Female receptivity in butterflies and moths

Abstract

SUMMARY Female receptivity in butterflies and moths is influenced by a multitude of factors that vary between virgin and mated females, and is often affected by the quality and persistence of courting males. Mated females of polyandrous species frequently display a period of non-receptivity following mating, often resulting from factors transferred by the male at mating. Some of these compounds have a transient effect (e.g. anti-aphrodisiacs and mating plugs),whereas others induce long-term suppression of receptivity (i.e. sperm and seminal factors). Sperm appear to generally induce long-term suppression of female receptivity in both butterflies and moths. In some species, production of non-fertile sperm may function to fill the female's sperm storage organ and switch off receptivity, although whether this is a general phenomenon across the Lepidoptera has not yet been examined. Examination of seminal fluids suppressing female receptivity in moths suggests that more than one factor is implicated, but frequently the transfer or stimulation of Juvenile Hormone production is involved. Surprisingly, potential seminal factors influencing female receptivity in butterflies remain largely unexplored. In this review, I summarize the various factors that are known to affect female receptivity in the Lepidoptera to date, and briefly compare the function and similarity of the Pheromone Suppressing Peptide (HezPSP) in moths to that of the Sex Peptide in Drosophila melanogaster (DrmSP). The exciting possibility that seminal peptides in the Lepidoptera and Diptera (e.g. Drosophila melanogaster) may have shared functionality is discussed.

Nuptial gift consumption influences female remating in a scorpionfly: male or female control of mating rate?

“…stretch reception in the bursa copulatrix (Sugawara 1979)], the number of sperm stored by females at mating (e.g. Cook and Gage 1995;Cook and Wedell 1999), or possibly the amount of seminal fluids received by females (reviewed in Wedell 2005). Similarly, a few studies of crickets and bushcrickets (Orthoptera, Ensifera) have experimentally demonstrated that the duration of nuptial feeding, and hence gift size, influences female remating interval (Wedell and Arak 1989;Simmons and Gwynne 1991;Johnson et al 1999;Sakaluk et al 2006), whereas some studies found no effect of nuptial feeding on female remating behaviour (Brown 1997;Fleischman and Sakaluk 2004).…”

“…Malederived substances which affect female receptivity are common in insects (see e.g. Chapman et al 1998;Wedell 2005 for examples in Diptera and Lepidoptera). Thus, there is the possibility that, disguised in nuptial gifts, males may transfer substances, which regulate female remating behaviour (see also Leopold 1976;Chen 1984).…”

Introduction. Sexual conflict: a new paradigm?

“…Future development of genomic and post-genomic techniques will hopefully allow detailed examination of gene function to be expanded to nonmodel species such as moths. This may shed some light on why seminal factors have been found to be both very rapidly evolving and yet conserved across very distantly related groups (Wedell 2005). Simply finding rapid evolution is not evidence for sexual conflict, future studies need to demonstrate a relationship between costs to females and the rate of evolution of potentially manipulative substances such as Acps.…”

Do male-derived substances affect female mating receptivity and release of sex pheromone by females of the sorghum plant bug Stenotus rubrovittatus (Hemiptera: Miridae)?

“…Such physiological changes are attributable not only to physical stimuli, such as penis insertion and stretch reception in the bursa copulatrix, but also other factors. During copulation, males transfer not only sperm, but also seminal fluid, spermatophores (including sperm cells), and mating plugs to females through genitalia (Chen, 1984;Eberhard, 1996;Simmons, 2001;Wedell, 2005). It is well-known for several insects that male-derived substances reduce female mating receptivity (e.g., Chen et al, 1988;Himuro & Fujisaki, 2008;Yamane et al, 2008).…”