Male morphology and dishonest signalling in a fig wasp

Despite theoretical predictions, dishonest signalling has rarely been observed in aggressive interactions. We present evidence of such signalling in the nonpollinating. g wasp Philotrypesis sp. A ex Ficus rubiginosa. First, morphometric data indicated that an alternative 'atypical' male morph (17.8% of individuals) exists that tends to be larger in body size and has longer mandibles for a given body size than other 'typical' males. Second, behavioural observations suggested that males use mandible gape width (which depends on mandible length) as a cue to assess opponents before fights and retreat without escalating if they are unlikely to win, and, probably because their greater mandible gape width causes more opponents to retreat without escalating, that atypical males engaged in fewer fights than typical males for a given body size but had higher mating success. Third, atypical males were less likely to win fights than typical males of similar mandible length relative to opponents. In addition, we found that atypical males incur more injuries (greater receiver-dependent signal costs) than typical males of similar body size relative to rivals. We discuss the implications of our findings for future work on dishonest signalling. (C) 2009 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Fighting strategies in two species of fig wasp

Although theory exists concerning the types of strategies that should be used in contests over resources, empirical work explicitly testing its predictions is relatively rare. We investigated male fighting strategies in two nonpollinating. g wasp species associated with Ficus rubiginosa figs. In Sycoscapter sp. A, males did not assess each other before or during fights over mating opportunities. Instead,fights continued until the loser reached an energetic cost threshold that was positively correlated with its body size (fighting ability) and retreated. In Philotrypesis sp. B, pre fight assessment was indicated, with males attacking competitively inferior rivals to remove them from the competitor pool ( they then continued to do so until they reached a cost threshold that was again positively correlated with body size). Using data on species ecology, we discuss our findings with respect to theory on when different fighting strategies should evolve. We argue that the type of strategy used by a. g wasp species is determined by its relative benefits in terms of inclusive fitness. (c) 2008 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Fighting in fig wasps: do males avoid killing brothers or do they never meet them?

1. In many fig wasp species, armoured wingless males regularly engage in lethal fights for access to females inside figs, which act as discrete mating patches. 2. Kin selection generally opposes killing brothers, because their reproductive success provides indirect genetic benefits (inclusive fitness). However, siblicide may be avoided if (i) brothers do not occur in the same figs, or (ii) males avoid fighting brothers in the same fig. Alternatively, (iii) siblicide may occur because intense mate competition between brothers at the local scale overcomes kin selection effects, or (iv) males do not recognise kin. 3. A fig may also contain wasps from other closely related species and it is not known if males also fight with these individuals. 4. Nine microsatellite loci were used in the first genetic analysis of fighting in fig wasps. We assigned species and sibling identities to males and tested alternative fighting scenarios for three Sycoscapter wasp species in figs of Ficus rubiginosa. 5. Approximately 60% of figs contained males frommore than one Sycoscapter species and approximately 80% of fights were between conspecifics, but a surprising 20% were between heterospecific males. 6.Within species, fewfigs contained brothers, suggesting that females typically lay one son per fig. Overall, most males do not compete with brothers and all fights observed were between unrelated males. Key words:Competition, fighting, genetics, kin selection, microsatellites, relatedness.