Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Carroll, S. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Carroll, S. P.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1993 International Society for Behavioral Ecology

research-article

Divergence in male mating tactics between two populations of the soapberry bug: I. Guarding versus nonguarding

Scott P. Carroll

Department of Biology, University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA

ABSTRACT

I compared male allocation to prolonged mate guarding versus not guarding between two populations of the soapberry bug (Jadera haematoloma) that differ in adult sex ratio: Oklahoma, USA (mean ± SD adult sex ratio, 2.70 ± 0.95 males per female), and Florida, USA (1.09 ± 0.26 males per female). To predict the reproductive performance of each mating tactic in each population, I collected data on search time per mating, time required for guarding to be effective, sperm competition, female remating propensity, and female resistance to guarding. Search time alone differed significantly between the populations, being much greater in Oklahoma (estimated as 26.2 h per mate) than in Florida (estimated as 9.6 h per mate). For males in each region, these data were used to model the costs and benefits of guarding for different numbers of oviposition bouts versus not guarding. The reproductive rate of nonguarders in Oklahoma is exceeded by that of guarders who remain with a female for more than one oviposition bout, but in Florida, the reproductive rate of nonguarders is only exceeded by that of guarders who remain with a female for at least three ovipositions. Consistent with the model, Oklahoma males in field arenas guarded more frequently than did Florida males. However, nonguarding was common in both populations, and guarding durations were highly variable.

Key words: geographic variation, mating systems, sex ratio, Jadera haematoloma, Rhopalidae, mate guarding, sperm competition, mate search.


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
B. Larison
Environmental heterogeneity and alternative mating tactics in the damselfly Protoneura amatoria
Behav. Ecol., November 1, 2007; 18(6): 1021 - 1028.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
T. T. Knox and M. P. Scott
Size, operational sex ratio, and mate-guarding success of the carrion beetle, Necrophila americana
Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2006; 17(1): 88 - 96.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
H. Kokko and L. J. Morrell
Mate guarding, male attractiveness, and paternity under social monogamy
Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2005; 16(4): 724 - 731.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
F. Garcia-Gonzalez and M. Gomendio
Adjustment of copula duration and ejaculate size according to the risk of sperm competition in the golden egg bug (Phyllomorpha laciniata)
Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2004; 15(1): 23 - 30.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
R. Hardling and A. Kaitala
Conflict of interest between sexes over cooperation: a supergame on egg carrying and mating in a coreid bug
Behav. Ecol., November 1, 2001; 12(6): 659 - 665.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
A. P. Moczek
Facultative paternal investment in the polyphenic beetle Onthophagus taurus: the role of male morphology and social context
Behav. Ecol., November 1, 1999; 10(6): 641 - 647.
[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.