Life history evolution in a bivoltine butterfly

Evolution is not always straight-forward, as selection pressures may differ between different generations of the same species. This thesis focuses on the evolution of life history of the model species, the Green-veined White butterfly Pieris napi. In central Sweden P. napi has two generations per year. The directly developing summer generation is short-lived and time stressed, compared to the diapausing generation. In paper I polyandry, defined as female mating rate, was shown to differ between generations but was unaffected by environmental factors. In paper II both males and females of the direct developing generation were shown to eclose more immature than the diapausing generation, indicating larval time constraints. Consistent with this, diapausing males mated sooner than direct developers. Directly developing females, however, mated sooner after eclosion than diapausing females, even though they are more immature. This was shown to negatively affect fecundity, but can pay off when the season is short. Paper III shows that directly developing males have less sex pheromones at eclosion than diapausers, and the differences in sex pheromone production is consistent with developmental time constraints and the differences in mating system. In P. napi and other polyandrous butterflies, males transfer a large, nutritious ejaculate at mating. Large ejaculates confer advantages under sperm competition, but as they are costly, males should adjust ejaculate size to the risk of sperm competition. In paper IV we found that males transfer on average 20% larger spermatophores under high male competition than at low competition. The same effect could be observed if we added male sex pheromone to the air in a mating cage without male-male competition. Paper V shows that males of the two generations respond differently to an increase in male-male competition, with diapausing males transferring larger spermatophores than direct developers at high male competition risk.At the time of the doctoral defence the following paper was unpublished and had a status as follows: Paper 5: Submitted manuscript.