4.5 Article

Effects of male nutrition on sperm storage and remating behavior in wild and laboratory Anastrepha fraterculus (Diptera: Tephritidae) females

Journal

JOURNAL OF INSECT PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 57, Issue 11, Pages 1501-1509

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2011.08.004

Keywords

Diet; Sperm storage; Remating; Refractory period; Tephritidae

Funding

  1. FAO/IAEA [11894, 14111]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Male physiological condition can affect his ability to modulate female sexual receptivity. Thus, studying this aspect can have biological and practical implications. Here, we examine how male nutritional status affected the amount of sperm stored, remating rate and refractory period of the tephritid fruit fly Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann) females. Both wild and laboratory flies were evaluated. We also examine female sperm storage patterns. Experiments were carried out by manipulating male adult diet and exposing these males to virgin females. Females mated with differently treated males were either dissected to count the amount of sperm stored or exposed to virgin males to determine remating rate and the length of the refractory period. We found that male nutritional status affected the amount of the sperm stored and the renewal of sexual receptivity in wild flies. For laboratory flies, male nutritional status affected the length of the refractory period but not the amount of sperm stored by females. In addition, we report that the ventral receptacle is not an important organ of sperm storage in this species. We conclude that male nutritional condition influences the ability to modulate female sexual receptivity, possibly through a combination of the quantity and quality of the ejaculate. From an applied perspective, providing males with an enriched diet will likely result in increased efficacy of the sterile insect technique. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available