Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
Australian Journal of Zoology Australian Journal of Zoology Society
Evolutionary, molecular and comparative zoology
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Copulation, mating system and sexual dimorphism in an Australian millipede, Cladethosoma clarum

Melissah Rowe
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4501, USA. Email: melissah.rowe@asu.edu

Australian Journal of Zoology 58(2) 127-132 https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO10011
Submitted: 17 February 2010  Accepted: 7 June 2010   Published: 28 June 2010

Abstract

Investigations of millipede mating dynamics have focussed primarily on Old World or North American species. In contrast, data for the diverse and abundant polydesmid millipedes of Australia are lacking. Here I examine copulation, behaviour and sexual dimorphism in an Australian millipede, Cladethosoma clarum. In this species, copula position is best described as ‘in parallel’. Both females and males mated with two or more individuals of the opposite sex, and average copulation duration was 4.7 min. Behavioural observations revealed differences between the sexes in patterns of behaviour. Specifically, females devoted most of their time to feeding, whereas males were more mobile and were observed walking more often than females. The sexes also exhibited marked sexual dimorphism in that females exhibited greater body width and body mass compared with males, whereas males had longer legs relative to females. In millipedes, longer legs allow an individual to walk faster. Consequently, male C. clarum appear to be capable of relatively rapid locomotion. As Australian millipede densities are spatially unpredictable, the increased mobility of males likely reflects an active mate-location strategy. Furthermore, the occurrence of multiple mating by females suggests that male leg length may have evolved as an adaptation for rapid mate location under scramble competition polygyny.


Acknowledgements

I am especially grateful to Mark Dangerfield, Andrew Beattie, Tony Pik, David Briscoe, Noel Tait, David Nipperess, Roger Bramble, and Craig Angus for advice and logistical support throughout the study. This paper was greatly improved by comments received by John Alcock, Mark Elgar and two anonymous reviewers.


References

Alcock, J. (1980). Natural selection and the mating systems of solitary bees. American Scientist 68, 146–153.
Barnett M. (1997). Sex in Southern African Spirostreptida millipedes: mechanisms of sperm competition and cryptic female choice. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cape Town.

Barnett, M. , and Telford, S. R. (1994). The timing of insemination and its implications for sperm competition in a millipede with prolonged copulation. Animal Behaviour 48, 482–484.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Bennett P. M. , and Owens I. P. F. (2002). ‘Evolutionary Ecology of Birds: Life Histories, Mating Systems and Extinction.’ (Oxford University Press: Oxford.)

Berger, D. , Walters, R. , and Gotthard, K. (2008). What limits insect fecundity? Body size- and temperature-dependent egg maturation and oviposition in a butterfly. Functional Ecology 22, 523–529.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Blower J. G. (1985). Millipedes. Linnean Society Synopses of the British Fauna (New Series) No. 35.

Boggs, C. L. , and Ross, C. L. (1993). The effect of adult food limitation on life history traits in Speyeria mormonia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Ecology 74, 433–441.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Choe J. C. , and Crespi B. J. (1997). ‘The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.)

Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1989). Mammalian mating systems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 236, 339–372.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | Darwin C. R. (1874). ‘The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.’ 2nd edn. (Appleton: New York.)

Davies N. B. (1992). ‘Dunnock Behaviour and Social Evolution.’ (Oxford University Press: Oxford.)

Davies, N. B. , and Lundberg, A. (1984). Food distribution and a variable mating system in the dunnock, Prunella modularis. Journal of Animal Ecology 53, 895–912.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Hoffman R. L. (1979). ‘Classification of the Diplopoda.’ (Museum d’Naturelle: Geneve.)

Hopkin S. P. , and Read H. J. (1992). ‘The Biology of Millipedes.’ (Oxford University Press: Oxford.)

Manton, S. M. (1973). The evolution of arthropodan locomotory mechanisms. Part 11. Habits, morphology and evolution of the Uniramia (Onychophora, Myriapoda, Hexapoda) and comparisons with the Arachnida, together with a functional review of unitamian musculature. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 53, 257–375.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | R Development Core Team (2006). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. URL: http://www.R-project.org.

Ramel G. (2008). The Diplopoda (millipedes). Available at http://www.earthlife.net/insects/diplopoda.html. [Accessed 17 March 2009].

Sand, H. (1996). Life history patterns in female moose (Alces alces): the relationship between age, body size, fecundity and environmental conditions. Oecologia 106, 212–220.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Simonsen Å. (1990). Phylogeny and biogeography of the millipede order Polydesmida with special emphasis on the suborder Polydesmida. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bergen, Norway.

Singer, F. , and Riechert, S. E. (1995). Mating system and mating success of the desert spider Agelenopsis aperta. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 36, 313–322.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Thornhill R. , and Alcock J. (1983). ‘The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems.’ (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.)

Wells, K. D. (1977). The social behaviour of anuran amphibians. Animal Behaviour 25, 666–693.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Wise, D. H. (1975). Food limitation of the spider Linpjia marginata: experimental field studies. Ecology 56, 637–646.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |