| Literature DB >> 31185872 |
Alima Qureshi1, Andrew Aldersley1, Brian Hollis2, Alongkot Ponlawat3, Lauren J Cator1.
Abstract
Aedes aegypti is an important disease vector and a major target of reproductive control efforts. We manipulated the opportunity for sexual selection in populations of Ae. aegypti by controlling the number of males competing for a single female. Populations exposed to higher levels of male competition rapidly evolved higher male competitive mating success relative to populations evolved in the absence of competition, with an evolutionary response visible after only five generations. We also detected correlated evolution in other important mating and life-history traits, such as acoustic signalling, fecundity and body size. Our results indicate that there is ample segregating variation for determinants of male mating competitiveness in wild populations and that increased male mating success trades-off with other important life-history traits. The mating conditions imposed on laboratory-reared mosquitoes are likely a significant determinant of male mating success in populations destined for release.Entities:
Keywords: Aedes aegypti; experimental evolution; male mosquito mating behaviour; mating success; reproductive control; sexual selection
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31185872 PMCID: PMC6571471 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2019.0591
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Biol Sci ISSN: 0962-8452 Impact factor: 5.349
Figure 1.Overview of experiments conducted on selected populations. F0–F5 are the generations of the experimental evolution regime (these generated the HMC and NMC replicate populations), C1–C5 are the crosses that resulted in each generation. The inset shows the detailed procedure of the first cross (C1) which initiated the evolved populations.
Figure 2.The effect of mating regime on male mating performance. (a) Male mating success in competition with the unselected (U) line. Sample sizes, HMC-1 = 57, HMC-2 = 30, HMC-3 = 60, NMC-1 = 61, NMC-2 = 60, NMC-3 = 60. (b) Proportion of mating attempts in isolated pairs containing a harmonic convergence event. (c) Proportion of pairs in isolated pair mating experiments in which the first mating attempt was successful. Sample sizes for isolated pairs, HMC-1 = 39, HMC-2 = 20, HMC-3 = 41, NMC-1 = 41, NMC-2 = 42, NMC-3 = 41, error bars represent ±1 s.e. (Online version in colour.)
Figure 3.The effect of mating regime on female fecundity and male and female body size. (a) The mean number of eggs produced by females mating with unselected males in female choice assays. Sample sizes, HMC = 28 (HMC-1 = 16, HMC-3 = 12), NMC = 28 (NMC-1 = 12, NMC-2 = 4, NMC-3 = 12), U = 29 (U1 = 11, U2 = 9, U3 = 9). (b) The effect of mating regime on female body size. Samples sizes, HMC = 35 (HMC-1 = 21, HMC-3 = 14), NMC = 81 (NMC-1 = 24, NMC-2 = 31, NMC-3 = 26), U = 39 (U1 = 11, U2 = 16, U3 = 12). (c) The effect of mating regime on male body size. Sample sizes HMC = 76 (HMC-1 = 36, HMC-2 = 14, HMC-3 = 26), NMC = 68 (NMC-1 = 27, NMC-2 = 18, NMC-3 = 23), U = 157 (U1 = 43, U2 = 49, U3 = 65). All error bars represent ±1 s.e. (Online version in colour.)
Immature survival and sex ratios from mating regime and U populations. We report the mean ± 1 s.e.
| mating regime | replicate trays | proportion of emerged adults that were female | proportion of first instar larvae that became adults |
|---|---|---|---|
| U | 8 | 0.47 ± 0.01 | 0.82 ± 0.01 |
| HMC | 5 | 0.40 ± 0.02a | 0.71 ± 0.09 |
| NMC | 5 | 0.45 ± 0.02 | 0.65 ± 0.07 |
aSignificant difference between the observed female : male ratio and that expected with a 1 : 1 female : male ratio.