Skip to main content
Log in

Oviposition site guarding by male walnut flies and its possible consequences for mating success

  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Field studies showed that male Rhagoletis juglandis and R. boycei flies guard egg-laying punctures (and the eggs within) on host walnut (Juglans major) fruit and defend those sites from conspecific and heterospecific males. In field experiments with artificially punctured fruit,as well as field observations on unmanipulated fruit, males were consistently more likely to be sighted and stayed longer on damaged fruit than on undamaged fruit. On artificially punctured fruit, they consistently spent more time in the vicinity of a puncture than expected by chance alone. Males together on damaged fruit were more likely to engage in contests over those fruit than males together on undamaged fruit. Copulations were consistently more frequent for either species on damaged than undamaged fruit, both in observations of unmanipulated fruit and in artificial puncture experiments. Analyses which controlled for the longer male residence time on damaged fruit suggested strongly that copulations were consistently achieved at higher per capita rates on damaged than on undamaged fruit, indicating that puncture-guarding functions to increase access to females. An exception to the pattern in male mating success was noted at a site where both species used host fruit on the same trees. In this case, R. juglandis males were only slightly more common on punctured fruit than on control fruit and male success in copulation did not differ significantly between the two types of fruit. This anomalous result was apparently due to an almost absolute advantage enjoyed by R. boycei males in on-fruit contests with R. juglandis males. A likely basis for improvements in mating success associated with puncture guarding was a propensity for females to deposit eggs into existing punctures. Both in observations of unmanipulated fruit and in artificial puncture experiments, females consistently attempted oviposition more often in damaged than undamaged fruit. In artificial puncture experiments, both species at both sites deposited most clutches in damaged fruit. Mating generally took place as females initiated oviposition. The possible functions of puncture use by females as well as alternative functions of puncture guarding by males are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alcock J (1987) The effects of experimental manipulation of resources on the behavior of two calopterygid damselflies that exhibit resource-defense polygyny. Can J Zool 65:2475–2482

    Google Scholar 

  • Averill AL, Prokopy RJ (1982a) Oviposition-deterring fruit marking pheromone in Rhagoletis basiola. Fla Entomol 64:221–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Averill AL, Prokopy RJ (1982b) Oviposition-deterring fruit marking pheromone in Rhagoletis zephyria. J G Entomol Soc 17:315–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Averill AL, Prokopy RJ (1987) Intraspecific competition in the tephritid fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, Ecology 68:878–886

    Google Scholar 

  • Averill AL, Prokopy RJ (1989) Host-marking pheromones. In: Robinson AS, Hooper G (eds) World crop pests, vol 3A. Fruit flies, their biology, natural enemies and control. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 207–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Back EA, Pemberton CE (1915) Susceptibility of citrous fruits to the attack of the Mediterranean fruit fly. J Agric Res 3:311–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgia G (1982) Experimental changes in resource structure and male density: size related differences in mating success among male Scatophaga stercoraria. Evolution 36:307–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyce AM (1934) Bionomics of the walnut husk fly, Rhagoletis completa. Hilgardia 8:363–579

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks FE (1921) Walnut husk-maggot. US Dept Agric Bull 992:18

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush GL (1966) The taxonomy, cytology and evolution of the genus Rhagoletis in North America. Bull Mus Comp Zool Harvard Univ 134:431–562

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresson ET (1929) A revision of the North American species of fruit flies of the genus Rhagoletis (Diptera: Trypetidae). Trans Am Entomol Soc 55:401–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenfield MD, Shelly TE, Downum KR (1987) Variation in host-plant quality: implications for territoriality in a desert grasshopper. Ecology 68:28–838

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenfield MD, Shelly TE, Gonzalez-Coloma A (1989) Territory selection in a desert grasshopper: the maximization of conversion efficiency on a chemically defended shrub. J Anim Ecol 58:761–771

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaenike J (1992) Host specialization in phytophagous insects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 21:243–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Lalonde RG, Mangel M Seasonal effects on superparasitism by Rhagoletis completa. J Anim Ecol, in press

  • Lenteren JC van (1981) Host discrimination in parasitoids. In: Nordlund DA, Jones RL, Lewis WJ (eds) Semiochemicals, their role in pest control. Wiley, New York, pp 153–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller RG (1981) Simultaneous statistical inference. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Opp SB, Ziegner J, Bui N, Prokopy RJ (1990) Factors influencing estimates of sperm competition in Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Ann Entomol Soc Am 83:521–526

    Google Scholar 

  • Papaj DR (1993) Use and avoidance of occupied hosts as a dynamic process in tephritid flies. In: Bernays E (ed) CRC handbook on insect-plant interactions, vol 5. CRC Press, New York, pp 25–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Papaj DR, Hendrichs J, Katsoyannos BI (1989) Use of fruit wounds in oviposition by the Mediterranean fruit fly. Entomol Exp Appl 53:03–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Papaj DR, Averill AL, Prokopy RJ, Wong TTY (1992) Host-marking pheromone and use of previously established oviposition sites by the Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae). J Insect Behav 5:583–598

    Google Scholar 

  • Price PW (1970) Biology of and host exploitation by Pleolophus indistinctus (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 63:1502–1509

    Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy RJ (1972) Evidence for a pheromone deterring repeated oviposition in apple maggot flies. Environ Entomol 1:326–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy RJ (1975) Oviposition-deterring fruit marking pheromone in Rhagoletis fausta. Environ Entomol 4:298–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy RJ (1976) Feeding, mating and oviposition activities of Rhagoletis fausta flies in nature. Ann Entomol Soc Am 69:899–904

    Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy RJ (1981) Epideictic pheromones that influence spacing in patterns of phytophagous insects. In: Nordlund DA, Jones RL, Lewis WJ (eds) Semiochemicals, their role in pest control. Wiley, New York, pp 181–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy RJ, Bush GL (1973) Mating behavior of Rhagoletis pomonella (Diptera: Tephritidae) IV Courtship. Can Entomol 105:873–891

    Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy RJ, Bennett EW, Bush GL (1971) Mating behavior in Rhagoletis pomonella (Diptera: Tephritidae). Can Entomol 103:1405–1409

    Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy RJ, Reissig WH, Moericke V (1976) Marking pheromones deterring repeated oviposition in Rhagoletis flies. Entomol Exp Appl 20:170–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelly TE, Greenfield MD (1991) Dominions and desert clickers (Orthoptera: Acrididae): influences of resources and male signaling on female settlement patterns. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28:133–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvestri F (1914) Report of an expedition to Africa in search of the natural enemies of fruit flies (Trypaneidae), with descriptions, observations and biological notes. Hawaii Bd Agric For Div Entomol Bull 3

  • Singer MC, Vasco D, Parmesan C, Thomas CD, Ng D (1992) Distinguishing between ‘preference’ and ‘motivation’ in food choice: an example from insect oviposition. Anim Behav 44:463–471

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivinski J, Burk T (1989) Behaviour: Reproductive and mating behavior. In: Robinson AS, Hooper G (eds) World crop pests, vol 3A. Fruit flies, their biology, natural enemies and control. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 343–351

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith DC, Prokopy RJ (1981) Mating behavior of Rhagoletis mendax (Diptera: Tephritidae) flies in nature. Ann Entomol Soc Am 74:462–466

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith RL, Larsen E (1993) Egg attendance and brooding by males of the giant water bug Lethocerus medius (Guerin) in the field (Heteroptera: Belostomatidae). J Insect Behav 6:93–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry. Freeman, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill R, Alcock J (1983) The evolution of insect mating systems. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Waage JK (1973) Reproductive behavior and its relation to territoriality in Calopteryx maculata (Beauvois) (Odonata: Calopterygidae). Behaviour 47:240–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Waage JK (1987) Choice and utilization of oviposition sites by the damselfly, Calopteryx maculata (Odonata: Calopterygidae). I. Influence of site size and the presence of other females. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 20:439–466

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittingham LA, Taylor PD, Robertson RJ (1992) Confidence of paternity and paternal care. Am Nat 139:1115–1125

    Google Scholar 

  • Xia X (1992) Uncertainty of paternity can select against paternal care. Am Nat 139:1126–1129

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeh DW, Smith RL (1985) Paternal investment by terrestrial arthropods. Am Zool 25:785–805

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Papaj, D.R. Oviposition site guarding by male walnut flies and its possible consequences for mating success. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 34, 187–195 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00167743

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00167743

Key words

Navigation