Journal of Ethology

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 151–159 | Cite as

Paternity success in ladybirds: function of mating interval and order

  • Ankita Dubey
  • Shashwat Singh
  • Omkar
  • Geetanjali Mishra


Multiple matings result in varying paternity share based on mating interval and order. Thus, assessing the effect of mating interval and order on patterns of sperm usage and paternity is crucial. We designed consecutive and delayed double-mating experiments to investigate paternity variation in ladybird, Menochilus sexmaculatus (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), using two distinct morphs of the species as phenotypic markers of paternity. The time to commence mating, copulation duration and reproductive output were recorded. The morphs of the offspring from the two setups were taken as a measure of paternity accumulated by the males. The time to commence mating decreased for the second mating in the consecutive mating treatment, while the reverse was observed in the delayed mating treatment. Consecutive double matings reduced the mating duration. Fecundity increased when second mating occurred after a few days, though percent egg viability remained unaffected. The second male accrued higher paternity (P2 = 0.61) than the first male (P1 = 0.39) in the consecutive mating treatment, while in the delayed mating treatment, the overall paternity share of the first 0.49 (P1) and last male was equal 0.51 (P2). Thus, our study revealed that both mating order and the time interval between successive matings regulate the male paternity share. This finding is reported for the first time in this ladybird species.


Mating order Morph Sperm displacement Sperm precedence Sperm mixing 



A. D. gratefully acknowledges the DST-INSPIRE fellowship (IF120365) awarded to her and S. S. acknowledges a BSR fellowship awarded by the University Grants Commission, New Delhi, India.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statement on the welfare of animals

All applicable international, national and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Supplementary material

10164_2018_546_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (60 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 60 kb)
10164_2018_546_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (310 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 309 kb)
10164_2018_546_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (303 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 302 kb)
10164_2018_546_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (300 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PDF 299 kb)
10164_2018_546_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (274 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (PDF 273 kb)
10164_2018_546_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (281 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (PDF 280 kb)
10164_2018_546_MOESM7_ESM.pdf (291 kb)
Supplementary material 7 (PDF 291 kb)


  1. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav 60:145–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Awad M, Laugier GJM, Loiseau A, Nedved O (2015) Unbalanced polyandry in the wild-caught ladybirds Harmonia axyridis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Appl Entomol Zoo 50:427–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birkhead TR (1995) Sperm competition: evolutionary causes and consequences. Rep Fertil Dev 7:755–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birkhead TR (1998) Cryptic female choice: criteria for establishing female sperm choice. Evolution 52:1212–1218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Birkhead TR (2000) Defining and demonstrating postcopulatory female choice-again. Evolution 54:1057–1060PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Birkhead TR, Hunter FM (1990) Mechanism of sperm competition. Trends Ecol Evol 5:48–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Birkhead TR, Moller AP (1992) Sperm competition in birds: evolutionary causes and consequences. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  9. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  10. Birkhead TR, Pizzari T (2002) Postcopulatory sexual selection. Nat Rev Genet 3:262–273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Birkhead TR, Vurke T, Zann R, Hunter FM, Krupa AP (1990) Extra-pair paternity and intraspecific brood parasitism in wild zebra finches Taeniopygia guttata, revealed by DNA finger printing. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:315–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bista M, Omkar (2015) Age dependent mate choice influences reproductive and progeny attributes in aphidophagous ladybird beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Eur J Entomol 112:648–657Google Scholar
  13. Boorman E, Parker GA (1976) Sperm (ejaculate) competition in Drosophila melanogaster, and reproductive value of females to males in relation to female age and mating status. Ecol Entomol 1:145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chaudhary DD, Mishra G, Omkar (2015) Prolonged mating in ladybird, Menochilus sexmaculatus: a mate guarding mechanism? J AsiaPac Entomol 18:453–458Google Scholar
  15. Chaudhary DD, Mishra G, Omkar (2016) Last male wins the egg fertilization fight: a case study in ladybird, Menochilus sexmaculatus. Behav Process 131:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Jong PW, Verhoog MD, Brakefield PM (1993) Sperm competition and melanic polymorphism in the 2-spot ladybird, Adalia bipunctata (Coleoptera, Coccinellidae). Heredity 70:172–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Jong PW, Brakefield PM, Geerinck BP (1998) The effect of female mating history on sperm precedence in two-spot ladybird, Adalia bipunctata (Coleoptera, Coccinellidae). Behav Ecol 9:559–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Drnevich JM, Hayes EF, Rutowski RL (2000) Sperm precedence, mating interval and novel mechanism of paternity bias in a beetle (Tenebrio molitor L.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48:447–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Drnevich JM, Papke RS, Rauser CL, Rutowski RL (2001) Material benefits from multiple mating in female mealworm beetles (Tenebrio molitor L.). J Insect Behav 14:215–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dubey A, Mishra G, Omkar (2016) Influence of temperature on reproductive biology and phenotype of a ladybird, Menochilus sexmaculatus (Fabricius) (Coleoptera:Coccinellidae). J Therm Biol 58:35–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press, N.J.Google Scholar
  22. Eberhard WG (2000) Criteria for demonstrating postcopulatory female choice. Evolution 54:1047–1050CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Gromko MH, Newport MEA, Kortier MG (1984) Sperm dependence of female receptivity to remating in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 38:1273–1282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Haddrill PR, Shuker DM, Amos W, Majerus MEN, Mayes S (2008) Female multiple mating in wild and laboratory populations of the two-spot ladybird, Adalia bipunctata. Mol Ecol 17:3189–3197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Halliday TR, Arnold SJ (1987) Multiple matings by females: a perspective from quantitative genetics. Anim Behav 35:939–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harvey IF, Parker GA (2000) ‘Sloppy’ sperm mixing and intraspecific variation in sperm precedence (P2) patterns. Proc R Soc Lond (B) Biol Sci 267:2537–2542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hodek I, Ceryngier P (2000) Sexual activity in Coccinellidae (Coleoptera): a review. Eur J Entomol 97:449–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hodek I, van Emden HF, Honek A (2012) Ecology and behaviour of the ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae). Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, p 600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kelly CD, Jennions MD (2011) Sexual selection and sperm quantity: meta-analyses of strategic ejaculation. Biol Rev 86:863–884CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kempenaers B, Foerster K, Questiau S, Robertson BC, Vermeirssen ELM (2000) Distinguishing between female sperm choice versus male sperm competition: a comment on Birkhead. Evolution 54:1050–1052CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Laugier GJM, Le Moguédec G, Tayeh A, Loiseau A, Osawa N, Estoup A, Facon B (2013) Increase in male reproductive success and female reproductive investment in invasive populations of the harlequin ladybird Harmonia axyridis. PLoS ONE 8(10):e77083. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Lewis SM, Austad SN (1990) Sources of intraspecific variation in sperm precedence in red flour beetles. Am Nat 135:351–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Michaud JP, Bista M, Mishra G, Omkar (2013) Sexual activity diminishes male virility in two Coccinella species: consequences for female fertility and progeny development. Bull Entomol Res 103:570–577CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Omkar (2004) Reproductive behaviour of two aphidophagous ladybird beetles, Cheilomenes sexmaculata and Coccinella transversalis. Entomol Sin 11:47–60Google Scholar
  35. Omkar, Afaq U (2013) Evaluation of Darwin’s fecundity advantage hypothesis in Parthenium beetle, Zygogramma bicolorata. Insect Sci 20:531–540CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Omkar, James BE (2005) Reproductive behaviour of an aphidophagous ladybeetle, Coccinella transversalis Fabricius. Int J Trop Insect Sci 25:96–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Omkar, Pervez A (2005) Mating behaviour of an aphidophagous ladybird beetle, Propylea dissecta (Mulsant). Insect Sci 12:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Omkar, Singh SK (2005) Influence of maternal age on reproductive performance of two aphidophagous ladybirds. J Appl Biosci 31(1):43–48Google Scholar
  39. Omkar, Srivastava S (2002) The reproductive behaviour of an aphidophagous ladybeetle, Coccinella septempunctata Linnaeus. Eur J Entomol 99:465–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Omkar, Mishra G, Singh SK (2006) Optimal number of matings of two aphidophagous ladybird beetle. Ecol Entomol 31:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Opp SB, Prokopy RJ (1986) Variation in laboratory oviposition by Rhagoletis pomonella (Diptera:Tephritidae) in relation to mating status. Ann Entomol Soc Am 79:705–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Parker GA (1970) Sperm competition and its evolutionary effect on copula duration in the fly Scatophaga stercoraria. J Insect Physiol 16:1301–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Parker GA (1998) Sperm competition and the evolution of ejaculates: towards a theory base. In: Birkhead TR, Møller AP (eds) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, London, pp 3–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pitnick S, Brown WD (2000) Criteria for demonstrating female sperm choice. Evolution 54:1052–1056CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Ransford MO (1997) Sperm competition in the 2-spot ladybird, Adalia bipunctata. Ph.D. thesis, University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Ridley M (1988) Mating frequency and fecundity in insects. Biol Rev 63:509–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ridley M (1989) The incidence of sperm displacement in insects: four conjectures, one corroboration. Biol J Linn Soc 38:349–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roderick GK, De Mendoza LG, Dively GP, Follett PA (2003) Sperm precedence in Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae): temporal variation assessed by neutral markers. Ann Entomol Soc Am 96:631–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Semyanov VP (1970) Biological properties of Adalia bipunctata L. (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in conditions of Leningrad region. Zashch Rast Vredit Bolez 127:105–112Google Scholar
  50. Simmons LW (2001) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  51. Simmons LW, Siva-Jothy MT (1993) Sperm competition in insects: mechanisms and the potential for selection. In: Birkhead TR, Moller AP (eds) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 341–434Google Scholar
  52. Smith RL (1984) Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. Squires ZE, Wong BBM, Norman MD, Stuart-Fox D (2015) Last male sperm precedence in a polygamous squid. Biol J Linn Soc. Google Scholar
  54. Srivastava S, Omkar (2005) Mate choice and reproductive success of two morphs of the seven spotted ladybird, Coccinella septempunctata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Eur J Entomol 102:189–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Telford SR, Jennions MD (1998) Establishing cryptic female choice in animals. Trends Ecol Evol 13:216–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Thornhill R (1983) Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpion fly Harpobittacus nigriceps. Am Nat 122:765–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thornhill R, Alcock J (1983) The evolution of insect mating systems. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, p 576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ueno H (1994) Intraspecific variation of P2 value in a coccinellid beetle, Harmonia axyridis. J Ethol 12:169–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vahed K (2003) Increases in egg production in multiply mated female bush crickets Leptophyes punctatissima are not due to substances in the nuptial gift. Ecol Entomol 28:124–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wada T, Takegaki T, Mori T, Natsukari Y (2010) Sperm removal, ejaculation and their behavioural interaction in male cuttlefish in response to female mating history. Anim Behav 79:613–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA (2002) Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol Evol 17:313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wegener BJ, Stuart-Fox DM, Norman MD, Wong BBM (2013) Strategic male mate choice minimizes ejaculate consumption. Behav Ecol 24:668–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wilson N, Tubman SC, Eady PE, Robertson GW (1997) Female genotype affects male success in sperm competition. Proc R Soc Lond (B) Biol Sci 264:1491–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Ethological Society and Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ankita Dubey
    • 1
  • Shashwat Singh
    • 1
  • Omkar
    • 1
  • Geetanjali Mishra
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Scholar, Ladybird Research Laboratory, Department of ZoologyUniversity of LucknowLucknowIndia

Personalised recommendations