Abstract
Population density can play a vital role in determining investment in reproductive behaviours and morphologies of invertebrates. Males reared in high-density environments, where competition is high but difficulties in locating mates are low, may invest more in reproductive structures associated with sperm competition such as testes, at the expense of those traits associated with mate location, such as antennae. In species where females advertise for mates, such as most moths, a high-density environment may also lead to a reduction in pheromonal signalling (calling) length and frequency as a result of high mate abundance. While such responses have been shown at the phenotypically plastic level in moths, heritable evolutionary adaptations have seldom been tested, and studies of how population density influences pheromone signalling strategies are scarce. Here we use behavioural assays and scanning electron microscopic measurements to test whether larval population density influences, at the genetic level, the ability of males to locate females and male investment into antennal morphology, in addition to its effect on the frequency and duration of female calling. We used two replicated populations of the Indian meal moth Plodia interpunctella that had experimentally evolved under high or low population densities for 35 generations. We found no significant divergence in antennal morphology or mate acquisition behaviours between the two density populations. These findings suggest that although population density has the ability to create plastic changes in both morphological and behavioural traits, this factor alone is unlikely to be causing evolutionary change in male and female signalling in this species.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ambrogi BG, Fonseca MG, Coracini MDA et al (2008) Calling behaviour and male response towards sex pheromone of poplar moth Condylorrhiza vestigialis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). J Pest Sci 82:55–60. doi:10.1007/s10340-008-0219-8
Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Atwell A, Wagner WE (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
Barnes RFW (1982) Mate searching behaviour of elephant bulls in a semi-arid environment. Anim Behav 30:1217–1223. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(82)80214-5
Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-9. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
Bau J, Justus KA, Loudon C et al (2005) Electroantennographic resolution of pulsed pheromone plumes in two species of moths with bipectinate antennae. Chem Senses 30:771–780. doi:10.1093/chemse/bji069
Bonduriansky R (2007) The evolution of condition-dependent sexual dimorphism. Am Nat 169:9–19. doi:10.1086/510214
Brady UE, Smithwick EB (1968) Production and release of sex attractant by the female Indian-meal moth, Plodia interpunctella. Ann Entomol Soc Am 61:1260–1265
Brent CS (2010) Stage-specific effects of population density on the development and fertility of the western tarnished plant bug, Lygus hesperus. J Insect Sci 10:49. doi:10.1673/031.010.4901
Burks CS, Kuenen LPS (2012) Effect of mating disruption and lure load on the number of Plodia interpunctella (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) males captured in pheromone traps. J Stored Prod Res 49:189–195. doi:10.1016/j.jspr.2012.03.001
Callahan PS (1975) Insect antennae with special reference to the mechanism of scent detection and the evolution of the sensilla. Int J Insect Morphol Embryol 4:381–430. doi:10.1016/0020-7322(75)90038-0
Cardé RT, Baker TC (1984) Sexual communication with pheromones. In: Bell WJ, Cardé RT (eds) Chemical ecology of insects. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 355–377
Chapman RF (1982) Chemoreception: the significance of receptor numbers. Adv Insect Physiol 16:247–356. doi:10.1016/S0065-2806(08)60155-1
Dicke M, Sabelis MW (1992) Costs and benefits of chemical information conveyance: proximate and ultimate factors. In: Roitberg RD, Isman MB (eds) Insect chemical ecology: an evolutionary approach. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 122–155
Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223
Engqvist L, Cordes N, Schwenniger J et al (2014) Female remating behavior in a lekking moth. Ethology 120:662–671. doi:10.1111/eth.12237
Gage MJG (1995) Continuous variation in reproductive strategy as an adaptive response to population density in the moth Plodia interpunctella. Proc R Soc B 261:25–30. doi:10.1098/rspb.1995.0112
Greenfield MD (1981) Moth sex pheromones: an evolutionary perspective. Fla Entomol 64:4–17. doi:10.2307/3494597
Harari AR, Zahavi T, Thiéry D (2011) Fitness cost of pheromone production in signaling female moths. Evolution 65:1572–1582. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01252.x
Harari AR, Zahavi T, Steinitz H (2015) Female detection of the synthetic sex pheromone contributes to the efficacy of mating disruption of the European grapevine moth, Lobesia botrana. Pest Manag Sci 71:316–322. doi:10.1002/ps.3830
He Y, Miyata T (1997) Variations in sperm number in relation to larval crowding and spermatophore size in the armyworm, Pseudaletia separata. Ecol Entomol 22:41–46. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2311.1997.00030.x
Holwell GI, Barry KL, Herberstein ME (2007) Mate location, antennal morphology, and ecology in two praying mantids (Insecta: Mantodea). Biol J Linn Soc 91:307–313. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2007.00788.x
Johansson BG, Jones TM (2007) The role of chemical communication in mate choice. Biol Rev 82:265–289. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00009.x
Kasumovic MM, Brooks RC (2011) It’s all who you know: the evolution of socially cued anticipatory plasticity as a mating strategy. Q Rev Biol 86:181–197. doi:10.1086/661119
Kasumovic MM, Bruce MJ, Herberstein ME et al (2009) Evidence for developmental plasticity in response to demographic variation in nature. Ecology 90:2287–2296. doi:10.1890/08-1540.1
Kokko H, Rankin DJ (2006) Lonely hearts or sex in the city? Density-dependent effects in mating systems. Philos Trans R Soc B 361:319–334. doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1784
Lewis Z, Sasaki H, Miyatake T (2011) Sex starved: do resource-limited males ensure fertilization success at the expense of precopulatory mating success? Anim Behav 81:579–583. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.12.001
Lewis Z, Lizé A, Wedell N (2013) The interplay between different stages of reproduction in males of the moth Plodia interpunctella. Anim Behav 86:917–922. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.08.006
Mankin RW, Mayer MS (1984) The insect antenna is not a molecular sieve. Experientia 40:1251–1252. doi:10.1007/BF01946658
McNamara KB, Elgar MA, Jones TM (2010) Adult responses to larval population size in the almond moth, Cadra cautella. Ethology 116:39–46. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2009.01714.x
Peters TM, Barbosa P (1977) Influence of population density on size, fecundity, and developmental rate of insects in culture. Ann Rev Entomol 22:431–450. doi:10.1146/annurev.en.22.010177.002243
R Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org/
Rutowksi RL (1982) Mate choice and lepidopteran mating behaviour. Fla Entomol 65:72–82. doi:10.2307/3494146
Schneider D (1964) Insect antennae. Annu Rev Entomol 9:103–122. doi:10.1146/annurev.en.09.010164.000535
Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW (2012) NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9:671–675. doi:10.1038/nmeth.2089
Sheehan MJ, Tibbetts EA (2011) Condition dependence and the origins of elevated fluctuating asymmetry in quality signals. Behav Ecol 22:1166–1172. doi:10.1093/beheco/arr101
Shields VD, Hildebrand JG (2001) Recent advances in insect olfaction, specifically regarding the morphology and sensory physiology of antennal sensilla of the female sphinx moth Manduca sexta. Microsc Res Tech 55:307–329. doi:10.1002/jemt.1180
Simmons LW (2015) Sexual signalling by females: do unmated females increase their signalling effort? Biol Lett 11:20150298. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2015.0298
Steinbrecht RA (1996) Structure and function of insect olfactory sensilla. In: CIBA foundation symposium, vol 200, pp 158–177. doi:10.1002/9780470514948.ch13
Stelinski L, Holdcraft R, Rodriguez-Saona C (2014) Female moth calling and flight behavior are altered hours following pheromone autodetection: possible implications for practical management with mating disruption. Insects 5:459–473. doi:10.3390/insects5020459
Svensson M (1996) Sexual selection in moths: the role of chemical communication. Biol Rev 71:113–135. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1996.tb00743.x
Symonds MRE, Johnson TL, Elgar MA (2012) Pheromone production, male abundance, body size, and the evolution of elaborate antennae in moths. Ecol Evol 2:227–246. doi:10.1002/ece3.81
Umbers KDL, Symonds MRE, Kokko H (2015) The mothematics of female pheromone signaling: strategies for aging virgins. Am Nat 185:417–432. doi:10.1086/679614
Wyatt TD (2010) Pheromones and signature mixtures: defining species-wide signals and variable cues for identity in both invertebrates and vertebrates. J Comp Physiol A 196:685–700. doi:10.1007/s00359-010-0564-y
Zavodska R, Fexova S, von Wowern G et al (2012) Is the sex communication of two pyralid moths, Plodia interpunctella and Ephestia kuehniella, under circadian clock regulation? J Biol Rhythms 27:206–216. doi:10.1177/0748730412440689
Acknowledgments
We thank Craig Sherman and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. We also thank Cuong Huynh, Khanh Tran, Anthony Somers and Nick Porch for technical advice and assistance with microscopy. K.R.A. and M.R.E.S. were supported by funding from Deakin University. K.B.M. was supported by the Australian Research Council (DP110101163).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ashman, K.R., McNamara, K.B. & Symonds, M.R.E. Experimental evolution reveals that population density does not affect moth signalling behaviour and antennal morphology. Evol Ecol 30, 1009–1021 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-016-9857-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-016-9857-0