Advertisement

Neotropical Entomology

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 25–37 | Cite as

Factors Influencing Mating Behavior and Success in the Red Palm Weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier (Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae)

  • M M Abdel-Azim
  • S A Aldosari
  • P ShuklaEmail author
Ecology, Behavior and Bionomics

Abstract

The effects of body size, age, feeding and mating status, conspecific volatiles from live adults, synthetic aggregation pheromone, and a pheromone synergist, ethyl acetate, on the mating behavior of red palm weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier, were investigated. To evaluate these factors, variables such as mating latency, frequency and duration, and refractory period were assessed. While both, body size and age, influenced the mating behavior, the latter showed a stronger effect. The large males recorded frequent and longer matings, whereas the young males outperformed the old weevils in all the studied variables. The difference in body size or age of females showed a limited effect. After 72 h without food, the males showed a significant decline in mating frequency and duration, and refractory period. Mating status showed comparatively stronger effects on mating variables. In the case of females, mating status emerged as the most important factor affecting four out of five variables. The volatiles from the males, grouped males and females, and synthetic aggregation pheromone both alone and in combination with ethyl acetate triggered mating initiation, propelled mating frequency, prolonged total mating duration, and reduced the refractory period. However, the presence of females or ethyl acetate alone was a weak mating stimulator.

Keywords

aggregation pheromone conspecific volatiles body size age starvation mating status 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank KSU – Deanship of Scientific Research, Research Chair Program, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia.

Funding Information

This research was supported by Grants-in-aid for Scientific Research No. 11-AGR1477-02, King Abdul Aziz City for Science and Technology – National Plan for Science, Technology and Innovation (KACST-NSTIP) (MAARIFAH), Saudi Arabia.

References

  1. Abdel-Azim MM, Batt AM, Okil AM, Haggag SM (2009) Influence of feeding with various concentrations of sugar cane solution on some biological aspects of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Oliv. (Curculionidae: Coleoptera). Egypt J Appl Sci 24:700–708Google Scholar
  2. Abdel-Azim MM, Vidyasagar PSPV, Al-Dosari SA, Mumtaz R (2012) Impact of mating frequency on fecundity, fertility and longevity of red palm weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier) (Coleoptera: Curuclionidae). J Agric Sci Technol A2:520–528Google Scholar
  3. Aldhafer HM, Alahmadi AZ, Alsuhaibani AM (1998) Biological studies on the red palm weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Oliv. (Coleoptera, Curculionidae) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. King Saud University, Agricultural Research Center. Res Bull 75:5–30Google Scholar
  4. Al-Nujiban AA, Aldosari SA, Al Suhaibani AM, Abdel-Azim MM, Ibrahim SMM, Shukla P (2015) Effect of date palm cultivar on fecundity and development of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus. Bull Insectol 68(2):199–206Google Scholar
  5. Andres JA, Cordero-Rivera A (2000) Copulation duration and fertilization success in a damselfly: an example of cryptic female choice? Anim Behav 59(4):695–703.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1372 Google Scholar
  6. Arnaud L, Haubruge E (1999) Mating behaviour and male mate choice in Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae). Behav 136(1):67–77.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156853999500677 Google Scholar
  7. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton.  https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400850600 Google Scholar
  8. Avalos JA, Soto A (2015) Study of chromatic attraction of the red palm weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus using bucket traps. Bull Insectol 68(1):83–90Google Scholar
  9. Avand-Faghih A (2004) Identification et application agronomique de synergistes végétaux de la phéromone du charançon Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier) 1790. These pour obtenir le titre de docteur de l’INA-PG, Institut National Agronomique Paris-Grignon et Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique FranceGoogle Scholar
  10. Bauerfeind SS, Fischer K (2005) Effects of food stress and density in different life stages on reproduction in a butterfly. Oikos 111(3):514–524.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13888.x Google Scholar
  11. Benelli G (2015) Should I fight or should I flight? How studying insect aggression can help integrated pest management. Pest Manag Sci 71(7):885–892.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3974 Google Scholar
  12. Birkinshaw LA, Smith RH (2001) Prostephanus truncatus mate choice on contact: does pheromone signaling by males affect their mating success? Entomol Exp Appl 98(3):345–351.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1570-7458.2001.00791.x Google Scholar
  13. Bista M, Omkar (2015) Age dependent mate choice influences reproductive and progeny attributes in aphidophagous ladybird beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Eur J Entomol 112(4):648–657Google Scholar
  14. Blanckenhorn WU, Mühlhäuser C, Morf C, Reusch T, Reuter M (2000) Female choice, female reluctance to mate and sexual selection on body size in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Ethology 106(7):577–593.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0310.2000.00573.x Google Scholar
  15. Cook DF (1988) Sexual selection in dung beetles. II. Female fecundity as an estimate of male reproductive success in relation to horn size, and alternative behavioral strategies in Onthophagus binodis (Scarabeidae: Onthophagini). Aust J Zool 36(5):521–532.  https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO9880521 Google Scholar
  16. Crean CS, Dunn DW, Day TH, Gilburn AS (2000) Female mate choice for large male size in several species of seaweed flies (Diptera: Coelopidae). Animal Behav 58:121–126Google Scholar
  17. Dickinson JL (1986) Prolonged mating in the milkweed leaf beetle Labidomera clivicollis clivicollis (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae): a test of the ‘sperm loading’ hypothesis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 18(5):331–338.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00299664 Google Scholar
  18. El-Sabea AMR, Faleiro JR, Abo-El-Saad MM (2009) The threat of red palm weevil Rhynchophorus ferrugineus to date plantations of the gulf region in the middle-east: an economic perspective. Outlooks Pest Manag 20(3):131–134.  https://doi.org/10.1564/20jun11 Google Scholar
  19. Fedina TY, Lewis SM (2006) Proximal traits and mechanisms for biasing paternity in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60(6):844–853.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-006-0228-7 Google Scholar
  20. French BW, Hammack L (2014) Male reproductive competition and components of female fitness in relation to body size in northern corn rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 107(1):279–287.  https://doi.org/10.1603/AN13153 Google Scholar
  21. French BW, Hammack L, Tallamy DW (2015) Mating success, longevity, and fertility of Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte (chrysomelidae: coleoptera) in relation to body size and cry3bb1-resistant and cry3bb1-susceptible genotypes. Insects 6(4):943–960.  https://doi.org/10.3390/insects6040943 Google Scholar
  22. Friberg U (2006) Male perception of female mating status: its effect on copulation duration, sperm defence and female fitness. Anim Behav 72(6):1259–1268.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.03.021 Google Scholar
  23. Ghosh CC (1912) Life-histories of Indian insects—III. The rhinoceros beetle (Oryctes rhinoceros) and the red or palm weevil (Rhynchophorus ferrugineus). Mem Dep Agric India 2(10):193–217Google Scholar
  24. Gould F (1991) Arthropod behavior and the efficacy of plant protectants. Annu Rev Entomol 36(1):305–330.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.36.010191.001513 Google Scholar
  25. Hagley EAC (1965) On the life history and habits of the palm weevil, Rhynchophorus palmarum. Ann Entomol Soc Am 58(1):22–28.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/58.1.22 Google Scholar
  26. Hanks LM, Millar JG, Paine TD (1996) Body size influences mating success of the eucalyptus longhorned borer (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). J Insect Behav 9(3):369–382.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02214016 Google Scholar
  27. Harvey-Samuel T, Ant T, Alphey L (2017) Towards the genetic control of invasive species. Biol Invasions 19(6):1683–1703.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1384-6 Google Scholar
  28. Jones TM, Elgar MA (2004) The role of male age, sperm age and mating history on fecundity and fertilization success in the hide beetle. Proc R Soc London B: Biol Sci 271(1545):1311–1318.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.2723 Google Scholar
  29. Kaakeh W (1998) The mating behaviour of the red palm weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Emir J Agric Sci 10(1):24–46.  https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.v10i1.5128 Google Scholar
  30. Labeyrie E, Blanckenhorn WU, Rahier M (2003) Mate choice and toxicity in two species of leaf beetles with different types of chemical defense. J Chem Ecol 29(7):1665–1680.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024283016219 Google Scholar
  31. Lebreton S, Grabe V, Omondi AB, Ignell R, Becher PG, Hansson BS, Sachse S, Witzgall P (2014) Love makes smell blind: mating suppresses pheromone attraction in Drosophila females via Or65a olfactory neurons. Sci Rep 4:7119Google Scholar
  32. Leftwich PT, Bolton M, Chapman T (2015) Evolutionary biology and genetic techniques for insect control. Evol Appl 9(1):212–230.  https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12280 Google Scholar
  33. Mclain DK, Boromisa RD (1987) Male choice, fighting ability, assortative mating and intensity of sexual selection in the milkweed longhorn beetle, Tetrapes tetraophthalmus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 20(4):239–246.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00292176 Google Scholar
  34. Milonas PG, Andow DA (2010) Virgin male age and mating success in Ostrinia nubilalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). Anim Behav 79(2):509–514.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.12.005 Google Scholar
  35. Nirula KK (1956) Investigations on the pests of coconut palm, part-IV. Rhynchophorus ferrugineus F. Indian Coconut J 9:229–247Google Scholar
  36. Omkar, Singh SK, Mishra G (2010) Parental age at mating affects reproductive attributes of the aphidophagous ladybird beetle, Coelophora saucia (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Eur J Entomol 107(3):341–347.  https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2010.043 Google Scholar
  37. Pervez AO, Omkar, Richmond AS (2004) The influence of age on reproductive performance of the predatory ladybird beetle, Propylaea dissecta. J Insect Sci 4:22Google Scholar
  38. Prabhu ST, Patil RS (2009) Studies on the biological aspects of red palm weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Oliv.) Karnataka J Agric Sci 22:732–733Google Scholar
  39. Savalli UM, Fox CW (1999) The effect of male size, age, and mating behavior on sexual selection in the seed beetle Callosobruchus maculatus. Ethol Ecol Evol 11(1):49–60.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08927014.1999.9522841 Google Scholar
  40. Scharf I, Filin I, Ovadia O (2009) A trade-off between growth and starvation endurance in a pit-building antlion. Oecologia 160(3):453–460.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-009-1316-y Google Scholar
  41. Silva WD, Mascarin GM, Romagnoli EM, Bento JMS (2012) Mating behavior of the coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). J Insect Behav 25(4):408–417.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10905-011-9314-4 Google Scholar
  42. Siva-Jothy MT, Stutt AD (2003) A matter of taste: direct detection of female mating status in the bedbug. Proc R Soc London, Ser B 270:679–652Google Scholar
  43. Tallamy DW, Powell BE, McClafferty JA (2002) Male traits under cryptic female choice in the spotted cucumber beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Behav Ecol 13(4):511–518.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/13.4.511 Google Scholar
  44. Thornhill H, Alcock J (1983) The evolution of insect mating systems. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.  https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674433960 Google Scholar
  45. Vanderbilt CF, Giblin-Davis RM, Weissling TJ (1998) Mating behavior and sexual response to aggregation pheromone of Rhynchophorus cruentatus (Curculionidae: Coleoptera). Fla Entomol 81(3):351–360.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3495925 Google Scholar
  46. Viado GBS, Bigornia AE (1949) A biological study of the Asiatic palm weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Oliv. (Curculionidae: Coleoptera). Philipp Agric 33:1–27Google Scholar
  47. Wattanapongsiri A (1966) A revision of the genera Rhynchophorus and Dynamis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Dep Agric Sci Bull, Bangkok, Thailand 1(1):1–328Google Scholar
  48. Xie J, De Clercq P, Zhang Y, Wu H, Pan C, Pang H (2015) Nutrition-dependent phenotypes affect sexual selection in a ladybird. Sci Rep 5(1):13111.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13111 Google Scholar
  49. Zada A, Soroker V, Harel M, Nakache J, Dunkelblum E (2002) Quantitative GC analysis of secondary alcohol pheromones: determination of release rate of red palm weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus, pheromone from lures. J Chem Ecol 28(11):2299–2306.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021057501459 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Date Palm Research, Dept of Plant Protection, College of Food and Agricultural SciencesKing Saud Univ RiyadhSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations