Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:58:03.550Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mating system, mate choice and parental care in a bark beetle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2017

O. Baruch ,
Z. Mendel ,
I. Scharf  and
A. R Harari
O. Baruch
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, The Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel
Z. Mendel
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, The Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel
I. Scharf*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
A. R Harari
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, The Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel
*
*Author for correspondence Fax/Phone: +972-3-6408006 E-mail: scharfi@post.tau.ac.il
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The cypress bark beetle, Phloeosinus armatus, is a common element of the dying cypress tree system in East-Mediterranean countries. Adult beetles congregate for breeding on this ephemeral resource. We studied three traits that characterize this beetle's sexual behavior and linked them to its reproductive success: mating system, mate choice, and parental care. We found that the females are the ‘pioneering sex’, excavating the mating chamber. The average female is slightly larger than the male, and female and male body size is correlated, demonstrating size-assortative mating. The time it takes for a male to enter the mating chamber is positively correlated with female size and negatively correlated with its own size, which is perhaps responsible for this assortative mating. Males remain in the gallery during the period of oviposition, gradually leaving soon after the eggs hatch. The number of eggs laid and tunnel length are positively correlated with male body size. Finally, in the presence of both parents, more eggs are laid than when the female alone is present, demonstrating the important contribution of biparental care for reproductive success. We suggest that the interaction between a monogamous mating system, assortative mating, and biparental care contributes to reproductive success.

Keywords

assortative matingbody sizemonogamyreproductive successScolytinae
Type
Research Papers
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 107 , Issue 5 , October 2017 , pp. 611 - 619
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alonzo, S.H. (2012) Sexual selection favours male parental care, when females can choose. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 279, 1784–1790.Google Scholar
Amman, G.D. & Cole, W.E. (1983) Mountain pine beetle dynamics in lodgepole pine forests. Part II: Population dynamics. General Technical Report INT-145, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service.Google Scholar
Anderbrant, O. (1990) Gallery construction and oviposition of the bark beetle Ips typographus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) at different breeding densities. Ecological Entomology 15, 1–8.Google Scholar
Andersson, M. (1994) Sexual Selection. Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Andersson, M. & Iwasa, Y. (1996) Sexual selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11, 53–58.Google Scholar
Arnqvist, G., Rowe, L., Krupa, J.J. & Sih, A. (1996) Assortative mating by size: a meta-analysis of mating patterns in water striders. Evolutionary Ecology 10, 265–284.Google Scholar
Balachowsky, A.S. & Chararas, C. (1961) Contribution a l’étude de Phloeosinus armatus Reitter (Coleoptera Scolytidae) nuisible au cypres dans le bassin oriental de la Méditeranée. Revue de Pathologie Végétale et d'Entomologie Agricole de France 39, 245–257.Google Scholar
Biedermann, P.H.W. & Taborsky, M. (2011) Larval helpers and age polyethism in ambrosia beetles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108, 17064–17069.Google Scholar
Berryman, A.A. (1974) Dynamics of bark beetle populations: towards a general productivity model. Environmental Entomology 3, 579–585.Google Scholar
Bonduriansky, R. (2001) The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biological Reviews 76, 305–339.Google Scholar
Byrne, P.G. & Rice, W.R. (2006) Evidence for adaptive male mate choice in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster . Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 273, 917–922.Google Scholar
Candolin, U. (1998) Reproduction under predation risk and the trade-off between current and future reproduction in the threespine stickleback. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 265, 1171–1175.Google Scholar
Chen, H.-F., Salcedo, C. & Sun, J.-H. (2012) Male mate choice by chemical cues leads to higher reproductive success in a bark beetle. Animal Behaviour 83, 421–427.Google Scholar
Crespi, B.J. (1989) Causes of assortative mating in arthropods. Animal Behaviour 38, 980–1000.Google Scholar
Emlen, D.J. & Oring, L.W. (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197, 215–223.Google Scholar
Ghalambor, C.K., Peluc, S.I. & Martin, T.E. (2013) Plasticity of parental care under the risk of predation: how much should parents reduce care? Biology Letters 9, 20130154.Google Scholar
Gilbert, J.D. & Manica, A. (2015) The evolution of parental care in insects: a test of current hypotheses. Evolution 69, 1255–1270.Google Scholar
Gwynne, D. (2008) Sexual conflict over nuptial gifts in insects. Annual Review of Entomology 53, 83–101.Google Scholar
Harari, A.R. & Steinitz, H. (2013) The evolution of female sex pheromones. Current Zoology 59, 567–576.Google Scholar
Harari, A.R., Handler, A.M. & Landolt, P.J. (1999) Size-assortative mating, male choice and female choice in the curculionid beetle Diaprepes abbreviatus . Animal Behaviour 58, 1191–1200.Google Scholar
Harari, A.R., Zahavi, T. & Thiéry, D. (2011) Fitness cost of pheromone production in signaling female moths. Evolution 65, 1572–1582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herdman, E.J.E., Kelly, C.D. & Godin, J.G.J. (2004) Male mate choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): do males prefer larger females as mates? Ethology 110, 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honěk, A. (1993) Intraspecific variation in body size and fecundity in insects: a general relationship. Oikos 66, 483–492.Google Scholar
Horváthová, T., Nakagawa, S. & Uller, T. (2011) Strategic female reproductive investment in response to male attractiveness in birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 279, 163–170.Google Scholar
Jacobs, A.C., Fair, J.M. & Zuk, M. (2015) Coloration, paternity, and assortative mating in western bluebirds. Ethology 121, 176–186.Google Scholar
Jiang, Y., Bolnick, D.I. & Kirkpatrick, M. (2013) Assortative mating in animals. American Naturalist 181, E125–E138.Google Scholar
Jones, A.G., Moore, G.I., Kvarnemo, C., Walker, D. & Avise, J.C. (2003) Sympatric speciation as a consequence of male pregnancy in seahorses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100, 6598–6603.Google Scholar
Kirkendall, L.R. (1983) The evolution of mating systems in bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae and Platypodidae). Zoological Journal Linnean Society 77, 293–352.Google Scholar
Kirkendall, L.R., Kent, D.S. & Raffa, K.A. (1997) Interactions among males, females and offspring in bark and ambrosia beetles: the significance of living in tunnels for the evolution of social behavior. pp. 181–215 in Choe, J.C. & Crespi, B.J. (Eds) Social Behavior in Insects and Arachnids. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kirkendall, L.R., Biedermann, P.H.W. & Jordal, B.H. (2015) Evolution and diversity of bark and ambrosia beetles. pp. 85–156 in Vega, F.E. & Hofstetter, R.W. (Eds) Bark Beetles Biology and Ecology of Native and Invasive Species. San Diego, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kölliker, M. (2007) Benefits and costs of earwig (Forficula auricularia) family life. Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology 61, 1489–1497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGraw, L., Szekely, T. & Young, L.J. (2010) Pair bonds and parental behaviour. pp. 271–301 in Szekely, T., Moore, A. & Komdeur, J. (Eds) Social Behaviour: Genes, Ecology and Evolution. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McLain, D.K., Pratt, A.E. & Shure, D.J. (2015) Size dependence of courtship effort may promote male choice and strong assortative mating in soldier beetles. Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology 69, 883–894.Google Scholar
Mendel, Z. (1984) Life history of Phloeonsinus armatus Reiter and P. aubei Perris (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in Israel. Phytoparasitica 12, 89–97.Google Scholar
Nilsson, J.Å. & Svensson, E. (1996) The cost of reproduction: a new link between current reproduction effort and future reproductive success. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 263, 711–714.Google Scholar
Pennacchio, F., Danti, R., Benassai, D., Squarcini, M., Marziali, L., Di Lonardo, V. & Roversi, P.F. (2013) A new additional record of Phloeosinus armatus Reitter from Italy (Coleoptera Curculionidae Scolytinae). Redia 96, 45–50.Google Scholar
Pitt, C., Robert, J.A., Bonnett, T.R., Keeling, C.I., Bohlmann, J. & Huber, D.P.W. (2014) Proteomics indicators of the rapidly shifting physiology from whole mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), adults during early host colonization. PLoS ONE 9, e110673.Google Scholar
Pureswaran, D.S. & Borden, J.H. (2003) Is bigger better? Size and pheromone production in the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Journal of Insect Behaviour 16, 765–782.Google Scholar
Raffa, K.F., Phillips, T.W. & Salom, S.M. (1993) Strategies and mechanisms of host colonization by bark beetles. pp. 103–128 in Schowalter, T.D. & Filip, G.M. (Eds) Beetle-Pathogen Interactions in Conifer Forests. San Diego, USA, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ratnieks, F.L.W. (1996) Evolution of unstable and stable biparental care. Behavioral Ecology 7, 490–493.Google Scholar
Rebar, D. & Rodríguez, R.L. (2015) Insect mating signal and mate preference phenotypes covary among host plant genotypes. Evolution 69, 602–610.Google Scholar
Reid, M.L. & Baruch, O. (2010) Mutual mate choice by mountain pine beetles: size-dependence but not size-assortative mating. Ecological Entomology 35, 69–76.Google Scholar
Reid, M.L. & Roitberg, B.D. (1994) Benefits of prolonged male residence with mates and brood in pine engravers (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Oikos 70, 140–148.Google Scholar
Reid, M.L. & Roitberg, B.D. (1995) Effects of brood size on investment in individual broods by male pine engravers (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 73, 1396–1401.Google Scholar
Renault, D., Hance, T., Vannier, G. & Vernon, P. (2003) Is body size an influential parameter in determining the duration of survival at low temperatures in Alphitobius diaperinus Panzer (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae)? Journal of Zoology 259, 381–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, I.C. (1998) Paternal care enhances male reproductive success in pine engraver beetles. Animal Behaviour 56, 595–602.Google Scholar
Robertson, I.C. & Roitberg, B.D. (1998) Duration of parental care in pine engraver beetles: why do larger males care less? Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology 43, 379–386.Google Scholar
Roques, A. & Battisti, A. (1999) Cypress pests. pp. 73–95 in Du Cros, E.T., Ducrey, M., Barthelemy, D., Pichot, C., Giannini, R., Raddi, P., Roques, A., Sales, L.J. & Thibaut, B. (Eds) Cypress. A Practical Handbook. Florence, Italy, Studio Lenonardo.Google Scholar
Royle, N.J., Smiseth, P.T. & Kölliker, M. (2012) The Evolution of Parental Care. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saldamando-Benjumea, C.I., Estrada-Piedrahíta, K., Velásquez-Vélez, M.I. & Bailey, R.I. (2014) Assortative mating and lack of temporality between corn and rice strains of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) from Central Colombia. Journal of Insect Behaviour 27, 555–566.Google Scholar
Salomon, M., Schneider, J. & Lubin, Y. (2005) Maternal investment in a spider with suicidal maternal care, Stegodyphus lineatus (Araneae, Eresidae). Oikos 109, 614–622.Google Scholar
Scharf, I., Peter, F. & Martin, O.Y. (2013) Reproductive trade-offs and direct costs for males in arthropods. Evolutionary Biology 40, 169–184.Google Scholar
Scharf, I., Galkin, N. & Halle, S. (2015) Disentangling the consequences of growth temperature and adult acclimation temperature on starvation and thermal tolerance in the red flour beetle. Evolutionary Biology 42, 54–62.Google Scholar
Schlyter, F. & Cederholm, I. (1981) Separation of the sexes of living spruce bark beetles, Ips typographus (L.), (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie 92, 42–47.Google Scholar
Shimada, K. & Maekawa, K. (2011) Description of the basic features of parent offspring stomodeal trophallaxis in the subsocial wood-feeding cockroach Salganea esakii (Dictyoptera, Blaberidae, Panesthiinae). Entomological Science 14, 9–12.Google Scholar
Skinner, A.M.J. & Watt, P.J. (2007) Phenotypic correlates of spermatozoon quality in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata . Behavioral Ecology 18, 47–52.Google Scholar
Sowig, P. (1996) Duration and benefits of biparental brood care in the dung beetle Onthophagus vacca (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Ecological Entomology 21, 81–86.Google Scholar
Stock, A.J., Pratt, T.L. & Borden, J.H. (2013) Seasonal flight pattern of the western balsam bark beetle, Dryocoetes confusus Swaine (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), in central British Columbia. Journal of the Entomological Society of British Columbia 110, 27–34.Google Scholar
Suzuki, S. (2013) Biparental care in insects: paternal care, life history, and the function of the nest. Journal of Insect Science 13, 131.Google Scholar
Teale, S.A., Hager, B.J. & Webster, F.X. (1994) Pheromone-based assortative mating in a bark beetle. Animal Behaviour 48, 569–578.Google Scholar
Trivers, R.L. (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. pp. 136–179 in Campbell, B. (Ed.) Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871–1971. Chicago, Aldine.Google Scholar
Trumbo, S.T. (2006) Infanticide, sexual selection and task specialization in a biparental burying beetle. Animal Behaviour 72, 1159–1167.Google Scholar
Trumbo, S.T. (2012) Patterns of parental care in invertebrates. pp. 81–100 in Royle, N.J., Smiseth, P.T. & Kölliker, M. (Eds) The Evolution of Parental Care. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wong, B.B.M. (2004) Superior fighters make mediocre fathers in the pacific blue-eye fish. Animal Behaviour 67, 583–590.Google Scholar
Wong, B.B.M. & Candolin, U. (2005) How is female mate choice affected by male competition? Biological Reviews 80, 559–571.Google Scholar
Wong, J.W.Y., Meunier, J. & Kölliker, M. (2013) The evolution of parental care in insects: the roles of ecology, life history and the social environment. Ecological Entomology 38, 123–137.Google Scholar
Zeh, D.W. & Smith, R.L. (1985) Paternal investment by terrestrial arthropods. American Zoologist 25, 785–805.Google Scholar
Zink, A.G. (2003) Quantifying the costs and benefits of parental care in female treehoppers. Behavioral Ecology 14, 687–693.Google Scholar