Premium
Variation in mate recognition specificities among four Callosobruchus seed beetles
Author(s) -
Shimomura Kenji,
Mimura Takanori,
Ishikawa Susumu,
Yajima Shunsuke,
Ohsawa Kanju
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
entomologia experimentalis et applicata
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.765
H-Index - 83
eISSN - 1570-7458
pISSN - 0013-8703
DOI - 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2010.00994.x
Subject(s) - callosobruchus maculatus , biology , callosobruchus chinensis , interspecific competition , sex pheromone , sympatric speciation , mating , reproductive isolation , zoology , competition (biology) , pheromone , botany , ecology , pest analysis , population , demography , sociology
Differentiation of mate recognition systems is one of the important steps for speciation in animals. For some insects, a contact sex pheromone present on the cuticular surface is indispensable in discriminating reproductive partners. In Callosobruchus species (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae), contact sex pheromones have been found in two species, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) and Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius). It was suggested, however, that these two species lacked the ability to discriminate their conspecific and/or heterosexual partners. To elucidate this inconsistency, we verified the existence of contact sex pheromones from two other species, Callosobruchus rhodesianus (Pic) and Callosobruchus analis (Fabricius). As a result, unlike C. chinensis and C. maculatus , the males of C. rhodesianus and C. analis were able to discriminate their heterosexual partners. Comparing cross‐copulation behavior, i.e., copulation behavior between two species, against these four species indicated that the mate recognition specificities were quite different. Males of C. rhodesianus and C. analis had highly species‐specific mating behavior, whereas males of C. chinensis and C. maculatus were much less specific. These results indicate that variation in mate recognition can arise even among congeneric species living in a sympatric environment, and this variation might have arisen during species differentiation. Based on our results in combination with previous reports on interspecific competition, we suggest that the observed asymmetric cross‐copulation behavior might be, at least partially, an adaptation for surviving interspecific competition.