Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Abstract 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 .

Received 11 January 2001; revised 2 October 2001; accepted 12 October 2001.


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
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.


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Darwin's recognition of female choice as a critical component of sexual selection (Darwin, 1871Go) was followed by a century in which the relative importance of female behavior in determining paternity was the subject of lively debate (Huxley, 1938Go; Kellogg, 1907Go; Lack, 1968Go; Maynard Smith, 1976Go; Morgan, 1932Go). The ease with which male—male competition could be observed in most animals fostered the conclusion that it was the dominant force regulating paternity. Female choice, in contrast, was typically subtle and difficult to distinguish from male domination. Furthermore, females that discriminated among males only on the basis of indirect benefits from good viability or good attractiveness genes posed theoretical problems because of the prediction that little genetic variance should remain in male traits under directional selection from female mating preferences. If, in fact, males did not differ genetically, discriminating only on the basis of obtaining good genes for their offspring would be a wasted exercise for females (Maynard Smith, 1978Go, 1985Go; Parker, 1984Go).

Two recent advances have put much of this debate to rest. There is now abundant evidence that (1) females typically do discriminate among males, even when their only reward for doing so is the acquisition of good genes for offspring (Andersson, 1994Go; Bradbury and Andersson, 1987Go; Kirkpatrick and Ryan, 1991Go; Welch et al., 1998Go), and (2) there is more, rather than less, genetic variance associated with male traits under female choice when compared to traits under natural selection (Houle, 1992Go; Pomiankowski and Møller, 1995Go; Wilkinson and Taper, 1999Go). Thus, students of sexual selection no longer ask why females are choosy, but instead focus on how and when females exercise such choice. One of the most important empirical contributions in recent years to the study of sexual selection has been the recognition that female choice is not restricted to precopulatory interactions with males as previously thought. Indeed, the ability of females to discriminate among males during copulation, after copulation but before fertilization, and/or after fertilization appears to be commonplace (Birkhead et al., 1993Go; Eberhard, 1991Go, 1996Go).

Discrimination during or after copulation has been called cryptic female choice (Thornhill, 1983Go) because it occurs after intromission, the event that has heretofore been considered the hallmark of male acceptance, and is therefore usually difficult to detect. Dozens of studies (reviewed by Eberhard, 1996Go, 1997Go) clearly show that, even in the absence of sperm competition, intromission by no means guarantees paternity. In fact, paternity formerly attributed to sperm competition may more typically be controlled by female behavior, physiology, and morphology (Birkhead et al., 1993Go). Because it sequentially follows intra- and intersexual interactions that occur before copulation, cryptic female choice has the power to alter or negate all precopulatory sexual selection that has preceded it. As such, female choice exercised after intromission may be the dominant form of sexual selection in many taxa (Eberhard, 1996Go).

Studies of cryptic female choice, however, present empirical challenges even more formidable than those encountered in studies of precopulatory choice. By definition, discrimination through cryptic female choice occurs within a female's body and is not only difficult to observe, but is even more difficult to distinguish from male incompetence or male—male competition via interactions among sperm (Birkhead, 1998Go). Aggravating these difficulties is the growing consensus that, although they may be prone to pleiotropic effects (Hall, 1994Go), the male traits upon which cryptic female discrimination is based frequently seem to be arbitrary, subtle courtship maneuvers performed by males in copula without any apparent link to male vigor (Eberhard, 1993aGo,bGo, 1994Go; Rodriguez, 1994bGo; van der Assem and Werren, 1994Go; Weislo et al., 1992Go). Consequently, male traits under selection from cryptic female choice often go unrecognized. This has hampered progress in determining how pervasive this type of female choice is and how such traits convey to females a measure of male quality.

In previous studies we determined that spotted cucumber beetle females (Diabrotica undecimpunctata howardi Barber) cryptically discriminate among males and that male mating success is correlated with the quality of ritualized copulatory courtship (Darlington et al., manuscript submitted). Females either use the speed with which males stroke them with their antennae during copulation or a trait correlated with stroking speed as an honest signal of male genetic quality. Males that stroke quickly father offspring with a higher probability of surviving to adulthood and father sons that are more attractive to females than do males that stroke slowly (Darlington et al., manuscript submitted). All males stroke females from the initiation of copulation, but males that succeed in passing a complete spermatophore to their mates abruptly cease stroking at some point during copulation, while males that do not pass a spermatophore stroke until they dismount.

It is clear that copulatory antennal stroking is correlated with female acceptance of males, but several important questions regarding this behavior remain unanswered. In this study we examined the mating behavior of the spotted cucumber beetle in detail to determine (1) the mechanism by which females prevent unattractive males from passing spermatophores to their bursa copulatrix, (2) whether stroking signals male genetic quality only or also indicates the likelihood of receiving a tangible nuptial gift, and (3) if other male traits in addition to antennal stroking are subject to sexual selection from female choice.

Study species
The spotted cucumber beetle (hereafter SCB) is a Nearctic member of the Luperini (Coleoptera; Chrysomelidae), a large tribe of galerucine leaf beetles comprising more than 3950 species (Wilcox, 1972aGo,bGo). All luperine larvae eat plant roots exclusively, but adults switch to leaves and pollen for their nutrition (Branson and Krysan, 1981Go). Despite its common name, SCB is not a cucurbit specialist and favors plant species from the Poaceae and Fabaceae over Cucurbitaceae for larval development. SCB and a number of New and Old World Luperini in the subtribe Diabroticina and Aulacophorina have attracted academic attention for more than 100 years (Webster, 1895Go) because of their pharmacophagous behavior (sensu Boppré, 1984Go) toward cucurbitacins, the bitter, tetracyclic triterpenes produced by all members of the Cucurbitaceae (Guha and Sen, 1975Go). Although they are either toxic or distasteful to most vertebrate and invertebrate herbivores (Metcalf et al., 1980Go; Nielsen et al., 1977Go; Tallamy et al., 1997bGo; Watt and Breyer-Brandwijk, 1962Go;), cucurbitacins are phagostimulants for many luperine adults (reviewed by Metcalf, 1994Go; Tallamy and Krischik, 1989Go) and larvae (DeHeer and Tallamy, 1991Go) and have been shown to impart antibiotic (Tallamy et al., 1998Go) and antipredator (Ferguson and Metcalf, 1985Go) benefits to beetles that consume them. Of interest here is that males of species or populations that do not develop as larvae on cucurbits readily leave their host plants in search of cucurbitacin sources (Tallamy et al., 2000Go). In the case of SCB, males sequester in their spermatophores 89% of the cucurbitacins that are not excreted. These are transferred to females during copulation which, in turn, sequester 79% of the cucurbitacins received from males in developing eggs (Tallamy et al., 2000Go). Such behavior is ecologically similar to the pharmacophagous response of a number of insects toward noxious pyrrolizidine alkaloids (Boppré, 1990Go; Krasnoff and Dussourd, 1989Go; Pliske, 1975Go) and suggests that, like the females of those species, SCB females may select mates on the basis of their ability to find and sequester cucurbitacins in seminal nuptial gifts.

Mating behavior
Pharmacophagous luperines are often treated as a uniform group because of the similarities in the response of many species toward cucurbitacins (Metcalf et al., 1980Go; Tallamy and Halaweish, 1993Go; Tallamy et al., 1997aGo). However, preliminary reports on the mating behavior of different luperines suggest that any similarities among them end there. For example, unlike in the western corn rootworm (D. virgifera virgifera: Lew and Ball, 1979Go), there is no evidence for any precopulatory female choice in SCB. Males approach females from behind and quickly mount. A typical male will clasp the lateral edges of the female's elytra with his prothoracic and mesothoracic legs, while his metathoracic legs are extended behind to serve as stabilizers when they drag on the substrate. As soon as a male has secured his position, he begins to probe with his aedeagus and often achieves partial intromission within seconds. Simultaneously he exhibits a rhythmical behavior that we call antennal stroking (Darlington et al., manuscript submitted); by quickly shaking his head three times from side to side while his antennae project forward, a courting male can alternately stroke in distinct triplets the lateral edges of both of the female's antennae, eyes, and prolegs. Males in copula repeatedly stroke females in this way from seconds to hours, but all successful males (i.e., those that pass a spermatophore) stop stroking and move both of their antennae posteriorly over their elytra where they hold them motionless while beginning a slow, rhythmic pulsing of the abdomen.

Most females attempt to dislodge males as soon as they mount, either by brushing against the substrate, by sweeping with their two hind legs, or by rocking their abdomens violently from side to side. Males that persist despite this harassment and achieve complete entry into a female's bursa copulatrix transfer a liquid spermatophore comprising nearly 7% of male mass (Tallamy et al., 2000Go). Although SCB females that accept a complete spermatophore become unreceptive to subsequent males almost immediately, females will copulate with up to 15 males before accepting a complete spermatophore (Tallamy et al., 2000Go). Males are highly polygynous in the laboratory; they are capable of producing a new spermatophore every 2 days and can successfully pass up to 15 spermatophores before death (Tallamy et al., 2000Go).


    METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Experiments were conducted on laboratory colonies that were derived from beetles collected on the University of Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station farm in Newark, Delaware, USA. Standard cucumber beetle rearing techniques were used throughout the study (Branson et al., 1988Go; Cuthbert et al., 1968Go; Tallamy and Pesek, 1996Go), with larvae reared on corn seedlings (Pioneer No. 3397) and adults reared on lettuce and an artificial pollen diet (Rose and McCabe, 1973Go; BioServe No. F9760, Frenchtown, New Jersey). In experiments examining the effects of dietary cucurbitacins on female choice and male quality, the bitterness or degree to which beetles had sequestered cucurbitacins before testing was manipulated by adding to or withholding from the diet slices of bitter Cucurbita andreana fruit. Gourds of this cucurbit are excellent sources of cucurbitacins B and D (Halaweish and Tallamy, 1993Go; Metcalf et al., 1982Go) and were grown for use in this study through hand pollination of greenhouse plants. Males were made bitter by allowing them to eat cucurbitacins for 2 days. Once bitter, we removed males from C. andreana fruit and gave them 2 additional days to sequester cucurbitacins before being used in mating experiments. Control diets for these studies were amended with nonbitter zucchini slices (C. pepo). Unless otherwise stated, means ± SEs are reported.

Recognizing female choice
To determine whether females discriminate among males after copulation has begun, it was critical to recognize with certainty which males succeeded in passing a complete spermatophore and which did not, without destructive dissections of the female after copulation. We determined this by measuring weight changes in both males and females during copulation, after adjusting for weight loss in both sexes from defecation and dehydration during lengthy periods of pairing (up to 6 h). To quantify the relationship between beetle mass and weight loss during copulation, both sexes were weighed repeatedly to the nearest 0.1 mg on a Mettler balance during simulated mating conditions. Accurate weights of live beetles were obtained without anesthesia by confining beetles individually in 1.8-ml Ependorf tubes during the measurement. The tubes completely stabilized beetle movement while on the scale. After initial weights were recorded, each beetle was placed in a 4-cm diam plastic cup fitted with an aerated lid. All cups were then enclosed within a clear plastic box 40 x 30 x 6 cm lined with damp paper towels and fitted with an airtight lid. Every half hour for 10 h, each beetle was removed from its container, reweighed, and returned to its container. Beetles typically defecated during the first hour of confinement, after which weight loss was from dehydration alone. For this reason a multiple regression model using initial beetle mass and time in the mating chamber as predictors of weight lost during copulation confinement was generated from data gathered from hours 2-10, and subsequent mating experiments were initiated only after beetles had been confined in plastic containers for 1 h. Our regression model included linear terms and the simple interaction term between the two predictors; its predictive value was excellent (r2 =.9604, N = 100). Beetle sex and age had no effect on weight loss over time.

Copulations were staged in 5-cm diam plastic cups with aerated lids. Each cup was fitted with a section of pipe cleaner propped against the inner wall to provide substrate that females could use to brush off suitors if they so chose. We weighed both males and females immediately before and after copulation. The weight gained by each female during copulation plus the weight lost by the female from dehydration (estimated from the regressions described above using the initial female mass and the length of the copulation as parameters) represented the fresh weight of the passed spermatophore and thus the degree to which the copulation was successful. This was confirmed from the male's perspective by subtracting the weight lost from dehydration by each male during copulation from the total weight lost by the male during copulation.

Because dissections of recently mated females have shown that males pass spermatophores that weigh on average 1.12 ± 0.39 mg (SD) fresh weight (Tallamy et al., 2000Go), males that increased female weight by this much were considered to have successfully passed a complete spermatophore. We considered all males that did not increase their mate's weight at all as having been rejected, regardless of the length of time they copulated. Males that increased female weight by some factor less than 1 SD below the mean mass of dissected spermatophores were considered to have successfully passed a partial spermatophore, possibly against the female's will.

We know from previous experiments that approximately 55% of SCB females copulate with more than one male during their brief mating period and that females that have accepted a spermatophore completely lose subsequent receptivity (Tallamy et al., 2000Go). To determine whether females that copulate with more than one male accept more than one spermatophore, we paired 126 virgin 8-day-old males with virgin 4- to 5-day-old females in plastic cups as described above. After they copulated, we determined female weight gain as described above and replaced the male with a new virgin male to monitor subsequent female receptivity, regardless of whether the first male had passed a spermatophore. If the female copulated again, her weight gain during the second copulation was compared by paired t test to weight gained during her first copulation.

Male traits under selection
We examined how body weight, body weight in relation to female size, aedeagus length, and amount of sequestered cucurbitacins influence mating success in SCB males. We also were interested in whether antennal stroking conveys a message about the cucurbitacin load a male has sequestered at the time of courtship or about the likelihood that a particular male is carrying cucurbitacins. Thus, we quantified whether antennal stroking is an accurate index of male size, male bitterness (that is, the amount of cucurbitacins already sequestered), or a male's propensity to acquire cucurbitacins. Finally, we asked whether males stroke a female's antennae to enhance her ability to detect his bitterness. In all mating manipulations females were between 3 and 5 days old and males were between 7 and 10 days old.

Morphological traits
We examined the effect of male size (body mass) and aedeagus length on female choice by comparing these traits by t test between accepted and rejected males. The aedeagus in SCB males is a curved structure composed of three sclerotized sections. After surgically removing the aedeagus from each male, an index of size was created by measuring the length of each section with an ocular micrometer and then adding all three measurements together. We also measured the relationship between male size and aedeagus length to determine if these two traits are correlated.

Antennal stroking
Because males that were not dislodged by female resistance fell into two groups, those that stroked the female throughout copulation and those that abruptly stopped stroking, we sought to determine whether the cessation of antennal stroking marked complete penetration by the male and the beginning of spermatophore transfer. First, we compared by t test weight gained by females that copulated with males that never stopped stroking during intromission with weight gained by females whose partner stopped stroking at some point before dismounting. We also flash-froze five copulating pairs from each group by pouring ethanol, supercooled by dry ice, directly on copulating pairs. This instantly fixed both sexes and permitted dissections to quantify the degree to which males had penetrated females before and after the cessation of stroking.

To determine the degree to which antennal stroking might provide discriminating females with a measure of male stamina, we compared by paired t test stroking rate in males during their first and tenth minute of copulation. We also examined the effect of male size on stroking rate because it can be argued that large males may be genetically superior and/or deliver to females larger nuptial gifts via their spermatophores and thus be more desirable mates than small males. We quantified the rate at which male SCBs stroke the females they are courting by high-resolution VHS video recordings of copulating pairs within 25 x 150 mm test tubes (Sony Color Video Camera—DXC-107A fitted with a Navitar 18-108 mm macrozoom F-2.5 lens; JVC-super VHS HRS5300U VCR). Resolution of behavior is excellent with this equipment, and we were able to accurately count the number of antennal strokes from male mounting until female acceptance or rejection.

Male bitterness
If the acquisition of cucurbitacins is an important component of male mating success, males may seek cucurbitacins in the environment more aggressively than females. We tested this hypothesis by placing five C. andreana fruits about 5 m apart from each other in a corn field on 5 consecutive days in July 1997. Each day all SCB were aspirated off each fruit, sexed, and released at least 5 m from the fruit on which they were collected. We then compared the number of males at fruits to the number of females by t test each day. To compare the sex ratio at fruits with the sex ratio away from fruits, we calculated the sex ratio of beetles collected off of vegetation with a sweep net at least 5 m from any fruit source on the last day of the study.

We examined how prior cucurbitacin consumption affected male mating success when paired with females that had no prior access to cucurbitacins by comparing the time elapsed before copulation, rate of acceptance, and the length of time females evaluated males (that is, length of stroking period) when females were paired with bitter versus nonbitter males.

Relationship between stroking and male bitterness
If copulatory stroking evolved in males to signal good attractiveness or survival genes, females accepting males that antennate properly do so to receive the indirect benefit of such genes for their offspring (Darlington et al., manuscript submitted). If, however, stroking in some way signals the acquisition of cucurbitacins by the courting male, the spermatophores of such males would provide direct phenotypic benefits to accepting females in the form of protection from predators (Ferguson and Metcalf, 1985Go) and pathogens (Tallamy et al., 1998Go). We did three experiments to determine if stroking conveys a message to females about the state of male bitterness. First, using the video protocol discussed above, we measured whether bitter males stroke at the same rate as nonbitter males. Antennal strokes per minute during the first 5 min of copulation were compared by t test between bitter and nonbitter males. Next, we lightly painted the antennae of nonbitter males that had just started to copulate with nonbitter females with the juice from a slice of C. andreana fruit. We then compared the acceptance rate of these males with that of males on whose antennae only water was painted. Finally, we determined whether males that are able to stroke rapidly are also able to locate and/or sequester cucurbitacins better than males that cannot stroke rapidly by allowing males to forage for a small slice of C. andreana fruit placed in the center of a 1-m3 screen cage. The cage was supplied with six 10-g slices of fruit, one of which was bitter C. andreana and the other five nonbitter C. pepo, as well as pollen diet and water. After 48 h of exposure to the fruit, we removed all males from the cage and fed them a nonbitter diet for 2 additional days to allow any male that had eaten cucurbitacins to sequester them within his spermatophore. Each male was then paired with a female and videotaped to quantify his stroking rate during the first 5 min of copulation. Five minutes after penetration each male was teased apart from his female and freeze-dried for later cucurbitacin quantification. In this way males were separated from females well before any seminal material (and thus cucurbitacins) were passed. We then regressed stroking rate against total sequestered cucurbitacins as quantified via high performance thin layer chromatography as per Tallamy et al. (2000Go).


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Cryptic female choice
Female discrimination among males in copula is obvious in SCB; all females refusing a spermatophore from their first mate remained receptive to the second mate, whereas all females that accepted their first mate's spermatophore did not entice the second male to show any interest in copulation. Rejected males (i.e., those that did not terminate subsequent female receptivity) failed to inject measurable amounts of spermatophore into their mate's bursa (-0.28 ± 0.11 mg; n = 20). In contrast, males that terminated the receptivity of their mate did so by filling the bursa with spermatophore material (2.12 ± 0.10 mg; n = 20; paired t test, t = -17.61, p =.0001).

Male traits under selection
Morphological traits
Males accepted as mates (20.6 ± 0.4 mg, n = 50) did not differ from males that failed to pass a spermatophore (21.1 ± 0.4 mg, n = 50) in either absolute body weight (t test, t = -0.82, p =.4134) or relative body weight (male weight in relation to the weight of the female that was courted, 0.87 ± 0.02 for accepted males; 0.85 ± 0.03 for rejected males; t test: t = 0.58, p =.5642). The length of the sclerotized portion of the aedeagus was positively correlated with male weight (r2 =.25, y = 1.62x + 59.7, p =.0154) but did not differ between accepted and rejected males (t test; t = -0.27, p =.7880).

Antennal stroking
Several lines of evidence support our assertion (Darlington et al., manuscript submitted) that copulatory stroking is one trait which influences female mating decisions in SCB. If stroking is critical to achieving complete penetration, it should only be expressed by males that have not yet gained access to the bursa. Thus, only males that stop stroking at some point during copulation should pass complete spermatophores. This hypothesis was supported by comparing female weight gain (a measure of spermatophore mass received) in copulations during which males stroked until dismounting with weight gained by females whose mates stopped stroking well before dismounting. Females copulating with males that never stopped stroking gained significantly less weight (-0.20 ± 0.08 mg, n = 31) than females whose mates held their antennae over their elytra for an extended period (2.15 ± 0.08 mg, n = 50; t test: t = 21.34; p =.0001). All dissections of pairs flash-frozen in copula while the male was still stroking showed that the aedeagus had penetrated up to but not past a fold in the vaginal duct leading to the bursa copulatrix (Figure 1a). The fold was maintained by several muscle strands running between the posterior end of the bursa and the ninth tergite. Only when these muscles are relaxed by the female does the vaginal duct straighten enough to permit penetration by the aedeagus. In all pairs in which the male had stopped stroking, the sclerotized portions of the aedeagus had moved past the fold in the vaginal duct and into the bursa and the genital sac had been inflated to form the spermatophore (Figure 1b).



View larger version (44K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1 Cross-section of copulating spotted cucumber beetles showing the position of the aedeagus in relation to the bursa copulatrix (a) during male antennal stroking and (b) after stroking has stopped.

 

All males, regardless of the outcome of their mating attempt, stroked females significantly faster in the first minute of copulation than in the 10th minute of copulation (Figure 2; n = 16; paired t test: t = 6.2; p =.0001), suggesting that stroking exacts a measurable energetic drain on courting males. Male size, however, had no effect on stroking rate (Figure 3; n = 34; F1,32 = 0.35; p =.5586).



View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 2 Comparison of antennal stroking speed during the 1st and 10th minute of copulation in spotted cucumber beetles. Statistical intervals = standard errors.

 


View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 3 The relationship between male size and antennal stroking rate during the first 5 min of copulation in spotted cucumber beetles.

 

Male bitterness
Over the course of 5 consecutive days, 99.0 ± 1.5% of the 56 SCB adults collected at C. andreana fruits were males (Table 1). The sex ratio of beetles swept from vegetation away from bitter fruits on the 5th day of the experiment was 57.9% male (n = 19), suggesting that these results reflect biased male foraging rather than skewed population sex ratios.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1 Number and percentage of spotted cucumber beetle males at bitter Cucurbita andreana fruits
 

Despite male efforts to obtain them, having cucurbitacins sequestered within the spermatophore does not improve male mating success and may even reduce a male's competitive ability. Both the success rate (68.2% for nonbitter males; 65.0% for bitter males) and the length of time acceptable males were evaluated by females (29.5 ± 5.5 min and 42.7 ± 9.7 min for nonbitter and bitter males, respectively) were similar for bitter (n = 103) and nonbitter (n = 107) males (t test, t = 1.18, p =.2408). Bitter males, however, took marginally more time to mount females than did nonbitter males (9.0 ± 2.0 min for nonbitter males; 20.0 ± 5.1 min for bitter males; t test, t = 1.71, p =.0903).

Relationship between stroking and male bitterness
None of our experiments supported the hypothesis that antennal stroking by courting males conveys information to females about the likelihood of obtaining cucurbitacin nuptial gifts. Males that had sequestered cucurbitacins (n = 23) did not stroke females during copulation any faster (67.9 ± 15.6 strokes/min) than did males without cucurbitacins (68.4 ± 12.5 strokes/min, n = 23; t test: t = -0.11, p =.9139). Males with a bitter slurry painted on their antennae (n = 35) were not as acceptable to females (54% acceptance rate) as were males with water applied to their antennae (n = 44; 79.5% acceptance rate). Finally, there was no relationship between stroking speed and total sequestered cucurbitacins in males that had the opportunity to forage for and sequester cucurbitacins (Figure 4; n = 26, F1,25 = 0.17, p =.6877), confirming that cucurbitacin consumption does not enhance copulatory stroking, nor does fast stroking indicate a greater likelihood of locating or sequestering cucurbitacins. The lack of a relationship between stroking speed and cucurbitacin load was not because all males tested had sequestered large amounts of cucurbitacins due to the high probability of locating fruits within the test cage. There was, in fact, a great deal of variation in cucurbitacin load among males (10.7 ± 4.8 SD µg/beetle; range = 1.8-25.1 mg/beetle).



View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 4 The relationship between antennal stroking speed during the first 5 min of copulation and the load of sequestered cucurbitacins in spotted cucumber beetle males.

 


    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
All of the data gathered in this study support the hypothesis that female SCBs discriminate among potential mates either on the basis of the speed of antennal stroking that males display during the early stages of copulation or on the basis of an as-yet unidentified trait that is correlated with stroking speed. Neither absolute male size, male size in relation to the size of the female he is courting, nor aedeagus length influence a female's decision to accept or reject a particular male's spermatophore. Dissections of copulating pairs flash-frozen before and after the cessation of stroking indicate that a male strokes a female with his antennae only until the sclerotized terminus of his aedeagus has moved past a constricted fold in the female's vaginal duct. Stroking appears to be a ritualized form of copulatory courtship designed to induce a female to relax the large muscles that keep the duct folded. When constricted, these can effectively prevent unattractive males from inflating their genital sac within the bursa, a prerequisite for spermatophore transfer. SCB appears to be an excellent example of Eberhard's (1997Go) "selective cooperation" by females; a female resists the advances of all males by virtue of her bursal sphincter until one male wins her cooperation (that is, entices her to relax the sphincter) by stroking her in an appropriate manner. Musculature that is capable of obstructing complete penetration has been previously noted in some scarab (Macrodactylus spp.: Eberhard, 1993aGo) and chrysomelid beetles (Macrohaltica jamaicensis: Eberhard and Kariko, 1996Go; Chelymorpha alternans: Rodriguez, 1994aGo), the tsetse fly (Glossina pallidipes: Jaenson, 1979Go) and also in some bees (Roig-Alsina, 1993Go).

Insect spermatophores can bear nutrients used by females in egg production or body maintenance (reviewed by Vahed, 1998Go), but earlier measures of female performance after mating with either fast- or slow stroking SCB males suggested that no direct phenotypic benefits are derived by females that prefer fast males (Darlington et al., manuscript submitted). The absence of a relationship between male size and stroking speed supports this result. If SCB spermatophores contained nutritional gifts that females could use directly or pass on to their offspring, females should prefer males with the largest gifts. Presumably these would come from the largest males, yet large males do not stroke faster than small males and consequently have no mating advantage over them.

Although we found no evidence that SCB males pass nutritional gifts within their spermatophores to females (Darlington et al., manuscript submitted), the possibility remains that (1) nuptial gifts in the form of noxious cucurbitacins influences female choice in this species (Tallamy et al., 2000Go) and (2) antennal stroking somehow conveys a message about the quality of the cucurbitacins carried by the courting male. SCB males pass sequestered cucurbitacins in their spermatophores to females that in turn sequester the cucurbitacins in their eggs (Tallamy et al., 2000Go) as a defense against soil predators and pathogens (Tallamy et al., 1998Go). Our field counts of SCB sex ratios at C. andreana fruits, which are rich sources of cucurbitacins, support these hypotheses. Nearly all of the beetles that responded to volatile cues from these fruits were males, suggesting that females of pharmacophagous Diabrotica may rely entirely on male spermatophores as their source of cucurbitacins. Because SCB females only accept one spermatophore in their lifetime, it is logical that they might judge potential mates at least in part by the quantity of their cucurbitacin gift. This, however, does not seem to be the case.

Surprisingly, having cucurbitacins sequestered within the spermatophore or present on the body surface does not improve male mating success. Furthermore, bitter males do not stroke females with their antennae more rapidly than nonbitter males, nor do more vigorous males that stroke females faster locate and sequester more cucurbitacins. In short, there is no evidence that male sequestration of cucurbitacins is a sexually selected trait. Instead, male-biased cucurbitacin sequestration may be a naturally selected mechanism for males to improve survivorship of themselves, their mates, and their offspring. This conclusion is not without precedent. Males of the arctiid moth, Utethesia ornatrix, also pass sequestered allelochemicals to their mates via their spermatophores (in this case, pyrrolizidine alkaloids). Utethesia females, however, base mate selection entirely on spermatophore size (LaMunyon and Eisner, 1994Go).

Copulatory courtship through ritualized antennal stroking may not be an arbitrary trait; our data suggest that the rapid stroking preferred by females is physically tiring and may provide females with a reliable measure of male endurance and, by extrapolation, male health, vigor, and even genetic quality. Antennal stroking is a highly heritable trait and fast-stroking males do, in fact, produce more attractive sons and both sons and daughters with higher survivorship than slow males (Darlington et al., manuscript submitted). It is not surprising, then, that at least seven other unrelated chrysomelid beetles in four subfamilies other than Galerucinae [Varicoxa sp., Altica cyanea, Disonycha quinquelineata (Alticinae; Eberhard, 1994Go; Duckett C, personal communication), Cryptocephalus cordiger (Cryptocephalinae), Gastrophysa polygoni (Chrysomelinae; Medvedev and Pavlov, 1987Go), Donacia marginata (Donaciinae; Medvedev and Pavlov, 1987Go), and D. aguatica (Michelsen, 1963Go), Macrohaltica jamaicensis (Alticinae; Eberhard and Kariko, 1996Go)] as well as a number of insects in other widely divergent taxa [Vespidae (Ross, 1983Go; West-Eberhard, 1969Go), Sphecidae (Coville and Coville, 1980Go; Hook and Matthews, 1980Go; Longair et al., 1987Go), Anthophoridae (Alcock and Buchmann, 1985Go), Halictidae (Barrows, 1975Go), Curculionidae (Le Cato and Pienkowski, 1970Go; Wojcik, 1969Go), Brentidae (Johnson, 1982Go), Tenebrionidae (Wocjik, 1969), Cerambycidae (Michelsen, 1963Go), Cicindellidae, Buprestidae, Pyrrhocoridae (Eberhard, 1994Go), Cantharidae (Chauliognathus pennsylvanicus, Tallamy et al., personal observations)] have converged upon similar means of copulatory courtship.


    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 
We are grateful for the cooperation of K. Stoops (Stine-Haskell Lab, DuPont Co., Newark, Delaware), the technical assistance of K. Shropshire, the statistical advice of J. Pesek, and the helpful criticism of J. Hough-Goldstein and anonymous reviewers. This article was published as Contribution Paper No. 1712 of the Department of Entomology and Applied Ecology in the Journal Series of the Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Delaware, Newark. This research was partially supported by U.S. Department of Agriculture-NRI grant 9301684 to D.W.T.


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Alcock J, Buchmann SL, 1985. The significance of post-insemination display by males of Centris pallida (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae). Z Tierpsychol 68: 231-243.

Andersson M, 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Barrows EM, 1975. Mating behavior in halictine bees (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). III. Copulatory behavior and olfactory communication. Insectes Soc 22: 307-332.

Birkhead TR, 1998. Cryptic female choice: criteria for establishing female sperm choice. Evolution 51: 1212-1218.

Birkhead TR, Møller AP, Sutherland WJ, 1993. Why do females make it so difficult for males to fertilize their eggs? J Theor Biol 161: 51-60.

Boppré M, 1984. Redefining "phramacophagy." J Chem Ecol 10: 1151-1154.

Boppré M, 1990. Lepidoptera and pyrrolizidine alkaloids: exemplification of complexity in chemical ecology. J Chem Ecol 16: 165-180.

Bradbury JW, Andersson MB (eds), 1987. Sexual selection: testing the alternatives. New York: Wiley and Sons.

Branson TF, Jackson JJ, Sutter GR, 1988. Improved method for rearing Diabrotica virgifera virgifera (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J Econ Entomol 81: 410-414.

Branson TF, Krysan JL, 1981. Feeding and oviposition behavior and life cycle strategies of Diabrotica: an evolutionary view with implications for pest management. Environ Entomol 10: 826-831.

Coville RE, Coville PL, 1980. Nesting biology and male behavior of Trypoxylon (Tryparigilum) tenoctitlan in Costa Rica (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 73: 110-119.

Cuthbert FP Jr, Creighton CS, Cuthbert RB II, 1968. Mass rearing banded cucumber beetles, with notes on rearing spotted and striped cucumber beetles. J Econ Entomol 61: 288-292.

Darwin C, 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: J. Murray.

DeHeer CJ, Tallamy DW, 1991. Cucumber beetle larval affinity to cucurbitacins. Environ Entomol 20: 775-788.

Eberhard WG, 1991. Copulatory courtship and cryptic female choice in insects. Biol Rev 66: 1-31.

Eberhard WG, 1993a. Copulatory courtship and genital mechanics of three species of Macrodactylus (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, Melolonthinae). Ecol Ethol Evol 5: 19-63.

Eberhard WG, 1993b. Copulatory courtship and the morphology of genitalic coupling in seven Phyllophaga species (Coleoptera, Melolonthidae). J Nat Hist 27: 683-717.

Eberhard WG, 1994. Evidence for widespread courtship during copulation in 131 species of insects and spiders, and implications for cryptic female choice. Evolution 48: 711-733.

Eberhard WG, 1996. Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Eberhard WG, 1997. Sexual selection by cryptic female choice in insects and arachnids. In: The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids (Choe JC, Crespi BJ, eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 32-57.

Eberhard WG, Kariko SJ, 1996. Copulation behavior inside and outside the beetle Macrohaltica jamaicensis (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae). J Ethol 14: 59-72.

Ferguson JE, Metcalf RL, 1985. Cucurbitacins: plant-derived defense compounds for diabroticites (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J Chem Ecol 11: 311-318.

Guha J, Sen SP, 1975. The cucurbitacins—a review. Plant Biochem J 2: 12-28.

Halaweish FT, Tallamy DW, 1993. A new cucurbitacin profit for Cucurbita andreana: a candidate for cucurbitacin tissue culture. J Chem Ecol 19: 1135-1141.

Hall JC, 1994. The mating of a fly. Science 264: 1702-1714.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Hook AW, Matthews RW, 1980. Nesting biology of Oxybelus serviceus with a discussion of nest guarding by male sphecid wasps (Hymenoptera). Psyche 87: 21-38.

Houle D, 1992. Comparing the evoluability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130: 195-204.[Abstract]

Huxley JS, 1938. Darwin's theory of sexual selection and the data subsumed by it, in the light of recent research. Am Nat 72: 416-433.

Jaenson TGT, 1979. Mating behaviour of males of Glossina pallidipes Austen (Diptera: Glossinidae). Bull Entomol Res 69: 573-588.

Johnson LK, 1982. Sexual selection in a tropical brentid weevil. Evolution 36: 251-262.

Kellogg VL, 1907. Darwinism today. New York: Holt.

Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ, 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350: 33-38.

Krasnoff SB, Dussourd DE, 1989. Dihydropyrrolizidine attractants for arctiid moths that visit plants containing pyrrolizidine alkaloids. J Chem Ecol 15: 47-56.

Lack D, 1968. Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. New York: Chapman and Hall.

LaMunyon CW, Eisner T, 1994. Spermatophore size as determinant of paternity in an arctiid moth (Utethesia ornatrix). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91: 7081-7084.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Le Cato GI, Pienkowski RL, 1970. Laboratory mating behavior of the alfalfa weevil, Hypera postica. Ann Entomol Soc Am 63: 1000-1007.

Lew AC, Ball HJ, 1979. The mating behavior of the Western corn rootworm in Diabrotica virgifera (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 72: 391-393.

Longair RW, Cane JH, Elliot L, 1987. Male competition and mating behavior within mating aggregations of Glenosticta satan Gillaspy (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae). J Kans Entomol Soc 60: 264-272.

Maynard Smith J, 1976. Sexual selection and the handicap principle. J Theor Biol 57: 239-242.[ISI][Medline]

Maynard Smith J, 1978. The evolution of sex. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maynard Smith J, 1985. Sexual selection, handicaps and true fitness. J Theor Biol 115: 1-8.[ISI][Medline]

Medvedev LN, Pavlov SI, 1987. Mating behavior of the Chrysomelidae (Coleoptera). Entomol Obozr 4: 746-753.

Metcalf RL, 1994. Chemical ecology of Diabroticites. In: Novel aspects of the biology of Chrysomelidae (Jolivet PH, Cox ML, Petitpierre E, eds). Boston: Kluwer Academic; 153-169.

Metcalf RL, Metcalf RA, Rhodes AM, 1980. Cucurbitacins as kairomones for diabroticite beetles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 17: 3769-3772.

Metcalf RL, Rhodes AM, Metcalf RA, Ferguson J, Metcalf ER, Lu PY, 1982. Cucurbitacin contents and diabroticite (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) feeding upon Cucurbita spp. Environ Entomol 11: 931-937.

Michelsen A, 1963. Observation on the sexual behavior of some longicorn beetles, subfamily Lepturinae. Behaviour 22: 152-166.

Morgan TH, 1932. The scientific basis of evolution. New York: Norton.

Nielsen JK, Larsen M, Sorenson HJ, 1977. Cucurbitacins E and I in Iberis amara: feeding inhibitors for Phyllotreta nemorum. Phytochemistry (Oxf) 16: 1519-1522.

Parker GA, 1984. Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating strategies. In sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems (Smith RL, ed). Orlando: Florida Academic Press; 1-60.

Pliske TE, 1975. Attraction of Lepidoptera to plants containing pyrrolizidine alkaloids. Environ Entomol 4: 455-473.

Pomiankowski A, Møller AP, 1995. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc R Soc Lond B 260: 21-29.

Rodriguez V, 1994a. Fuentes de variación en la precedencia de espermatozoides de Chelymorpha alternans Boheman 1954 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Cassidinae) (Master's thesis). University of Costa Rica.

Rodriguez V, 1994b. Sexual behavior in Omaspides convexicollis Spaeth and O. bistriata Boheman (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Cassidinae), with notes on maternal care of eggs and young. Coleopt Bull 48: 140-144.

Roig-Alsina A, 1993. The evolution of the apoid endophallus, its phylogenetic implications, and functional significance of the genital capsule (Hymenoptera, Apoidea). Boll Zool 60: 169-183.

Rose RI, McCabe JM, 1973. Laboratory rearing techniques for the southern corn rootworm. J Econ Entomol 66: 398-400.

Ross KG, 1983. Laboratory studies of the mating biology of the eastern yellowjacket, Vespula maculifrons (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). J Kans Entomol Soc 56: 523-537.

Tallamy DW, Gorski PM, Burzon JK, 2000. The fate of male-derived cucurbitacins in spotted cucumber beetle females. J Chem Ecol 26: 413-427.

Tallamy DW, Gorski PM, Pesek J, 1997a. Intra- and interspecific genetic variation in the gustatory perception of cucurbitacins by diabroticite rootworms (Coleoptera; Chrysomelidae). Environ Entomol 26: 1364-1372.

Tallamy DW, Halaweish FT, 1993. The effects of age, prior exposure, sex, and reproductive activity on sensitivity to cucurbitacins in southern corn rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Environ Entomol 22: 925-932.

Tallamy DW, Krischik VA, 1989. Variation and function of cucurbitacins in Cucurbita: an examination of current hypotheses. Am Nat 133: 766-786.

Tallamy DW, Pesek JD, 1996. Carbon isotopic signatures of elytra reflect larval diet in luperine rootworms (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Environ Entomol 25: 1167-1172.

Tallamy DW, Stull J, Erhesman N, Mason CE, 1997b. Cucurbitacins as feeding and oviposition deterrents to insects. Environ Entomol 26: 678-688.

Tallamy DW, Whittington DP, Defurio F, Fontaine DA, Gorski PM, Gothro P, 1998. Sequestered cucurbitacins and pathogenicity of Metarhizium anisopliae (Moniliales: Moniliaceae) in spotted cucumber beetle eggs and larvae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Environ Entomol 27: 366-372.

Thornhill R, 1983. Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps. Am Nat 122: 765-788.[ISI]

Vahed K, 1998. The function of nuptial feeding in insects: a review of empirical studies. Biol Rev 73: 43-78.

van der Assem J, Werren JH, 1994. A comparison of the courtship and mating behavior of three species of Nasonia (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). J Insect Behav 7: 53-66.

Watt JM, Breyer-Brandwijk MG, 1962. The medicinal and poisonous plants of southern and eastern Africa, 2nd ed. Edinburgh: E&S Livingston.

Webster FM, 1895. On the probable origin, development and diffusion of North American species of the genus Diabrotica. J N Y Entomol Soc 3: 158-166.

Weislo WT, Minckley RL, Spangler HC, 1992. Pre-copulatory courtship behavior in a solitary bee, Nomia traingulifera Vachal (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Apidologie 23: 431-442.

Welch AM, Semlitsch RD, Gerhardt HC, 1998. Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280: 1928-1930.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

West-Eberhard MJ, 1969. The social biology of polistine wasps. Misc Publ Mus Zool Univ Mich 140: 1-101.

Wilcox JA, 1972a. Coleopterorum catalogus supplementa (Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae, Luperini: Aulacophorina, Diabroticina), Pars 78, Fasc. 2, 2nd ed. Gravenhage, the Netherlands: Dr. W. Junk.

Wilcox JA, 1972b. Coleopterorum catalogus supplementa (Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae, Luperini: Luperina), Pars 78, Fasc. 3, 2nd ed. Gravenhage, the Netherlands: Dr. W. Junk.

Wilkinson GS, Taper M, 1999. Evolution of genetic variation for condition dependent traits in stalk-eyed flies. Proc R Soc Lond B 266: 1685-1690.

Wojcik DP, 1969. Mating behavior of 8 stored-product beetles (Coleoptera: Dermestidae, Tenebrionidae, Cucujidae and Curculionidae). Fla Entomol 52: 171-197.


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]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract 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?