4.5 Article

Trade-off between fitness components in males of the polygynous butterfly Callophrys xami (Lycaenidae):: the effect of multiple mating on longevity

Journal

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY AND SOCIOBIOLOGY
Volume 48, Issue 6, Pages 458-462

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s002650000261

Keywords

longevity; male investment; mating cost; multiple mating; spermatophore

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The differential costs of mating paid by males and females influence the nature and strength of sexual selection. In butterflies, males invest a relatively large amount of time and resources in each mating, but male survival costs of mating have not been demonstrated. I present the results of experiments designed to measure the effect of different aspects of mating on male longevity in the polygynous butterfly Callophrys xami. In experiment 1, I compared the longevity of pairs of males that produced similar amounts of spermatophore, but that mated at different rates, a different numbers of times, and that produced spermatophores at different rates, and found that the longevity of low-mating-rate males was not different from that of high-mating-rate males. In experiment 2, the longevity of virgin males was not significantly different from that of multiply mated males. In experiment 3, I used resource-limited males resulting from experimental food limitation of last-instar larvae; resource-limited virgin males lived significantly more days than resource-limited multiply mated males. Since ecological costs of mating (e.g., disease transmission, predation risk) were excluded in the experiment, diminished male longevity was a product of physiological costs of sexual interactions. These results suggest that the cost of ejaculate production is an important cause of longevity reduction when there are resource limitations; however, the role of other possible physiological costs of mating in longevity reduction is still unknown.

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