The evolution of condition-dependent sexual dimorphism

American Naturalist

Volumn 169, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 9-19

  Bonduriansky, Russell ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Body shape; Body size; Condition dependence; Diet; Genetic architecture; Neriidae; Sexual dimorphism; Sexual selection; Telostylinus angusticollis

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; BODY SHAPE; BODY SIZE; CONDITION FACTOR; DIET; FLY; FOOD QUALITY; GENETIC VARIATION; HOMOLOGY; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SEX-RELATED DIFFERENCE; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOMETRY; BODY SIZE; DIET; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; FLY; HISTOLOGY; MALE; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT;

ANIMALS; BIOMETRY; BODY SIZE; DIET; DIPTERA; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; MALE; SEX CHARACTERISTICS;

NERIIDAE;

EID: 33846197160     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/510214     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Andersson, M. 1982. Sexual selection, natural selection and quality advertisement. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 17:375-393.
2. -. 1986. Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution 40:804-816.
3. Arnqvist, G., and R. Thornhill. 1998. Evolution of animal genitalia: patterns of phenotypic and genotypic variation and condition dependence of genital and non-genital morphology in water strider (Heteroptera: Gerridae: Insecta). Genetical Research 71:193-212.
4. Bonduriansky, R. 2006. Convergent evolution of sexual shape dimorphism in Diptera. Journal of Morphology 267:602-611.
5. -. 2007. The genetic architecture of sexual dimorphism: the potential roles of genomic imprinting and condition dependence. In D. J. Fairbairn, W. U. Blanckenhorn, and T. Szekely, eds. Sex, size and gender roles: evolutionary studies of sexual size dimorphism. Oxford University Press, Oxford (forthcoming).
6. Bonduriansky, R., and L. Rowe. 2003. Interactions among mechanisms of sexual selection on male body size and head shape in a sexually dimorphic fly. Evolution 57:2046-2053.
7. -. 2005a. Intralocus sexual conflict and the genetic architecture of sexually dimorphic traits in Prochyliza xanthostoma (Diptera: Piophilidae). Evolution 59:1965-1975.
8. -. 2005b. Sexual selection, genetic architecture, and the condition dependence of body shape in the sexually dimorphic fly Prochyliza xanthostoma (Piophilidae). Evolution 59:138-151.
9. Chenoweth, S. F., and M. W. Blows. 2003. Signal trait sexual dimorphism and mutual sexual selection in Drosophila serrata. Evolution 57:2326-2334.
10. Conner, J. K. 2002. Genetic mechanisms of floral trait correlations in a natural population. Nature 420:407-410.
11. Cotton, S., K. Fowler, and A. Pomiankowski. 2004a. Condition dependence of sexual ornament size and variation in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni (Diptera: Diopsidae). Evolution 58:1038-1046.
12. -. 2004b. Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 271:771-783.
13. -. 2004c. Heightened condition dependence is not a general feature of male eyespan in stalk-eyed flies (Diptera: Diopsidae). Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17:1310-1316.
14. Darwin, C. R. 1874. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Hurst, New York.
15. David, J. R., B. Moreteau, J. P. Gauthier, G. Petavy, A. Stockel, and A. G. Imasheva. 1994. Reaction norms of size characters in relation to growth temperature in Drosophila melanogaster: an isofemale lines analysis. Genetics Selection Evolution 26:229-251.
16. David, P., A. Hingle, D. Greig, A. Rutherford, A. Pomiankowski, and K. Fowler. 1998. Male sexual ornament size but not asymmetry reflects condition in stalk-eyed flies. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 265:2211-2216.
17. David, P., T. Bjorksten, K. Fowler, and A. Pomiankowski. 2000. Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyed flies. Nature 406:186-188.
18. Day, T., and R. Bonduriansky. 2004. Intralocus sexual conflict can drive the evolution of genomic imprinting. Genetics 167:1537-1546.
19. de Meijere, J. H. C. 1911. Studien über südostasiatische Dipteren. VI. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 54:258-432.
20. de Visser, J. A. G. M., J. Hermisson, G. P. Wagner, L. Ancel Meyers, H. Bagheri-Chaichian, J. L. Blanchard, L. Chao, et al. 2003. Evolution and detection of genetic robustness. Evolution 57:1959-1972.
21. Eberhard, W. G. 1998. Reproductive behavior of Glyphidops flavifrons and Nerius plurivitatus (Diptera: Neriidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 71:89-107.
22. Emlen, D. J. 1994. Environmental control of horn length dimorphism in the beetle Onthophagus acuminatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 256:131-136.
23. -. 1997. Diet alters male horn allometry in the beetle Onthophagus acuminatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 264:567-574.
24. -. 2001. Costs and the diversification of exaggerated animal structures. Science 291:1534-1536.
25. Emlen, D. J., and H. F. Nijhout. 1999. Hormonal control of male horn length dimorphism in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Journal of Insect Physiology 45:45-53.
26. Emlen, D. J., Q. Szafran, L. S. Corley, and I. Dworkin. 2006. Insulin signaling and limb-patterning: candidate pathways for the origin and evolutionary diversification of beetle "horns." Heredity 97:179-191.
27. Green, A. J. 1992. Positive allometry is likely with mate choice, competitive display and other functions. Animal Behaviour 43:170-172.
28. Griffith, S. C., I. P. F. Owens, and T. Burke. 1999. Environmental determination of a sexually selected trait. Nature 400:358-360.
29. Karan, D., J.-P. Morin, P. Gilbert, B. Moreteau, S. M. Scheiner, and J. R. David. 2000. The genetics of phenotypic plasticity. IX. Genetic architecture, temperature, and sex differences in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 54:1035-1040.
30. Kotiaho, J. S. 2001. Costs of sexual traits: a mismatch between theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Biological Reviews 76:365-376.
31. Mangan, R. L. 1979. Reproductive behavior of the cactus fly, Odontoloxozus longicornis, male territoriality and female guarding as adaptive strategies. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 4:265-278.
32. McAlpine, D. K. 1979. Agonistic behavior in Achias australis (Diptera, Platystomatidae) and the significance of eyestalks. Pages 221-230 in M. S. Blum and N. A. Blum, eds. Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. Academic Press, New York.
33. Moczek, A. P., and D. J. Emlen. 1999. Proximate determinants of male horn dimorphism in the beetle Onthophagus taurus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Journal of Evolutionary Biology 12:27-37.
34. Møller, A. P., and M. Petrie. 2002. Condition dependence, multiple sexual signals, and immunocompetence in peacocks. Behavioral Ecology 13:248-253.
35. Moore, A. J., and P. J. Moore. 1999. Balancing sexual selection through opposing mate choice and male competition. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 266:711-716.
36. Nijhout, H. F., and D. J. Emlen. 1998. Competition among body parts in the development and evolution of insect morphology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 95:3685-3689.
37. Nur, N., and O. Hasson. 1984. Phenotypic plasticity and the handicap principle. Journal of Theoretical Biology 110:275-297.
38. Post, E., R. Langvatn, M. C. Forchhammer, and N. C. Stenseth. 1999. Environmental variation shapes sexual dimorphism in red deer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 96:4467-4471.
39. Preston-Mafham, K. 2001. Resource defence mating system in two flies from Sulawesi: Gymnonerius fuscus Wiedemann and Telostylinus sp. near duplicatus Wiedemann (Diptera: Neriidae). Journal of Natural History 35:149-156.
40. Preziosi, R. F., and D. J. Fairbairn. 2000. Lifetime selection on adult body size and components of body size in a waterstrider: opposing selection and maintenance of sexual size dimorphism. Evolution 54:558-566.
41. Preziosi, R. F., and D. A. Roff. 1998. Evidence of genetic isolation between sexually monomorphic and sexually dimorphic traits in the water strider Aquarius remigis. Heredity 81:92-99.
42. Rhen, T. 2000. Sex-limited mutations and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 54:37-43.
43. Rice, W. R. 1984. Sex chromosomes and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38:735-742.
44. Rice, W. R., and A. K. Chippindale. 2002. The evolution of hybrid infertility: perpetual coevolution between gender-specific and sexually antagonistic genes. Genetica 116:179-188.
45. Rowe, L., and D. Houle. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proceedings of the Royal Society of B: Biological Sciences 263:1415-1421.
46. Stern, D. L., and D. J. Emlen. 1999. The developmental basis for allometry in insects. Development 126:1091-1101.
47. Tomkins, J. L., J. Radwan, J. S. Kotiaho, and T. Tregenza. 2004. Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19:323-328.
48. Tomkins, J. L., J. S. Kotiaho, and N. R. LeBas. 2005. Phenotypic plasticity in the developmental integration of morphological trade-offs and secondary sexual trait compensation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 272:543-551.
49. Weladji, R. B., O. Holand, G. Steinheim, J. E. Colman, H. Gjostein, and A. Kosmo. 2005. Sexual dimorphism and intercohort variation in reindeer calf antler length is associated with density and weather. Oecologia (Berlin) 145:549-555.