The opportunity for and intensity of sexual selection in a seed bug depend on host plant dispersion

REFERENCES

• Aldrich JR, Oliver JE, Taghizadeh T, Ferreira JTB, Liewwehr D. 1999. Pheromones and colonization: reassessment of the milkweed bug migration model (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae: Lygaeinae). Chemoecology. 9:63–71. doi:10.1007/s000490050035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson MB. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Andersson P, Löfstedt C, Hambäck PA. 2013. Insect density-plant density relationships: a modified view of insect responses to resource concentrations. Oecologia. 173:1333–1344. doi:10.1007/s00442-013-2737-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold SJ. 1983. Performance surfaces and adaptive landscapes. Integr Comp Biol. 43:367–375. doi:10.1093/icb/43.3.367
   Google Scholar
• Atwell A, Wagner WE Jr. 2014. Female mate choice plasticity is affected by the interaction between male density and female age in a field cricket. Anim Behav. 98:177–183. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.10.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baena ML, Macίas-Ordóñez R. 2012. Phenology of scramble polygyny in a wild population of chrysomelid beetles: the opportunity for and the strength of sexual selection. PLoS ONE. 7:e38315. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038315
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bengtsson JM, Chinta SP, Wolde-Hawariat Y, Negsh M, Seyoum E, Hansson BS, Schlyter F, Schulz S, Hillbur Y. 2010. Male-based mating and aggregation in the sorghum chafer, Pachnoda interrupta. J Chem Ecol. 36:768–777. doi:10.1007/s10886-010-9814-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bleu J, Bessa-Gomes C, Laloi D. 2012. Evolution of female choosiness and mating frequency: effects of mating cost, density, and sex ratio. Anim Behav. 83:131–136. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.10.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonduriansky R, Brooks RJ. 1999. Male anlter flies (Protopiophila litigata; Diptera: Piophilidae) are more selective than females in mate choice. Can J Zool. 76:1277–1285. doi:10.1139/z98-069
   Google Scholar
• Bonsignore CP, Jones TM. 2014. Aggregation and mating success of Capnodies tenebrionis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Insect Sci. 21:203–212. doi:10.1111/1744-7917.12035
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowyer RT, McCullough DR, Rachlow JL, Ciuti S, Whiting JC. 2020. Evolution of ungulate mating systems: integrating social and environmental factors. Ecol Evol. 10:5160–5178. doi:10.1002/ece3.6246
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brashares JS, Arcese P. 2002. Role of foliage, habitat, and predation in the behavioural plasticity of a small African antelope. J Anim Ecol. 71:626–638. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00633.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burdfield-Steel ER, Shuker DM. 2014. The evolutionary ecology of the Lygaeidae. Evol Ecol. 4:2278–2301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmona-Isunza MC, Küpper C, Serrano-Meneses MJ, Székely T. 2015. Courtship behavior differs between monogamous and polygamous plovers. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 69:2035–2042. doi:10.1007/s00265-015-2014-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrasco D, Larsson M, Anderson P. 2015. Insect host plant selection in complex environments. Curr Opinion Insect Sci. 8:1–7. doi:10.1016/j.cois.2015.01.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Čelik T. 2012. Adult demography, spatial distribution and movements of Zerynthia polyxena (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae) in a dense network of permanent habitats. Eur J Entomol. 109:217–227. doi:10.14411/eje.2012.028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chew FS, Courtney SP. 1991. Plant apparency and evolutionary escape from insect herbivory. Am Nat. 138:729–750. doi:10.1086/285246
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christy JH, Salmon M. 1984. Ecology and evolution of mating systems of fiddler crabs (genus Uca). Biol Rev. 59:483–509. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1984.tb00412.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clutton-Brock TH. 1988. Introduction. In: Clutton-Brock TH, editor. Reproductive success. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press; p. 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Clutton-Brock TH. 1989. Mammalian mating systems. Proc R Soc Lond B. 236:339–372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clutton-Brock TH. 2007. Sexual selection in males and females. Science. 318:1882–1885. doi:10.1126/science.1133311
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cotton S, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A. 2004. Condition dependence of sexual ornament size and variation in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni (Diptera: Diopsidae). Evolution. 58:1038–1046. doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb00437.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Gaudemar B. 1998. Sexual selection and breeding patterns: insights from salmonids (Salmonidae). Acta Biotheoretica. 46:235–251. doi:10.1023/A:1001737227076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards AL. 1985. Multiple regression and the analysis of variance and covariance. New York (NY): WH Freeman & Co.
   Google Scholar
• Emlen ST, Oring LW. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science. 197:215–223. doi:10.1126/science.327542
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falconer DS. 1981. Introduction to quantitative genetics. London (UK): Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Fei LY, Hai X, Wang Z, Yan A, Liu B, Bi Y. 2015. Integration of visual and olfactory cues in host plant identification by the Asian longhorned beetle, Anoplophora glabripennis (Motschulsky) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). PLoS ONE. 10:e0142752.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finch S, Collier RH. 2000. Host-plant selection by insects – a theory based on ‘appropriate/inappropriate landings’ by pest insects on cruciferous plants. Entomol Exp Appl. 96:91–102. doi:10.1046/j.1570-7458.2000.00684.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fourcade Y, Öckinger E. 2017. Host plant density and patch isolation drive occupancy and abundance at a butterfly’s northern range margin. Ecol Evol. 7:331–345. doi:10.1002/ece3.2597
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler-Finn KD, Rodriguez RL. 2011. Experience-mediated plasticity in mate preferences: mating assurance in a variable environment. Evolution. 66:459–468. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01446.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gasciogne J, Beree L, Gregory S, Courchamp F. 2009. Dangerously few liaisons: a review of mate-finding Allee effects. Pop Ecol. 51:355–372. doi:10.1007/s10144-009-0146-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Härdling R, Gosden T, Aguilée R. 2008. Male mating constraints affect mutual mate choice: prudent male courting and sperm-limited females. Am Nat. 172:259–271. doi:10.1086/589452
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harmon JP, Hayden A, Andow DA. 2008. Absence makes the heart grow fonder: isolation enhances the frequency of mating in Coleomegilla maculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). J Insect Behav. 21:495–504. doi:10.1007/s10905-008-9145-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartmann T, Ober D. 2008. Defense by pyrrolizidine alkaloids: developed by plants and recruited by insects. In: Schaller A, editor. Induced plant resistance to herbivory. Berlin (Germany): Springer; p. 213–231.
   Google Scholar
• Hasenbank M, Hartley S. 2015. Weaker resource diffusion effect at coarser spatial scales observed for egg distribution of cabbage white butterflies. Oecologia. 177:423–430. doi:10.1007/s00442-014-3103-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heike P. 2002. Population differences in female resource abundance, adult sex ratio, and male mating success in Dendrobates pumilio. Behav Ecol. 13:175–185. doi:10.1093/beheco/13.2.175
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubbell SP, Johnson LK. 1987. Environmental variance in lifetime mating success, mate choice, and sexual selection. Am Nat. 130:91–112. doi:10.1086/284700
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irschick DJ, Herrel A, Vanhooydonck B, Van Damme R. 2007. A functional approach to sexual selection. Funct Ecol. 21:621–626. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01281.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaenike J. 1978. On optimal oviposition behavior in phytophagous insets. Theor Pop Biol. 14:350–356. doi:10.1016/0040-5809(78)90012-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson DDP, Kays R, Blackwell PG, McDonald DW. 2002. Does the resource dispersion hypothesis explain group living? TREE. 17:563–570.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly CD. 2008. The interrelationships between resource-holding potential, resource value and reproductive success in territorial males: how much variation can we explain? Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 62:855–871. doi:10.1007/s00265-007-0518-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly CD. 2018. The causes and evolutionary consequences of variation in female mate choice in insects: the effects of individual state, genotypes and environments. Curr Opinion Insect Sci. 27:1–8. doi:10.1016/j.cois.2018.01.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knell RJ. 2009. Population density and the evolution of male aggression. J Zool. 278:83–90. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2009.00566.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knell RJ, Fuhauf N, Norris KA. 1999. Conditional expression of a sexually selected trait in the stalk-eyed fly Diasemopsis aethiopica. Ecol Entomol. 24:323–328. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2311.1999.00200.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Komers PE, Brotherton PNM. 1997. Female space use is the best predictor of monogamy in mammals. Proc R Soc Lond B. 264:1261–1270. doi:10.1098/rspb.1997.0174
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krupke CH, Jones VP, Brunner JF. 2011. Evaluating aggregation membership and copulatory success in the stink bug, Euschistus conspersus, using field and laboratory experiments. J Insect Sci. 11:2. doi:10.1673/031.011.0102
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lailvaux SP, Hathway J, Pomfret J, Knell RJ. 2005. Horn size predicts physical performance in the beetle Euonicticellus intermedius (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Funct Ecol. 19:632–639. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2005.01024.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lande R, Arnold SJ. 1983. The measurement of sexual selection on correlated characters. Evolution. 37:1210–1226. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1983.tb00236.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landolt PJ, Phillips TW. 1997. Host plant influences on sex pheromone behavior of phytophagous insects. Annu Rev Entomol. 42:371–391. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.42.1.371
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langel D, Ober D, Pelser PB. 2011. The evolution of pyrrolizidine alkaloid biosynthesis and diversity in the Senecioneae. Phytochem Rev. 10:3–74. doi:10.1007/s11101-010-9184-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lappin AK, Husak JF. 2005. Weapon performance, not size, determines mating success and potential reproductive output in the collard lizard (Crotaphytus collaris). Am Nat. 166:426–436. doi:10.1086/432564
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehmann GUC. 2007. Density-dependent plasticity of sequential mate choice in a bushcricket (Orthoptera: Tettigonidae). Aust J Zool. 55:123–130. doi:10.1071/ZO06105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leisler B, Winkler H, Wink M, Murphy M. 2002. Evolution of breeding systems in acrocephaline warblers. Auk. 119:379–390. doi:10.1093/auk/119.2.379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macel M. 2011. Attract and deter: a dual role for pyrrolizidine alkaloids in plant-insect interactions. Phytochem Rev. 10:75–82. doi:10.1007/s11101-010-9181-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macel M, Vrieling K. 2003. Pyrrolizidine alkaloids as oviposition stimulants for the cinnabar moth, Tyria jacobaeae. J Chem Ecol. 29:1435–1446. doi:10.1023/A:1024269621284
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacManes MD. 2013. On the accurate description of social and genetic mating systems. PeerJ. Preprints. 1:e10v1. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.10v1
   Google Scholar
• Maher CR, Burger JR. 2011. Intraspecific variation in space use, group size, and mating systems of caviomorph rodents. J Mammal. 92:54–64. doi:10.1644/09-MAMM-S-317.1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinez G, Soler R, Dicke M. 2013. Behavioral ecology of oviposition-site selection in herbivorous true bugs. Adv Study Behav. 45:175–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayhew PJ. 1997. Adaptive patterns of host-plant selection by phytophagous insects. Oikos. 79:417–428. doi:10.2307/3546884
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCauley DE, Wade MJ. 1978. Female choice and the mating structure of a natural population of the soldier beetle, Chauliognathus pennsylvanicus. Evolution. 32:180–184. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1978.tb04631.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald DW. 1983. The ecology of carnivore social behavior. Nature. 301:379–384. doi:10.1038/301379a0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLain DK. 1981. Resource partitioning by three species of hemipteran herbivores on the basis of host plant density. Oecologia. 48:414–417. doi:10.1007/BF00346503
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLain DK. 1984. Host plant density and territorial behavior of the seed bug, Neacoryphus bicrucis (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 14:181–187. doi:10.1007/BF00299617
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLain DK. 1986a. Null models and the intensity of sexual selection. Evol Theory. 8:49–52.
   Google Scholar
• McLain DK. 1986b. Resource patchiness and the intensity of sexual selection in a resource-defending polygynous insect species. Oikos. 47:19–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLain DK. 1991. Components of variance in male lifetime copulatory and reproductive success in a seed bug. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 29:121–126. doi:10.1007/BF00166486
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLain DK. 1992. Population density and the intensity of sexual selection on body length in spatially or temporally restricted natural populations of a seed bug. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 30:347–356. doi:10.1007/BF00170602
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLain DK, Boromisa RD. 1987. Interrelationship between male choice, fighting ability, assortative mating and intensity of sexual selection for the milkweed longhorn beetle, Tetraopes tetaophthalmus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 20:239–246. doi:10.1007/BF00292176
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLain DK, Burnette LB, Deeds DA. 1993. Within season variation in the intensity of sexual selection on body size in the bug Margus obscurator (Hemiptera Coreidae). Ethol Ecol Evol. 5:75–86. doi:10.1080/08927014.1993.9523115
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLain DK, Logue J, Pratt AE, McBrayer LD. 2015a. Claw pinching force of sand fiddler crabs in relation to activity and the lunar cycle. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 471:190–197. doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2015.06.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLain DK, Pratt AE. 1999. The cost of sexual coercion and heterospecific sexual harassment on the fecundity of a host-specific, seed-eating insect. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 46:164–170. doi:10.1007/s002650050606
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLain DK, Pratt AE, Shure DJ. 2015b. Size dependence of courtship effort may promote male choice and strong assortative mating in soldier beetles. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 69:883–994. doi:10.1007/s00265-015-1900-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLain DK, Shure DJ. 1985. Host plant toxins and unpalatability of Neacoryphus bicrucis. Ecol Entomol. 10:291–298. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2311.1985.tb00726.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLain DK, Shure DJ. 1987. Pseudo competition: interspecific displacement of insect species through misdirected courtship. Oikos. 49:291–296. doi:10.2307/3565763
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller TEX. 2007. Demographic models reveal the shape of density dependence for a specialist insect herbivore on variable host plants. J Anim Ecol. 76(4):722–729. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01239.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milne M, Walter GH, Milne JR. 2002. Mating aggregations and mating success in the flower thrips, Frankliniella schultzei (Thysanoptera: Thripidae), and a possible role for pheromones. J Insect Behav. 15:351–368. doi:10.1023/A:1016265109231
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyatake T. 2002. Multi-male mating aggregation in Notobitus meleagris (Hemiptera: Coreidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am. 95:340–344. doi:10.1603/0013-8746(2002)095[0340:MMMAIN]2.0.CO;2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nerlekar AN. 2018. Seasonally dependent relationship between insect herbivores and host plant density in Jatropha nana, a tropical perennial herb. Biol Open. 7:bio035071. doi:10.1242/bio.035071
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peckarsky B, McIntosh A, Caudill C, Dahl J. 2002. Swarming and mating behavior of a mayfly Baetis bicaudatus suggest stabilizing selection for male body size. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 51:530–537. doi:10.1007/s00265-002-0471-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratt AE, Shure DJ, McLain DK, Banderet K. 2017. Male and female soldier beetles relax choice for mate quality across daily courtship periods. Ethology. 123:175–187. doi:10.1111/eth.12585
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price GR. 1970. Selection and covariance. Nature. 227:520–521. doi:10.1038/227520a0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ralph CP. 1977. Effect of host plant density on populations of a specialized, seed-sucking bug, Oncopeltus fasciatus. Ecology. 58:799–809. doi:10.2307/1936215
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodrίguez RL, Rebar D, Fowler-Finn KD. 2013. The evolution and evolutionary consequences of social plasticity in mate preferences. Anim Behav. 85:1041–1047. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.01.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohlfs M, Hoffmeister TS. 2004. Spatial aggregation across ephemeral resource patches in insect communities: an adaptive response to natural enemies? Oecologia. 140:654–661. doi:10.1007/s00442-004-1629-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheirs J, De Bruyn L. 2002. Integrating optimal foraging and optimal oviposition theory in plant-insect research. Oikos. 96(1):187–191. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.960121.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz BB. 1985. Levene’s test for relative variation. Syst Zool. 34:449–456. doi:10.2307/2413207
   Google Scholar
• Shelly TE, Greenfield MD, Downum KR. 1987. Variation in host plant quality: influences on the mating system of a desert grasshopper. Anim Behav. 35:1200–1209. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(87)80177-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slobodchikoff CN. 1984. Resources and the evolution of social behavior. In: Price PW, et al., editors. A new ecology: novel approaches to interactive systems. New York (NY): John Wiley and Sons; p. 227–251.
   Google Scholar
• Snell-Rood EC. 2013. An overview of the evolutionary causes and consequences of behavioural plasticity. Anim Behav. 85:1004–1011. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.12.031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streatfeild CA, Mabry KE, Keane B, Crist TO, Solomon NG. 2011. Intraspecific variability in the social and genetic mating systems of prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster. Anim Behav. 82:1387–1397. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.09.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strong DR, Lawton JH, Southwood R. 1984. Insects on plants. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sutherland WJ. 1985. Can chance produce a sex-difference in variance in mating success and account for Bateman’s data? Anim Behav. 33:1349–1352. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(85)80197-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutherland WJ. 1987. Random and deterministic components of variance in mating success. In: Bradbury JW, Andersson MB, editors. Sexual selection: testing the alternatives. New York (NY): John Wiley; p. 209–220.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson JN. 1988. Evolutionary ecology of the relationship between oviposition preference and performance of offspring in phytophagous insects. Entomol Exp Appl. 47:3–14. doi:10.1111/j.1570-7458.1988.tb02275.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thornhill R, Alcock J. 1983. The evolution of insect mating systems. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tiple AD, Padwad SV, Dapporto L, Dennis RLH. 2010. Male mate location behavior and encounter sites in a community of tropical butterflies: taxonomic and site associations and distinctions. J Biosci. 35:629–646. doi:10.1007/s12038-010-0071-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Travis SE, Slobodchikoff CN, Keim P. 1995. Ecological and demographic effects on intraspecific variation in the social system of prairie dogs. Ecology. 76:1794–1803. doi:10.2307/1940711
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trigo JR. 2011. Effects of pyrrolizidine alkaloids through different trophic levels. Phytochem Rev. 10:83–98. doi:10.1007/s11101-010-9191-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venner S, Bernstein C, Dray S, Bel-Venner M-C. 2010. Make love not war: when should less competitive males choose low-quality but defendable females? Am Nat. 175:650–661. doi:10.1086/652432
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wade MJ, Arnold SJ. 1980. The intensity of sexual selection in relation to male sexual behavior, female choice, and sperm precedence. Anim Behav. 28:446–461. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(80)80052-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wetzel WC. 2014. Density-dependent recruitment structures a heterogeneous distribution of herbivores among host plants. Ecology. 95:2894–2903. doi:10.1890/14-0190.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu H, Turlings TCJ. 2018. Plant volatiles as mate-finding cues for insects. Trends Plant Sci. 23:100–111. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2017.11.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar