Mate-guarding success depends on male investment in a butterfly.

Ádám Gór, Zsolt Lang, Kata Pásztor, Viktor Szigeti, Flóra Vajna, János Kis
Author Information
  1. Ádám Gór: Doctoral School of Veterinary Science University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest Budapest Hungary. ORCID
  2. Zsolt Lang: Department of Biostatistics University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest Budapest Hungary. ORCID
  3. Kata Pásztor: Doctoral School of Biological Sciences Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences Gödöllő Hungary. ORCID
  4. Viktor Szigeti: Lendület Ecosystem Services Research Group Institute of Ecology and Botany, Centre for Ecological Research, ELKH (Eötvös Lóránd Research Network) Vácrátót Hungary. ORCID
  5. Flóra Vajna: Lendület Ecosystem Services Research Group Institute of Ecology and Botany, Centre for Ecological Research, ELKH (Eötvös Lóránd Research Network) Vácrátót Hungary. ORCID
  6. János Kis: Department of Zoology University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest Budapest Hungary. ORCID

Abstract

Males of many insects, including butterflies, produce mate-guarding devices, such as mating plugs, to prolong guarding and prevent future female matings in the male's absence. In a few butterflies, large external mate-guarding devices, that is, sphragides, occur. Gór et al. (, 160, 2023 and 515-557) found conspicuously large size and morphological variation of mate-guarding devices within a single population of the potentially polyandrous Clouded Apollo (, L.) butterfly. They termed the externally visible male-produced devices as Copulatory opening APpendices (CAP) consisting of small devices, termed small CAPs and the much larger shield (i.e. sphragis). Our aim was to reveal CAP replacement dynamics within females during their lifetime and to understand how male investment into small CAPs or shields was (i) related to CAP persistence on the female, that is securing paternity, (ii) associated with female quality, measured as size and (iii) with actual adult sex ratio. We investigated a univoltine Clouded Apollo population to estimate CAP replacement risks, using multistate survival models, in an extensive observational study through 6 years based on mark-recapture. Shields were the most frequent mate-guarding devices and were more persistent than small CAPs, often lasting for life, excluding future matings. Thus, most females bearing a shield were deprived of postcopulatory female choice, and the genetic variance in their offspring could be reduced compared to those bearing small CAPs, thus mating more often. The ratio of shields to all CAPs gradually decreased towards the end of the flight period. Males were more prone to produce a shield when mating females with wider thoraces and when the ratio of males (i.e. competition) was higher in the population. To our best knowledge, this is the first quantitative study to investigate potential factors on which male investment in mate-guarding devices may depend, and how the variation in these devices impacts CAP persistence on females.

Keywords

References

  1. Folia Primatol (Basel). 2009;80(4):264-74 [PMID: 19864918]
  2. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2001 Aug;76(3):305-39 [PMID: 11569787]
  3. Exp Gerontol. 2006 Jan;41(1):93-7 [PMID: 16297586]
  4. Trends Ecol Evol. 2017 May;32(5):368-382 [PMID: 28318651]
  5. Front Zool. 2010 Nov 02;7:28 [PMID: 21044286]
  6. Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Sep 22;270(1527):1965-70 [PMID: 14561311]
  7. J Anim Ecol. 2008 Jul;77(4):746-56 [PMID: 18479341]
  8. Nat Methods. 2012 Jul;9(7):671-5 [PMID: 22930834]
  9. Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Apr 22;267(1445):807-11 [PMID: 10819151]
  10. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2000 Feb;75(1):21-64 [PMID: 10740892]
  11. Am Nat. 2011 Feb;177(2):167-76 [PMID: 21460553]
  12. Nat Commun. 2021 Jun 8;12(1):3420 [PMID: 34103535]
  13. Science. 1998 Aug 14;281(5379):996-8 [PMID: 9703516]
  14. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Apr 27;96(9):5083-8 [PMID: 10220422]
  15. Ecol Evol. 2023 Sep 17;13(9):e10533 [PMID: 37727777]
  16. Ecol Evol. 2022 Dec 29;12(12):e9668 [PMID: 36619713]
  17. Stat Med. 2007 May 20;26(11):2389-430 [PMID: 17031868]
  18. Behaviour. 1975;55(1-2):1-14 [PMID: 1191211]
  19. Oecologia. 1981 Sep;50(3):320-324 [PMID: 28309048]
  20. J Insect Physiol. 2005 Dec;51(12):1340-5 [PMID: 16198367]
  21. Evolution. 1966 Dec;20(4):580-586 [PMID: 28562912]
  22. Proc Biol Sci. 2008 Jul 7;275(1642):1517-24 [PMID: 18364315]
  23. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Nov 3;117(44):27465-27473 [PMID: 33077605]
  24. Nature. 2002 Jan 3;415(6867):71-3 [PMID: 11780118]
  25. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2021 Dec;96(6):2461-2475 [PMID: 34128582]
  26. Zookeys. 2017 Aug 29;(694):41-70 [PMID: 29133999]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0devicesmate-guardingCAPsmallCAPsmatingfemalefemalespopulationshieldmaleinvestmentratioMalesbutterfliesproducefuturematingslargesizevariationwithinCloudedApollobutterflytermedCopulatoryopeningiereplacementshieldspersistencemultistatestudyoftenbearingmanyinsectsincludingplugsprolongguardingpreventmale'sabsenceexternalsphragidesoccurGóretal1602023515-557foundconspicuouslymorphologicalsinglepotentiallypolyandrousLexternallyvisiblemale-producedAPpendicesconsistingmuchlargersphragisaimrevealdynamicslifetimeunderstandrelatedsecuringpaternityiiassociatedqualitymeasurediiiactualadultsexinvestigatedunivoltineestimaterisksusingsurvivalmodelsextensiveobservational6 yearsbasedmark-recaptureShieldsfrequentpersistentlastinglifeexcludingThusdeprivedpostcopulatorychoicegeneticvarianceoffspringreducedcomparedthusgraduallydecreasedtowardsendflightperiodpronewiderthoracesmalescompetitionhigherbestknowledgefirstquantitativeinvestigatepotentialfactorsmaydependimpactsMate-guardingsuccessdependsAPpendixditrysiaeventhistorysystemmodellingtime‐seriesanalysis

Similar Articles

Cited By (2)