American Journal of BioScience
Volume 2, Issue 4, July 2014, Pages: 157-164
Received: May 21, 2014;
Accepted: Jun. 27, 2014;
Published: Jul. 30, 2014
Views 2478 Downloads 104
Vijay Kumar B. K., Drosophila Stock Center, Department of Studies in Zoology, University of Mysore, Manasagangotri, Mysore –560006, Karnataka, India
M. S. Krishna, Drosophila Stock Center, Department of Studies in Zoology, University of Mysore, Manasagangotri, Mysore –560006, Karnataka, India
In the present study experimental out bred population of Drosophila nasuta used, has been originated from progenies of 50 isolated female lines collected at Chamundi hill at Mysore, India. It was found that males of D. nasuta discriminated females on the basis of their age and prefers to mate more frequently with younger of the two competing females. Although middle aged females mated faster and copulated longer compared to young and old aged females. Males showed grater courtship activities such as tapping, scissoring, vibration, liking to middle aged female compared to young or old aged females. Middle aged females showed least rejection responses such as ignoring, extruding, and decamping to courting male than young or old aged females. Young aged females laid significantly greater number of eggs and produced more progenies than middle and old aged females. Further young aged females had greater number of ovarioles than those of middle and old aged females. Thus these studies in D. nasuta suggest that female age has significant effect on male mate preference.
Vijay Kumar B. K.,
M. S. Krishna,
Evidence of Male Mate Choice for Female Age in Drosophila Nasuta, American Journal of BioScience.
Vol. 2, No. 4,
2014, pp. 157-164.
M. Milinski. The economics of sequential mate choice in sticklebacks. In LA Dugatkin, ed. Model systems in behavioral ecology: integrating conceptual, theoretical and empirical approaches. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, pp. 245-264. 2001.
R. Bonduriansky . The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol.Rev.76: 305- 339. 2001.
PG Byrne, WR Rice. Evidence for adaptive male mate choice in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. RSoc. Lond.Ser. B 273: 917-922. 2006.
IL. Jones and FM Hunter. Mutual sexual selection in a monogamous seabird. Nature (Lond.) 362: 238-239. 1993.
T. Amundsen and E Forsgren.. “ Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish”. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98: 13155-13160. 2001
N. Burley. Parental investment, mate choice and mate quality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 74: 3476-3479. 1977.
G.A. Parker. Arms races in evolution – an ESS to the opponent-independent costs game. J. Theor. Biol. 101:619-648. 1983.
Owens IPF, DBA Thompson. Sex differences, sex ratios and sex roles. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 258: 93-99. 1994.
Johnstone RA and JD Reynolds, JC Deutsch. Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 50:1382-1391. 1996.
H. Kokko and P Monaghan. Predicting the direct i on of sexual selection. Ecol. Lett. 4: 159-165. 2001.
K.A. Judge, R Brooks. Chorus participation by male bull frogs, Rana catesbeiana: a test of the energetic constraint hypothesis. Anim.Behav.62:849-861. 2001.
D.A. Dewsbury. Ejaculate cost and mate choice. Am. Nat. 119: 601-610. 1982.
A. Galvani, RA Johnst one. Sperm allocation in an uncertain world. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 44: 161-168. 1998
L. Engqvist, KP Sauer. Strategic male mating effort and cryptic male choice in a scorpion fly. Proc. R.Soc. B. 268: 729-735. 2000.
H. Kokko, RA Johnstone. Why is mutual selection in a monogamous seabird? Nature 362: 238-239. 2002.
TD. Avent, TAR Price, N Wedell. “ Age based female preference in the fruit fly Drosophila pseudoobscura”. Anim. Behav.75: 1413-1421. 2008.
K. Somashekar and M.S Krishna. Male age influence on female mating success in Drosophila bipectinata. ZoolStud. 2010.
M. Andersson. Sexual selection Princeton, New jersey: Princeton Univ. Press. 1994..
M. Katvala. A Kaitala. Male choice for current egg fecundity in a polyandrous egg carrying bug. Anim. Behav. 62:133137. 2001.
T. Amundsen, Why are female birds ornamented? Trends Ecol. Evol. 15: 149-155. 2000.
SF.Chenoweth, MW Blows . Signal trait sexual dimorphism and mutual sexual selection in Drosophila serrata. Evolution 57: 2326-2334. 2003 .
N.R. Lebas, LR Hockham, MG Ritchien. Nonlinear and correlation sexual selection on ‘honest’ female ornamentation, Proc. R.Soc. Lond. Ser. B 270: 2159-2165. 2003.
SF.Chenoweth, P Dought y, H Kokko. Cannon directional male mating preferences facilitate honest female ornamentation? Ecol. Lett. 9:179-184. 2006.
M.R. Servedio, R Lande. Population genetic models of male and mutual mate choice. Evolution 60: 674-685. 2006.
J. Delcour. A rapid and efficient method of egg collecting. Drosoph. Inform. Serv. 44: 133-134. 1969
El ens A, JM Watti aux. Di rect observati on of sexual isolation. Drosoph. Inf. Serv. 39: 118-119. 1964.
S.N. Hegde , M.S. Krishna, Size-assortative mating in Drosophila malerkotliana. Anim. Behav. 54: 419-426. 1997.
Madegowda Prathiba And Siddaiah Krishna, Greater meting success of middle-aged Females of D.anansae,Zoological studies 49(6) 806-815. 2010
AJ Bateman. Intra sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2: 349-368. 1948.
P.A. Gowaty, R Steinichen, WW Anderson. Indiscriminate female and choosy males: within - and between-species variation in Drosophila. Evolution 57: 2037-2045. 2003.
H.T.Spieth, Mating behaviour within the genus Drosophila (Diptera). Bull. Am. Mus.Na. Hi st . 99:395-474. 1952.
A.J. Moore and PJ Moore. Balancing sexual select i on through opposing mate choice and mate competition. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 266: 711-716. 1999.
A. Manning. The effects of artificial selection for mating speed in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim. Behav. 9: 82-92. 1961.
A. Manning. Drosophila and the evolution of behaviour. In JD Carthy, CL Duddington, eds. Viewpoints in biology 4. London: Butterworths, pp. 125-169. 1965.
N. Svetec. J F Ferveur. Social experience and pheromonal perception can change male-male interaction in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Exp. Biol. 208: 891-898. 2005.
H.T. Speith. Evolutionary implications of mating behavior of the species of Antopocerus (Drosophilidae) in Hawaii; studies in genetics. Univ. Tex. Publ. 4: 319-333. 1968.
H.T. Spieth, J.M Ringo. Mating behaviour and sexual isolation in Drosophila. In M Ashburner, ML Carson, JN Thompson, eds. The genetics and biology of Drosophila. Vol.3c. London: Academic Press, pp. 223-284. 1983
Noor MAF. Environmental effects on male courtship in Drosophila pseudoobscura. J. Insect Behav. 10: 305-312. 1997.
S.N. Hegde, N B Krishnamurthy. Studies on mating behavior in the Drosophila bipectinata complex. Aust. J. Zool. 27: 421-431. 1979.
L K Miler and R Brooks, The effects of genotype, age and social environment on male ornamentation, mating behavior and attractiveness, evolution 2005 nov 59 (11) 2414-25.
S. Fitzpatrick, A Berglund, G Rosenqvist. Ornamentals or offspring: costs to reproductive success restrict sexual selection processes. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 55: 251-260. 1995.
E. Branquart, JL Hemptinne. Development of ovaries, and allometry of reproductive traits and fecundity of Episyrphus bal teatus (Di ptera: Syrphi dae). Eur.J. Entomol. 97: 165-170. 2000.
Robertson FW. Studies of quantitative inheritance. XI. Genetic and environment correlation between body size and egg production in D. melanogaster. J. Genet. 55:428-443. 1957.
R. Trivers. Parental investment and sexual selection. In B Campbell, ed. Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871-1971. Chicago, IL: Aldine Press, pp. 139-179. 1972.