Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (23)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tallamy, D. W.
Right arrow Articles by McClafferty, J. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Tallamy, D. W.
Right arrow Articles by McClafferty, J. A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Behavioral Ecology Vol. 13 No. 4: 511-518
© 2002 International Society for Behavioral Ecology

Male traits under cryptic female choice in the spotted cucumber beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

Douglas W. Tallamy, Bradford E. Powell and Julie A. McClafferty

Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Entomology and Applied Ecology, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19717-1303, USA

Address correspondence to D.W. Tallamy. E-mail: dtallamy{at}udel.edu .

Males of the spotted cucumber beetle (Diabrotica undecimpunctata howardi) rhythmically stroke females with their antennae during copulation. Males that stroke quickly have a higher probability of being accepted as a mate. We determined (1) the mechanism by which females prevent unattractive males from passing spermatophores, (2) whether antennal stroking signals to females the likelihood of receiving a nuptial gift, and (3) if other male traits in addition to stroking are subjected to sexual selection from female preference. Dissections of pairs flash-frozen in copula during and after antennal stroking showed musculature that, when contracted, folded the vaginal duct leading to the female's bursa copulatrix in a way that prevented complete penetration by the aedeagus. These muscles were always contracted while males were stroking and always relaxed after stroking had ceased. Males accepted as mates did not differ from males that failed to pass a spermatophore in either absolute or relative body weight, aedeagus length, or the amount of cucurbitacins (potential nuptial gifts) sequestered in their spermatophores. Although 99% of the beetles that came to cucurbitacin-rich Cucurbita fruits in the field were males, males that had sequestered cucurbitacins did not stroke females faster than males with no cucurbitacins, and fast-stroking males were not more likely to find and sequester cucurbitacins than were males that stroked more slowly. Males with a cucurbitacin slurry painted on their antennae had no mating advantage over controls. We conclude that females discriminate among males after copulation has begun on the basis of antennal stroking displays (or some trait correlated with stroking speed) that males perform to entice females to relax their bursal sphincter.

Key words: copulatory courtship, cryptic female choice, Diabrotica undecimpunctata, sexual selection.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
C. W. Miller
Seasonal effects on offspring reproductive traits through maternal oviposition behavior
Behav. Ecol., July 18, 2008; (2008) arn075v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
J. Moya-Larano and C. W. Fox
Ejaculate size, second male size, and moderate polyandry increase female fecundity in a seed beetle
Behav. Ecol., November 1, 2006; 17(6): 940 - 946.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
L. F. Bussiere, A. P. Clark, and D. T. Gwynne
Precopulatory choice for cues of material benefits in tree crickets
Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2005; 16(1): 255 - 259.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.