Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on May 18, 2005
Behavioral Ecology 2005 16(4):788-793; doi:10.1093/beheco/ari055
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Why do male Callosobruchus maculatus harm their mates?
a Animal Ecology/Department of Ecology and Evolution, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18d, SE 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden, and b Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter in Cornwall, Tremough, Penryn, TR10 9EZ, UK
Address correspondence to M. Edvardsson. E-mail: martin.edvardsson{at}ebc.uu.se.
Males of the bruchid beetle Callosobruchus maculatus have spines on their intromittent organs that puncture the female reproductive tract during mating. Females kick their mates during copulation. If females are prevented from kicking the males, copulations last longer and the injuries females sustain are more severe. We tested whether or not these injuries represent real fitness costs that can be mitigated by kicking and also what males gain by inflicting them. Our results show that females do indeed suffer lowered lifetime fecundity if they are prevented from kicking. However, we could find no evidence that males gain benefits through harming their mates. It has been suggested that the way females respond to the harm may benefit the male causing it. Injured females may be less willing to remate to avoid sustaining further injuries, or they may respond by increasing their rate of oviposition if they perceive the injuries as a threat to their survival. In our study, however, females that were prevented from kicking did not respond by delaying remating or increasing their rate of oviposition. Furthermore, preventing females from kicking during their second copulation did not make their second mates more successful in sperm competition. This suggests that the spines have evolved for other reasons than harming the females, such as serving as an anchor during copulation, and that the harm they cause is a side effect of a male adaptation and is not itself adaptive for either sex.
Key words: Callosobruchus maculatus, female resistance, harmful male traits, mating costs, sexual conflict, sperm competition.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  N. Smolensky, M. R. Romero, and P. J. Krug Evidence for Costs of Mating and Self-Fertilization in a Simultaneous Hermaphrodite With Hypodermic Insemination, the Opisthobranch Alderia willowi Biol. Bull., April 1, 2009; 216(2): 188 - 199. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Ronn, M. Katvala, and G. Arnqvist Coevolution between harmful male genitalia and female resistance in seed beetles PNAS, June 26, 2007; 104(26): 10921 - 10925. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. E Eady, L. Hamilton, and R. E Lyons Copulation, genital damage and early death in Callosobruchus maculatus Proc R Soc B, January 22, 2007; 274(1607): 247 - 252. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Edvardsson and D. Canal The effects of copulation duration in the bruchid beetle Callosobruchus maculatus Behav. Ecol., May 1, 2006; 17(3): 430 - 434. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. A Maklakov, N. Kremer, and G. Arnqvist Ageing and the evolution of female resistance to remating in seed beetles Biol Lett, March 22, 2006; 2(1): 62 - 64. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|