Mating Status Effects on Sexual Response of Males and Females in the Parasitoid Wasp Urolepis rufipes
Although mate preferences are most commonly examined in females, they are often found in both sexes. In the parasitoid wasp Urolepis rufipes, both female and male mating status affected certain aspects of sexual interactions. Female mating status mattered only in the later stages of mating. Males did not discriminate between virgin and mated females in terms of which they contacted or mounted first. However, once mounted, most virgin females were receptive to copulation, whereas very few mated females were. Whether a male’s mating status affected his own sexual response depended on the female’s ability to respond and the stage of mating. Examining male behavior toward dead females allowed elimination of the role of female behavior in how males responded. Virgin and mated males are both attracted to dead females as evidenced by their fanning their wings at such females. However, mated males were quicker than virgin males to contact and to mount in an experiment with dead females, whereas there was no such differential response in an experiment with live females. This difference is consistent with greater female sexual responsiveness to virgin males. Male mating status also affected female receptivity to copulate. Once mounted, live virgin females were less likely to become receptive to copulation by mated males than to virgin males, but only in a choice experiment, not in a no-choice experiment.
KeywordsMating history monandry parasitoid wasp receptivity virgin
Thanks to K. Floate for U. rufipes; to A. Coletta, J. Niew and A. van Pelt for assistance with experiments; to J. Cooper. M. King, and W. Nichols for assistance with colony maintenance; and to A. Kremer for feedback on the writing.
- Charnov EL (1982) The theory of sex allocation. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Clausen CP (1939) The effect of host size upon the sex ratio of hymenopterous parasites and its relation to methods of rearing and colonization. J N Y Entomol Soc 47:1–9Google Scholar
- Dougherty LR, Shuker DM (2014) The effect of experimental design on the measurement of mate choice: a meta-analysis. Behav Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/aru125
- Godfray HCJ (1994) Parasitoids. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Halliday T (1983) The study of mate choice. In: Bateson P (ed) Mate choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–32Google Scholar
- Kant R, Trewick SA, Sandanayaka WRM, Godfrey AJR, Minor MA (2012) Effects of multiple matings on reproductive fitness of male and female Diaeretiella rapae. Entomol Exp Appl 145:215-221Kemp DJ (2012) costly copulation in the wild: mating increases the risk of parasitoid-mediated death in swarming locusts. Behav Ecol 23:191–194. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr173 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Powell JR, Graham LC, Galloway TD (2003) Development time of Urolepis rufipes (hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) and effect of female density on offspring sex ratio and reproductive output. Proc Entomol Soc Manitoba 59:16–20Google Scholar
- Rueda LM, Axtell RC (1985) 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. In: North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina State University. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/resources/research-curation/projects/chalcidoids/pdf_Y/RuedaAx985.pdf
- Wittman TN (2016) Behavioral and chemical ecology of a male produced substrate borne pheromone in Urolepis rufipes. Thesis, Northern Illinois UniversityGoogle Scholar