (2016) IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. IBM Corp, Armonk, NYGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacob S, Boivin G (2005) Costs and benefits of polyandry in the egg parasitoid Trichogramma evanescens Westwood (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Biol Control 32:311–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jiao XG, Chen ZQ, Wu J, Du HY, Liu FX, Chen JA, Li DQ (2011) Male remating and female fitness in the wolf spider Pardosa astrigera: the role of male mating history. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:325–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones TM (2001) A potential cost of monandry in the lekking sandfly, Lutzomyia longipalpis. J Insect Behav 14:385–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Katvala M, Roenn JL, Arnqvist G (2008) Correlated evolution between male ejaculate allocation and female remating behaviour in seed beetles (Bruchidae). J Evol Biol 21:471–479CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Khanh HDT, Bressac C, Chevrier C (2005) Male sperm donation consequences in single and double matings in Anisopteromalus calandrae. Physiol Entomol 30:29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. King BH (2002a) Breeding strategies in females of the parasitoid wasp Spalangia endius: effects of mating status and body size. J Insect Behav 15:181–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. King BH (2002b) Sex ratio response to conspecifics in a parasitoid wasp: test of a prediction of local mate competition theory and alternative hypotheses. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. King BH (2006) Mate location and the onset of sexual responsiveness in the parasitoid wasp Spalangia endius (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). Environ Entomol 35:1390–1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. King BH, Bressac C (2010) No fitness consequence of experimentally induced polyandry in a monandrous wasp. Behavior 147:85–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. King BH, Fischer CR (2005) Males mate guard in absentia through extended effects of postcopulatory courtship in the parasitoid wasp Spalangia endius. J Insect Physiol 51:1340–1345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. King BH, Fischer CR (2010) Male mating history: effects on female sexual responsiveness and reproductive success in the parasitoid wasp Spalangia endius. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:607–615.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-009-0878-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. King BH, King RB (1994) Sex ratio manipulation in response to host size in the parasitoid wasp Spalangia cameroni—is it adaptive? Behav Ecol 5:448–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. King BH, Napoleon ME (2006) Using effects of parasitoid size on fitness to test a host quality model assumption with the parasitoid wasp Spalangia endius. Can J Zool 84:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. King BH, Saporito KB, Ellison JH, Bratzke RM (2005) Unattractiveness of mated females to males in the parasitoid wasp Spalangia endius. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:350–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. King BH, Colyott KL, Chesney AR (2014) Livestock bedding effects on two species of parasitoid wasps of filth flies. J Insect Sci 14:185CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Kraaijeveld K, Franco P, Reumer BM, van Alphen JJM (2009) Effects of parthenogenesis and geographic isolation on female sexual traits in a parasitoid wasp. Evolution 63:3085–3096CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Krasnec MO, Cook CN, Breed MD (2012) Mating systems in sexual animals. Nat Edu Knowl 3:72 https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/mating-systems-in-sexual-animals-83033427. Accessed 14 January 2018Google Scholar
  35. Metzger M, Bernstein C, Desouhant E (2008) Does constrained oviposition influence offspring sex ratio in the solitary parasitoid wasp Venturia canescens? Ecol Entomol 33:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Monceau K, van Baaren J (2012) Female teneral mating in a monandrous species. Ecol Evol 2:1426–1436CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Montrose VT, Harris WE, Moore PJ (2004) Sexual conflict and cooperation under naturally occurring male enforced monogamy. J Evol Biol 17:443–452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Mowles SL, King BH, Linforth RST, Hardy ICW (2013) A female-emitted pheromone component is associated with reduced male courtship in the parasitoid wasp Spalangia endius. PLoS One 8:e82010CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Okada K, Suzaki Y, Sasaki R, Katsuki M (2017) Fitness costs of polyandry to female cigarette beetle Lasioderma serricorne. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-017-2316-2
  40. Parker GA (1979) Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Blum MS, Blum NA (eds) Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. Academic Press, London, pp 123–166Google Scholar
  41. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Ridley M (1988) Mating frequency and fecundity in insects. Biol Rev 63:509–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rueda LM, Axtell RC (1985a) Effect of depth of house fly pupae in poultry manure on parasitism by six species of Pteromalidae (Hymenoptera). J Entomol Sci 20:444–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rueda LM, Axtell RC (1985b). Guide to common species of pupal parasites (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) of the house fly and other muscoid flies associated with poultry and livestock manure, Technical Bulletin 278. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  45. Schneider J, Fromhage L (2010) Monogynous mating strategies in spiders. In: Kappeler P (ed) Animal behaviour: evolution and mechanisms. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  46. Slatyer RA, Mautz BS, Backwell PR, Jennions MD (2012) Estimating genetic benefits of polyandry from experimental studies: a meta-analysis. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 87:1–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Sousa JM, Spence JR (2000) Effects of mating status and parasitoid density on superparasitism and offspring fitness in Tiphodytes gerriphagus (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 93:548–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Steiner S, Ruther J (2009) How important is sex for females of a haplodiploid species under local mate competition? Behav Ecol 20:570–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Taylor ML, Price TA, Wedell N (2014) Polyandry in nature: a global analysis. Trends Ecol Evol 29:376–383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. van den Assem J, Feuth-De Bruijn E (1977) Second matings and their effect on the sex ratio of the offspring in Nasonia vitripennis (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). Entomol Exp Appl 21:23–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. West SA (2009) Sex allocation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesNorthern Illinois UniversityDeKalbUSA

Personalised recommendations