Skip Navigation


Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on October 10, 2007
Behavioral Ecology 2008 19(1):1-8; doi:10.1093/beheco/arm094
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
19/1/1    most recent
arm094v1
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 arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kemp, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Kemp, D. J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Female mating biases for bright ultraviolet iridescence in the butterfly Eurema hecabe (Pieridae)

Darrell J. Kemp

School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, PO Box 6811, Cairns, Queensland 4870, Australia

Address correspondence to D.J. Kemp. E-mail: darrell.kemp{at}jcu.edu.au.


   Abstract

Exaggerated male-limited coloration is widespread among butterflies, yet convincing demonstrations of intraspecific mating preferences for signal brightness and/or chromaticity are relatively rare in this group. Here, I couple behavioral experiments involving manipulations of ambient light environments and male reflectance patterns with observation of wild mating patterns to investigate visual mating biases in the large grass yellow (Eurema hecabe). Males in this species possess exaggerated, limited-view ultraviolet (UV) iridescence across most of their dorsal wing surface that has putative sexual signaling function. In the first experiment, conducted in small (0.7–m3) cages, individuals were significantly less likely to copulate when the UV portion of natural ambient illumination (i.e., 300–400 nm) was strongly reduced. In 2 subsequent experiments, conducted under full-spectrum sunlight in small and large (5 x 6 x 4 m) cages, males with their UV signal artificially dulled by 25% consistently copulated with fewer, and smaller, females than sham-control individuals. Importantly, the manipulated levels of UV brightness in these experiments fall well within the naturally occurring bounds of variation in male UV reflectance. These findings therefore unanimously support the presence of a UV signal–based female bias. In apparent contrast, comparison of 161 in-copula and 188 free-flying males from a high-density field assemblage revealed that copulating males were significantly older and henceforth actually possessed (subtly) less UV bright wings. Copulating male UV brightness was, however, positively related to the size of their mate, which echoes the experimental findings and may represent a signature of mutual mate choice. I discuss these results in light of the full complexities of the butterfly mating system and the potential signaling value of iridescent coloration in butterflies and animals generally.

Key words: coloration, female mate choice, Lepidoptera, ornamentation, sexual selection, signaling, structural color.

Received 6 July 2007; revised 12 September 2007; accepted 12 September 2007.


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




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.