Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Feb 14.
Published in final edited form as: Infect Genet Evol. 2015 Aug 18;36:456–461. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2015.08.016

Widespread evidence for interspecific mating between Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in nature

I E Bargielowski a, L P Lounibos a, D Shin a, C T Smartt a, M C Carrasquilla a, A Henry b, JC Navarro c,1, C Paupy d,2, J A Dennett e
PMCID: PMC5812367  NIHMSID: NIHMS721549  PMID: 26296606

Abstract

Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus, two important vectors of the dengue and chikungunya viruses to humans, often come in contact in their invasive ranges. In these circumstances, a number of factors are thought to influence their population dynamics, including resource competition among the larval stages, prevailing environmental conditions and reproductive interference in the form of satyrization. As the distribution and abundance of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus have profound epidemiological implications, understanding the competitive interactions that influence these patterns in nature is important.

While evidence for resource competition and environmental factors had been gathered from the field, the evidence for reproductive interference, though strongly inferred through laboratory trials, remained sparse (one small-scale field trial). In this paper we demonstrate that low rates (1.12-3.73%) of interspecific mating occur in nature among populations of these species that have co-existed sympatrically from 3-150 yrs. Finally this report contributes a new species-specific primer set for identifying the paternity of sperm extracted from field collected specimens.

Keywords: Aedes aegypti, Aedes albopictus, reproductive interference, satyrization, reproductive fitness, displacement, competitive exclusion

1. Introduction

Reproductive interference, indiscriminate interspecific sexual interaction that reduces reproductive success, has been documented for many taxa, including plant and animal species (reviewed in Gröning and Hochkirch, 2008). Biological invasions, in particular, often lead to reproductive interference (Gröning and Hochkirch, 2008), which can result in significant consequences for the population dynamics of the species involved (Crowder et al., 2011). The interactions between Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus) and Aedes albopictus (Skuse) are a good example of this phenomenon. The spread of Ae. aegypti from Africa occurred mostly during the 15-17th centuries, leading to the establishment of this species throughout much of the Americas (Lounibos, 2002, Tabachnick, 1991), followed by spreading into Asia in the second half of the nineteenth century (Smith, 1956, Tabachnick, 1991), while the cosmopolitan diaspora of Ae. albopictus from Asia by transcontinental shipping is largely a 20-21st century phenomenon (Benedict et al., 2007).

Both species belong to the subgenus Stegomyia and their similar life histories and mating habits may contribute to interspecific mating on account of incomplete species recognition. Interspecific matings between these species do not produce viable offspring (Leahy and Craig, 1967, Lee et al., 2009) and leave females of Ae. aegypti, but not Ae. albopictus, refractory to further mating (Tripet et al., 2011). Where invasion processes have led to sympatry of these species, competitive displacement of Ae. aegypti by Ae. albopictus has been documented (e.g. Kaplan et al., 2010, Nasci et al., 1989, O’Meara et al., 1995), leading to patchy distributions (e.g. Braks et al., 2003, Higa et al., 2010, Rey et al., 2006). Larval resource competition became the preferred explanation for displacement of Ae. aegypti by Ae. albopictus (Juliano and Lounibos, 2005), however the rapidity of competitive replacements strongly suggested larval competition alone could not be the sole mechanism (Kaplan et al., 2010, Tripet et al., 2011).

Recent studies (Bargielowski et al., 2013, Bargielowski and Lounibos, 2014, Tripet et al., 2011) have shown that interspecific reproductive interference, in the form of satyrization, asymmetrically favoring Ae. albopictus over Ae. aegypti is likely the driving mechanism behind these rapid displacements. Models of the outcomes of reproductive interference have shown it to be a stronger force for competitive exclusion than resource competition (Feng et al., 1997, Kishi and Nakazawa, 2013, Kuno, 1992, Ribeiro and Spielman, 1986, Yoshimura and Clark, 1994), and there are growing empirical data from arthropod and plant systems to back these model predictions (Bargielowski et al., 2013, Bargielowski and Lounibos, 2014, Crowder et al., 2010, 2011, Kishi et al., 2009, Takafuji et al., 1997, Takakura et al., 2009, Takakura and Fuji, 2010, Runquist and Stanton, 2012).

Furthermore, Kishi and Nakazawa (2013) demonstrated synergy between resource competition and reproductive interference, leading to greater negative effects than the sum of the two factors alone. This finding may contribute towards explaining the rapidity with which some recently established invasive species have been able to displace resident species. The rapid reduction in range and abundance of Ae. aegypti (Hobbs et al., 1991, O’Meara et al., 1995) following the invasion and spread of Ae. albopictus throughout most of the southeastern USA in the 1980s (Craig, 1993, Hawley et al., 1987), where population displacements of Ae. aegypti occurred within 1-3 years (Hawley et al., 1987, Nasci et al., 1989, Tripet et al., 2011) and the more recent displacement of Ae. aegypti by Ae. albopictus in Bermuda with comparable rapidity (Kaplan et al., 2010) might be examples of this synergistic interaction affecting population dynamics.

However, not all encounters lead to the exclusion of Ae. aegypti, and Ae. aegypti persists in southern peninsular Florida (Juliano et al., 2002, 2004, O’Meara et al., 1995) and in other southern cities including Houston, Savannah and New Orleans (Juliano and Lounibos, 2005). In these areas, the two species can be found in sympatry (Juliano et al., 2004).

In some cases Ae. aegypti predominates and Ae. albopictus has failed to become established (e.g. in urban Miami (Lounibos et al., 2010, O’Meara et al., 1995) and in the Florida Keys). Patterns in the southern US, therefore, reflect the varied distribution patterns of these two species where they co-occur around the world (Bargielowski et al., 2013, Benedict et al., 2007, Craig, 1993, Higa et al., 2010, Raharimalala et al., 2012) and it is likely that a number of factors influence outcomes where these species co-exist.

While field-based experiments have weighed the contributions of larval competition to the outcomes of this species interaction (reviewed in Juliano and Lounibos, 2005), the evidence for reproductive interference so far has mainly been gathered from laboratory-based studies (e.g. Bargielowski et al., 2013, Bargielowski and Lounibos, 2014, Harper and Paulson, 1994, Lee et al., 2009, Nasci et al., 1989). These trials often take the form of non-choice experiments (in which no conspecific mates are present), are carried out in cages at artificial densities of unclear relevance to natural densities, and are typically free from any natural environmental fluctuations.

Extrapolating interspecific mating rates in cages to wild populations is therefore problematic. One small-scale study conducted in Florida by Tripet et al. (2011) is, to our knowledge, the only fully field-based assessment of interspecific mating between Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus. One hundred and seventy Ae. aegypti and 134 Ae. albopictus females, collected from two salvage yards where these species co-occur in sympatry, were screened for cross-insemination, which was found in three Ae. aegypti and two Ae. albopictus females.

In this paper we document interspecific mating between these two species on a larger scale. We selected four geographically diverse locations in which Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus have been in sympatry for various durations (Caracas, Venezuela (approx.3 years); Franceville, Gabon (approx. 5 years); Houston, TX, USA (approx. 25 years); Singapore (approx. 150 years). We analyzed females of both species collected between 2011-2013 for paternity of extracted sperm using techniques similar to Tripet et al. (2011) to assess whether interspecific mating occurs at these sites and whether rates of reproductive interference change over time since sympatry. We hypothesized that interspecific mating would be detected at all sites, as recent models have shown the possibility for cross mating to persist, even in the face of apparent costs (Takakura et al. 2015), however, we expected to see a decline in the frequency of satyrization with increasing time spent in sympatry, as the cost (loss of future reproductive potential) of engaging in interspecific mating is high for Ae. aegypti females.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Field collections

Collections of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus were carried out using multiple trapping techniques, at sites of sympatry (Table 1). Trapped mosquitoes were sexed, identified to species and females were stored in ethanol for shipment, or ground transportation (from Houston, TX), to the Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory for species-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) diagnostics.

Table 1.

Proportion of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus trapped at four locations. The proportions of mated females are calculated using only females that were in sufficiently good condition for presence or absence of sperm to be recorded accurately, all damaged, unmated or degraded specimens were excluded from analysis.

Location Years of Sympatry* Relative Abundance in Traps Proportion of Mated Females
Ae. aegypti Ae. albopictus Ae. aegypti Ae. albopictus
Caracas, Venezuela 3 0.64 0.36 0.92 0.84
Franceville, Gabon 5 0.33 0.67 0.76 0.75
Houston, TX, USA 25 0.73 0.27 0.92 0.67
Singapore, Singapore 150 0.45 0.55 0.95 0.91
Open in a new tab
*

Approximation

2.1.1. Caracas, Venezuela

Mosquitoes (212 Ae. aegypti and 118 Ae. albopictus) were collected in 2012 with human bait (approved by the Ethics Committee, Faculty of Science, Central University of Venezuela, Project: Widespread evidence for interspecific mating between Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus in nature) in Caracas where Ae. albopictus had recently (2009) become established (Navarro et al., 2009, 2013). We estimate the duration of sympatry with Ae. aegypti at Caracas cemetery, where collections were carried out, to be approximately three years at the time of trapping. Both species are invasive in Venezuela, however, Ae. albopictus is the more recently established species.

2.1.2. Franceville, Gabon

Collections (111 Ae. aegypti and 222 Ae. albopictus) were made with BG-Sentinel® traps or human bait (approved by the Ministère de la Recherche Scientifique et du Développement Technologique du Gabon: N° AR0006/12/MENERSI/CENAREST /CG/CST/CSAR)) in three Franceville neighborhoods (Sable, Akou, Potos) in May 2012. In Franceville the two species have been in sympatry for approximately five years (C. Paupy, personal communication, Coffinet et al., 2007, Krueger and Hagen, 2007). Ae. aegypti is native to Gabon, while Ae. albopictus is invasive.

2.1.3. Houston, TX, USA

Ae. albopictus was first recorded in Houston Texas in 1985 (Sprenger and Wuithiranyaggol, 1986) and we therefore estimate that the two species had been living in sympatry for over 25 years at the time of our 2012 collections. Mosquitoes (305 Ae. aegypti and 110 Ae. albopictus) were collected with BG-Sentinel® traps baited with ca. 0.90 kg dry ice within 1.89 L beverage coolers from 5 individual sites within three adjoining Houston neighborhoods. Both species are invasive in the US, however, Ae. albopictus is the more recent invader.

2.1.4. Singapore

In contrast to our other collections, at this site, Ae. albopictus is the native species and Ae. aegypti the invasive, the latter believed to have established approximately 150 years ago (Smith 1956). Collections (227 Ae. aegypti and 275 Ae. albopictus) were made in 2011 in Ang Mo Kio GRC (Group Representation Constituency), central Singapore, in five subdivisions: Teck Ghee, Kebun Baru, Cheng San, Jalan Kayu, and Yio Chu Kang (National University of Singapore, IRB10-060). In areas where BG-Sentinel® traps were likely to be stolen, adult sticky traps (MosquiTRAPs™) were substituted. Only the abdomens of collected females were preserved and shipped from Singapore to Florida, as the heads and thoraces were retained for use in other research.

2.2. Analysis of sperm bundles

The storage of females in ethanol caused the proteinaceous fluid in the spermathecae to coagulate, forming a “sperm bundle” (Tripet et al., 2011). Females were stored in ethanol until 12-24 hours before dissection when they were transferred to a 12-well plate (Multiwell™, Falcon®) containing water for rehydration, which enabled easier dissection. Each female was dissected with micro-pins in a drop of water under a binocular microscope. Micro-pins were sterilized between steps to prevent cross contamination.

The three spermathecae were removed, cleaned of excess tissue, and placed in a fresh drop of water. Using the micro-pins the spermathecal shells were ruptured and the sperm bundle/s moved to a third drop of water to remove any contamination (of maternal DNA). The sperm bundle/s were collected on the tip of a micro-pin and transferred to 0.5mL Eppendorf tubes containing 100 μL of lysis buffer from a Wizard® SV Genomic DNA Purification System (Promega) extraction kit and processed following kit instructions with minor modifications. Though the analysis of individual spermathecae may offer insights into spermathecal use during interspecific mating (see Tripet et al., 2011), owing to logistical constraints, when more than one spermatheca contained sperm, we pooled sperm bundles by female. Following DNA extraction, samples were stored at -20°C until PCR analysis.

2.3. Species-specific PCR diagnostics

In general, our diagnostic methods followed those of Tripet et al. (2011), but we developed new species-specific primer sets that yielded more reliable results in our laboratory. The species-specific primers were designed based on a ribosomal gene intergenic spacer region from Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus (GENBANK accession numbers: AF004986 and M65063, respectively) with Primer 3 software.

The primer set for Ae. aegypti (forward:5′-GTGCGTGGACTTCTCTCTTT-3′, reverse: 5′ TTTCTCTTTCCCGACACTACA-3′) and for Ae. albopictus (forward:5′-CACCCGTGTATGTGCGATATTA-3′, reverse: 5′-TTGGTCGTTCGGTGGTAAAG-3′) amplify a 233 base pair and 812 base pair fragment, respectively. All primers had high priming efficiency resulting in sharp specific bands easily scored on an agarose gel. The PCR diagnostic methods were tested against DNA extracts of whole bodies, sperm bundles and testes of each species. No cross-amplification was observed in tests. In cases where interspecific mating was suspected based on the analysis of sperm bundles, the same PCR diagnostics were applied to the bodies of the females from which the spermathecae had been dissected to confirm accurate identification of field-collected specimens.

2.4. Dissection quality

To avoid contamination, females were dissected in batches; all the Ae. aegypti females of a region, followed by all the Ae. albopictus females. Any cross contamination would therefore have to be transferred from one sperm bundle to the next. We did not detect interspecific insemination in any two consecutively dissected females and, therefore, can rule out any incidence of contamination between females. We are confident that all recorded interspecific matings are genuine.

Furthermore, to test the assumption that our dissection methods were sufficiently stringent to avoid contamination with maternal DNA, we force-copulated female mosquitoes with heterospecific males (methods modified from McDaniel and Horsfall, 1957) and performed a series of 20 trials for each cross combination (female Ae. aegypti x male Ae. albopictus and vice versa). Each female was dissected and analyzed as described above. In two cases (one Ae. aegypti female and one Ae. albopictus female) both paternal and maternal DNA were amplified. Therefore, while our methods are relatively (95%) accurate, and we are certain that these cases, too, are definitive cases of interspecific mating, we cannot rule out that suspected multiple inseminations may occasionally represent an artifact of maternal DNA contamination.

2.5. Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using JMP (version 11) http://www.jmp.com. Average interspecific insemination rates (arcsine transformed proportions) of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus females were analyzed by ANOVA, while interspecific mating frequencies within species at sites where satyrization was observed, were compared using contingency table analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Spermathecal dissections

Spermathecae were dissected from a total of 855 Ae. aegypti and 725 Ae. albopictus females from 4 sites, however only 572 Ae. aegypti and 299 Ae. albopictus specimens contained sperm or were in satisfactory condition to extract usable sperm bundles (Table 2). Ae. albopictus females appeared more sensitive to degradation with 58.76% of females unsuitable for analysis, versus 33.10% for Ae. aegypti females.

Table 2.

Results of genetic analysis of sperm content dissected from field-collected female mosquitoes from four locations

Location Species (♀) Females Dissected Females Analyzed Failed DNA Extraction Conspecific Mating Only Heterospecific Mating Only Mated Both % Interspecific Mating
Caracas, Venezuela Ae. aegypti 212 188 8 177 1 2 1.67
Ae. albopictus 118 88 1 87 0 0 0
Franceville, Gabon Ae. aegypti 111 69 6 62 1 0 1.59
Ae. albopictus 222 77 1 75 1 0 1.32
Houston, TX, USA Ae. aegypti 305 244 3 232 5 4 3.73
Ae. albopictus 110 40 1 39 0 0 0
Singapore, Singapore Ae. aegypti 227 71 2 68 1 0 1.45
Ae. albopictus 275 94 5 88 1 0 1.12
Open in a new tab

3.2. Sperm extraction

The proportion of females that contained sperm whose DNA we could successfully extract, amplify, and identify to species ranged from 30% (Ae. aegypti, Singapore) to 85% (Ae. aegypti, Caracas). The relatively low numbers of usable specimens in the Singapore collections may be partially attributable to the use of sticky traps (>80% mosquitoes received (n=403)) at this location. Only 29% of females collected from sticky traps were in satisfactory condition for dissection and sperm extraction, versus 47% of females from BG-Sentinel® traps at this location. For future experiments we recommend using trapping methods that preserve the females as well as possible (i.e. traps that minimize desiccation) in addition to rapid preservation of samples (transfer from traps to alcohol).

Overall, if sperm bundles were extracted, our average success rate of identifying paternity was 97%.

Ae. albopictus dominated in collections from Franceville and Singapore, while Ae. aegypti was relatively more abundant in Caracas and Houston neighborhoods that were sampled (Table 2).

3.3. Interspecific mating rates

Though on average Ae. aegypti (2.17% ± 0.57 SE) and Ae. albopictus (1.22% ± 0.10 SE) females showed similar (F = 1.19, df = 1, p = 0.34) interspecific mating rates at sites where satyrization was observed, Ae. aegypti females engaged in interspecific mating at all four sites, while Ae. albopictus females were only documented to engage in interspecific mating at two sites (Franceville and Singapore) (Table 2).

Contingency analysis showed that within species, the interspecific mating rates did not vary significantly among sites where interspecific mating occurred (Ae. aegypti: chi-square = 2.526, df = 3, p = 0.47, Ae. albopictus: chi-square = 0.013, df = 1, p = 0.91).

4. Discussion

4.1. Occurrence of interspecific mating

Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus are considered the most invasive mosquitoes in history (Juliano and Lounibos, 2005) and, owing to their wide dispersal, often come in contact in their invasive ranges. They are the most important vectors of dengue and chikungunya viruses to humans (Kyle and Harris, 2008; Paupy et al., 2010), therefore understanding and predicting the competitive interactions that influence their distribution patterns in nature is important. Recent studies (Bargielowski et al., 2013, Bargielowski and Lounibos, 2014, Tripet et al., 2011) have suggested that interspecific reproductive interference may be a key factor in their population dynamics in sympatry, yet evidence from the field was still sparse. In this paper we provide evidence that reproductive interference may occur wherever these two species come in contact in nature. Including the two sites in Floridas sampled by Tripet et al. (2011), similar rates of interspecific mating (between 1.12-3.73%) have now been detected at six locations in which the two species have remained in sympatry for a varying number of years.

While interspecific insemination rates of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus were similar at sites where interspecific matings were recorded, Ae. aegypti mated interspecifically at all sites, while Ae. albopictus females were only recorded doing so at half the sites. Laboratory studies have demonstrated a bias in the asymmetric nature of cross-matings in favor of Ae. albopictus, (Bargielowski et al., 2013, Nasci et al., 1989) which may be weakly supported by these findings. Recent findings by Soghigian et al. (2014) suggest that asymmetric reproductive interference in this species pair may extend to deterring feeding by Ae. aegypti females. Aggressive and non-selective behavior of Ae. albopictus males leading to the harassment of Ae. aegypti females during feeding, either for sugar or blood, can reduce Ae. aegypti feeding success and, therefore, may adversely affect fecundity (Soghigian et al., 2014).

4.2. Temporal changes in interspecific mating rates

As laboratory trials have shown the development of resistance to satyrization in Ae. aegypti with continued exposure to Ae. albopictus, along with an associated reduction in interspecific insemination rates (Bargielowski and Lounibos, 2014), it is likely that when these species first come in contact, interspecific mating is more frequent than the rates observed in this study. Additionally, cross-mating based on detection of interspecific sperm in spermathecae underestimates the extent of satyrization of Ae. aegypti by Ae. albopictus, which can occur without spermathecal filling (Carrasquilla and Lounibos, submitted). The strong costs associated with satyrization – loss of future reproductive potential for females and a loss of time, energy and limited sperm reserves for males, promote the avoidance of interspecific mating in both sexes (Bargielowski and Lounibos, 2014, Bargielowski et al., 2015). The rapid evolution of reproductive character displacement suggests that the strong selection pressure of satyrization can drive rapid evolutionary change in this system. This assumption is backed by comparisons of allopatric strains of Ae. aegypti and strains that were colonized from sites of recent sympatry with Ae. albopictus (Bargielowski et al., 2013), as well as the results from artificial selection experiments (Bargielowski and Lounibos, 2014), in which significant levels of satyrization-resistance were observed within 3-6 generations. Experiments in other systems, including numerous examples from the field (reviewed in Endler, 1986, Thompson, 1998) are informative examples of the speed at which evolution can reshape community structure. We therefore suspect that in areas where these two species occur in sympatry, the shift from ‘naïve’ populations, susceptible to interspecific mating errors, to populations that have reduced cross-mating to a low frequency, occurs quickly, likely within a few generations of exposure. Consequently, we were unable to detect any differences in the interspecific insemination rates from the locations sampled in this study, where sexual selection has presumably already reduced rates of satyrization. An experimental approach to following the evolution of satyrization-resistance might be the observation of changes in interspecific mating frequency of populations held in large, walk-in cages capable of recreating a semi-natural environment.

4.3. Reproductive interference, population dynamics and other environmental factors

Though population reductions or displacements of Ae. aegypti by Ae. albopictus, likely driven by asymmetric effects of satyrization, are seemingly a common result of encounters between these species (Kaplan et al., 2010, Lounibos, 2002, Nasci et al., 1989, O’Meara et al., 1995), several mechanisms may allow for the persistence or recovery of Ae. aegypti populations. One such factor is the evolution of satyrization-resistance discussed above. However, this form of reproductive character displacement observed in Ae. aegypti carries with it a cost in terms of reproductive success. Although it remains uncertain which cues or behaviors change during this process, our recent work (Bargielowski and Lounibos, 2014) has detected that satyrization-resistant females are choosier during mate selection. This trait may, therefore, only persist in the presence of satyrization pressure, but the reduced interspecific mating rates of satyrization-resistant Ae. aegypti may allow for the recovery of competitively reduced populations of this species, regardless of associated costs. In addition to the evolution of satyrization resistance, resource competition and local environments may influence the distribution patterns of these two species. Resource competition among the larval stages of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus in food-limited container habitats has been shown to favor Ae. albopictus (Barrera, 1996, Daugherty et al., 2000), while substrate-rich habitats negate this advantage and in some cases provide an advantage to Ae. aegypti (Barrera, 1996, Daugherty et al., 2000 and references therein, Juliano, 2009). Furthermore, larval competition has been shown to asymmetrically impact adult life history traits under low-humidity conditions, leading to reduced longevity of Ae. aegypti, but not Ae. albopictus (Reiskind and Lounibos, 2009). Likewise, habitat preferences (Rey et al. 2006) and climatic factors may have a role to play (Alto and Juliano, 2001, Juliano et al., 2002). Studies suggest that dryer environments may favor Ae. aegypti due to greater mortality of Ae. albopictus eggs (Juliano et al., 2002, Lounibos et al., 2010). Asymmetry in the impact of reproductive interference and resource competition on affected species pairs is not unusual (Crowder et al., 2011, Gröning and Hochkirch, 2008), and has been shown by Kishi and Nakazawa (2013) to allow for scenarios where trade-offs between asymmetries in reproductive interference and resource competition may allow for coexistence of interacting species. Thus, an inferior resource competitor may be able to persist when its disadvantage is counterbalanced by superior reproductive interference and vice versa (Kishi and Nakazawa, 2013). Therefore, understanding the interplay between reproductive interference and other factors determining the competitive outcome of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus interactions may be valuable in predicting the distribution patterns of these two species.

4.4. Multiple inseminations

Out of the 16 cases of interspecific mating that we detected, the spermathecal content of six females (all Ae. aegypti), tested positive for the presence of both conspecific and heterospecific DNA, suggesting multiple inseminations. Though Ae. aegypti females are considered to generally mate only once, instances of multiple insemination have been documented, particularly in cases where (a) matings followed in quick succession, before the female becomes refractory due to the effects of male accessory gland proteins; (b) in older females, where the effects of accessory gland proteins have worn off, and (c) in females mated to depleted males, that do not pass on a full complement of sperm and accessory gland substances during mating (Bargielowski, 2011, Craig 1967, Spielman et al., 1967, Young and Downe, 1982). It is plausible that interspecific mating attempts may be more likely to fall into one of these categories, as sperm transfer between distantly related species may be suboptimal or females may abort copulation with heterospecifics and subsequently seek mating opportunities with conspecific males.

Tripet et al. (2011) also documented cases of multiple insemination between Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus at auto salvage yards in Florida with distinct patterns of spermathecal use in cross-matings. In Ae. aegypti, heterospecific sperm and conspecific sperm was clearly separated between spermathecae; with conspecific sperm stored in the primary, large spermatheca and heterospecific sperm stored separately in one of the two lateral spermathecae. In contrast, in Ae. albopictus females, both conspecific and heterospecific DNA was amplified from the contents of one of the lateral spermathecae.

5. Conclusions

In summary, the distribution and abundance of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus, which have profound epidemiological implications, are often governed by competitive interactions that include interspecific mating, documented herein as widespread. We further contribute a new species-specific primer set for determining the paternity of sperm samples, and offer evidence that reproductive interference in the wild contributes to the observed distribution patterns of this species pair. We suggest that satyrization-resistance develops rapidly in sympatric populations of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus, resulting in low levels of reproductive interference.

Highlights.

  • Reproductive interference may influence population dynamics of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus.

  • Development of a new primer set for determining paternity of sperm samples.

  • Evidence of cross-mating between Ae. aegypi and Ae. albopictus from four countries.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by National Institutes of Health R21 grant AI095780 (to LPL) and in part by funding provided by the University of Hawaii s National Science Foundation Integrative Training in Ecology, Conservation and Pathogen Biology program (NSF IGERT Award #0549514). We thank Chris L. Fredregill, Greg C. Motl, and Christine Roberts for their assistance during Houston field collections, Davy Jiolle, Nil Rahola, Amadou Sekou Traoré and Patrick Yangari for sampling in Gabon, and L. Villaroel in Caracas.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

  1. Alto BW, Juliano SA. Precipitation and temperature effects on populations of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae): Implications for range expansion. J Med Entomol. 2001;38:646–656. doi: 10.1603/0022-2585-38.5.646. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bargielowski IE. Thesis (PhD) Department of Biology; Imperial College London: 2011. Sexual ecology of transgenic mosquitoes, Stegomyia (Aedes) aegypti; pp. 66–76. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bargielowski IE, Lounibos LP, Carrasquilla MC. Evolution of resistance to satyrization through reproductive character displacement in populations of invasive dengue vectors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:2888–92. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1219599110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bargielowski IE, Lounibos LP. Rapid evolution of reduced receptivity to interspecific mating in the dengue vector Aedes aegypti in response to satyrization by invasive Aedes albopictus. Evol Ecol. 2014;28:193–203. doi: 10.1007/s10682-013-9669-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bargielowski I, Blosser E, Lounibos LP. The effects of interspecific courtship on the mating success of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) males. Ann Entomol Soc Am. 2015 doi: 10.1093/aesa/sav037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Barrera R. Competition and resistance to starvation in larvae of container-inhabiting Aedes mosquitoes. Ecol Entomol. 1996;21:117–127. [Google Scholar]
  7. Benedict MQ, Levine RS, Hawley WA, Lounibos LP. Spread of the tiger: Global risk of invasion by the mosquito Aedes albopictus. Vector-Borne Zoon Dis. 2007;7:76–85. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2006.0562. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Braks MAH, Honorio NA, Lourenco-de-Oliveira R, Juliano SA, Lounibos LP. Convergent habitat segregation of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in southeastern Brazil and Florida. J Med Entomol. 2003;40:785–794. doi: 10.1603/0022-2585-40.6.785. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cator LJ, Arthur BJ, Harrington LC, Hoy RR. Harmonic convergence in the love songs of the dengue vector mosquito. Science. 2009;323:1077–7079. doi: 10.1126/science.1166541. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Craig GB., Jr Mosquitoes: Female monogamy induced by male accessory gland substance. Science. 1967;156:1499–1501. doi: 10.1126/science.156.3781.1499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Craig GB. The diaspora of the Asian Tiger Mosquito. In: Knight BN, editor. Biological Pollution: The Control and Impact of Invasive Exotic Species. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Academy of Sciences; 1993. pp. 101–120. [Google Scholar]
  12. Crowder DW, Sitvarin MI, Carrière Y. Plasticity in mating behaviour drives asymmetric reproductive interference in whiteflies. Anim Behav. 2010;79:579–587. [Google Scholar]
  13. Crowder DW, Horowitz AR, Breslauer H, Rippa M, Kontsedalov S, Ghanim M, Carrière Y. Niche partitioning and stochastic processes shape community structure following whitefly invasions. Basic Appl Ecol. 2011;12:685–694. [Google Scholar]
  14. Coffinet T, Mourou JR, Pradines B, Toto JC, Jariaval F, Amalvict R, Kombila M, Carnevale P, Pages F. First record of Aedes albopictus in Gabon. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2007;23:471–472. doi: 10.2987/5636.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Daugherty MP, Alto BW, Juliano SA. Invertebrate carcasses as a resource for competing Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidea) J Med Entomol. 2000;37:364–372. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/37.3.364. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Endler JA. Natural Selection in the Wild Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press; 1986. [Google Scholar]
  17. Feng W, Lu X, Liu W. Comparison and numerical simulations for diffusive models of resource and sexual competition. Nonlinear Anal Theor. 1997;30:2765–2774. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gröning J, Hochkirch A. Reproductive interference between animal species. Q Rev Biol. 2008;83:257–282. doi: 10.1086/590510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gubler DJ, Bhattachaya NC. Swarming and mating of Aedes (S.) albopictus in nature. Mosq News. 1972;32:219–223. [Google Scholar]
  20. Harper JP, Paulson SL. Reproductive isolation between Florida strains of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1994;10:88–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hartberg WK. Observations on the mating behaviour of Aedes aegypti in nature. Bull WHO. 1971;45:847–850. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hawley WA, Reiter P, Copelans RS, Pumpuni CB, Craig GB., Jr Aedes albopictus In North-America - Probable introduction in used tires from northern Asia. Science. 1987;236:1114–1116. doi: 10.1126/science.3576225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Higa Y, Yen NT, Kawada H, Son TH, Hoa NT, Takagi M. Geographic distribution of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus collected from used tires in Vietnam. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2010;26:1–9. doi: 10.2987/09-5945.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hobbs JH, Hughes EA, Eichold BH., 2nd Replacement of Aedes aegypti by Aedes albopictus in Mobile, Alabama. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1991;7:488–489. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Juliano SA. Species introduction and replacement among mosquitoes: interspecific resource competition or apparent competition? Ecology. 1998;79:255–268. [Google Scholar]
  26. Juliano SA, O’Meara GF, Morrill JR, Cutwa MM. Desiccation and thermal tolerance of eggs and the coexistence of competing mosquitoes. Oecologia. 2002;130:458–469. doi: 10.1007/s004420100811. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Juliano SA, Lounibos LP, O’Meara GF. A field test for competitive effects of Aedes albopictus on Aedes aegypti in south Florida: differences between sites of coexistence and exclusion? Oecologia. 2004;139:583–593. doi: 10.1007/s00442-004-1532-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Juliano SA, Lounibos LP. Ecology of invasive mosquitoes: effects on resident species and on human health. Ecology Letters. 2005;8:558–574. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00755. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Juliano SA. Species interactions among larval mosquitoes: context dependence across habitat gradients. Ann Rev Entomol. 2009;54:37–56. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.54.110807.090611. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kaplan L, Kendell D, Robertson D, Livdahl T, Katchikian C. Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in Bermuda: extinction, invasion, invasion and extinction. Biol Invasions. 2010;9:3277–3288. doi: 10.1007/s10530-010-9721-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kishi S, Nishida T, Tsubaki Y. Reproductive interference determines persistence and exclusion in species interactions. J Anim Ecol. 2009;78:1043–1049. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01560.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kishi S, Nakazawa T. Analysis of species coexistence co-mediated by resource competition and reproductive interference. Popul Ecol. 2013;55:305–313. [Google Scholar]
  33. Krueger A, Hagen RM. Short communication: first record of Aedes albopictus in Gabon, Central Africa. Trop Med Int Health. 2007;12:1105–1107. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2007.01893.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kuno E. Competitive exclusion through reproductive interference. Res Popul Ecol. 1992;34:275–284. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kyle JL, Harris E. Global spread and persistence of dengue. Ann Rev Microbiol. 2008;62:71–92. doi: 10.1146/annurev.micro.62.081307.163005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Leahy MG, Craig GB. Barriers to hybridization between Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. Evolution. 1967;21:41–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1967.tb00129.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Lee HL, Aramu M, Nazni WA, Selvi S, Vasan S. No evidence for successful interspecific cross-mating of transgenic Aedes aegypti (L.) and wild type Aedes albopictus Skuse. Trop Biomed. 2009;26:312–319. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Lounibos LP. Invasions by insect vectors of human disease. Ann Rev Entomol. 2002;47:233–266. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.47.091201.145206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Lounibos LP, O’Meara GF, Juliano SA, Nishimura N, Escher RL, Reiskind MH, Cutwa M, Greene K. Differential survivorship of invasive mosquito species in south Florida cemeteries: do site-specific microclimates explain patterns of coexistence and exclusion? Ann Entomol Soc Am. 2010;103:754–770. doi: 10.1603/AN09142. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. McDaniel IN, Horsfall WR. Induced copulation of aedine mosquitoes. Science. 1957;125:745. doi: 10.1126/science.125.3251.745. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Nasci RS, Hare SG, Willis FS. Interspecific mating between Louisiana strains of Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti in the field and in laboratory. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1989;5:416–421. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Navarrro JC, Zorrilla A, Moncada N. Primer registro de Aedes albopictus (Skuse) en Venezuela. Importancia como vector de Dengue y acciones a desarrollar. Bol Malariol Salud Amb. 2009;249:161–166. [Google Scholar]
  43. Navarro JC, Zorrilla A, Quintero L, González R. Molecular traces of invasive mosquito Aedes albopictus (Skuse) in northern South America. J Entomol Zool Studies. 2013;1:32–39. [Google Scholar]
  44. O’Meara GF, Evans LF, Gettman AD, Cuda JP. Spread of Aedes albopictus and decline of Ae. aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) in Florida. J Med Entomol. 1995;32:554–562. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/32.4.554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Paupy C, Ollomo B, Kamgang B, Moutailler S, Rousset D, Demanou M, Hervé JP, Leroy E, Simard F. Comparative role of Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti in the emergence of dengue and chikungunya in Central Africa. Vector Borne Zoonot. 2010;13:768–771. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2009.0005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Raharimalala FN, Ravaomanarivo LH, Ravelonandro P, Rafarasoa LS, Zouache K, Tran-Van V, Mousson L, Failloux A-B, Hellard E, Moro CV, Ralisoa BO, Mavingui P. Biogeography of the two major arbovirus mosquito vectors, Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera, Culididea), in Madagascar. Parasites and Vectors. 2012;5:56. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-5-56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Reiskind MH, Lounibos LP. Effects of intraspecific larval competition on adult longevity in the mosquitoes Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. Med Vet Entomol. 2009;23:62–68. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2008.00782.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Rey JR, Nishimura N, Wagner B, Braks MAH, O’Connell SM, Lounibos LP. Habitat segregation of mosquito arbovirus vectors in south Florida. J Med Entomol. 2006;43:1134–1141. doi: 10.1603/0022-2585(2006)43[1134:hsomav]2.0.co;2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Ribeiro JM, Spielman A. The satyr effect: A model predicting parapatry and species extinction. Am Nat. 1986;128:513–528. [Google Scholar]
  50. Roth LM. A study of mosquito behavior. An experimental laboratory study of the sexual behavior of Aedes aegypti Linnaeus. Amer Mid Nat. 1948;40:265–352. [Google Scholar]
  51. Runquist RB, Stanton ML. Asymmetric and frequency-dependent pollinator-mediated interactions may influence competitive displacement in two vernal pool plants. Ecol Lett. 2012;16:183–90. doi: 10.1111/ele.12026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Smith CEG. The history of dengue in tropical Asia, and its probable relationship to the mosquito Aedes aegypti. J Trop Med Hyg. 1956;59:3–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Soghigian J, Gibbs K, Stanton A, Kaiser R, Livdahl T. Sexual harassment and feeding inhibition between two invasive dengue vectors. Environ Health Insights. 2014;8:61–66. doi: 10.4137/EHI.S16007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Spielman A, Leahy MG, Sr, Skaff V. Seminal loss in repeatedly mated female Aedes aegypti. Biol Bull. 1967;132:404–412. [Google Scholar]
  55. Sprenger D, Wuithiranyagool T. The discovery and distribution of Aedes albopictus in Harris County, Texas. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1986;2:217–219. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Tabachnick WJ. Evolutionary genetics and arthropod-borne disease: the yellow fever mosquito. Am Entomol. 1991;37:14–24. [Google Scholar]
  57. Takafuji A, Kuno E, Fujimoto H. Reproductive interference and its consequences for the competitive interactions between two closely related Panonychus spider mites. Exp Appl Acarol. 1997;21:379–391. [Google Scholar]
  58. Takakura K-I, Nishida T, Matsumoto T, Nishida S. Alien dandelion reduces the seed set of a native congener through frequency dependent and one sided effects. Biol Invasions. 2009;11:973–981. [Google Scholar]
  59. Takakura K-I, Fuji S. Reproductive interference and salinity tolerance differentiate habitat use between two alien cockleburs: Xanthium occidentale and X. italicum (Compositae) Plant Ecol. 2010;206:309–319. [Google Scholar]
  60. Takakura KI, Nishida T, Iwao K. Conflicting intersexual mate choices maintain interspecific sexual interactions. Popul Ecol. 2015 doi: 10.1007/s10144-015-0492-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Thompson JN. Rapid evolution as an ecological process. Trends Ecol Evol. 1998;13:329–332. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(98)01378-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Tripet F, Lounibos LP, Robbins D, Moran J, Nishimura N, Blosser EM. Competitive reduction by satyrization? Evidence for interspecific mating in nature and asymmetric reproductive competition between invasive mosquito vectors. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2011;85:265–270. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2011.10-0677. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Yoshimura J, Clark CW. Population dynamics of sexual and resource competition. Theor Popul Biol. 1994;45:121–131. doi: 10.1006/tpbi.1994.1007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Young ADM, Downe AER. Renewal of sexual receptivity in mated female mosquitoes, Aedes aegytpti. Physiol Ent. 1982;7:476–477. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES