Identifying a causal agent of sexual selection on weaponry in an insect

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 184-192

  Kelly, Clint D ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Conservation; Hemideina; Longitudinal study; Resource defense; Selection gradient; Sexual dimorphism

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION; IDENTIFICATION METHOD; INSECT; MATING SUCCESS; REPRODUCTION; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SEXUAL SELECTION; SURVIVAL; WEAPONRY;

AUSTRALASIA; NEW ZEALAND;

ANIMALIA; ANOSTOSTOMATIDAE; HEMIDEINA; HEMIDEINA CRASSIDENS; HEXAPODA; ORTHOPTERA; TETTIGONIOIDEA;

EID: 38149030923     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arm121     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Ahnesjo I, Kvarnemo C, Merilaita S. 2001. Using potential reproductive rates to predict mating competition among individuals qualified to mate. Behav Ecol. 12:397-401.
2. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
3. Arnold SJ. 1994. Bateman's principles and the measurements of sexual selection in plants and animals. Am Nat. 144:S126-S149.
4. Arnold SJ, Duvall D. 1994. Animal mating systems - a synthesis based on selection theory. Am Nat. 143:317-348.
5. Arnold SJ, Wade MJ. 1984a. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: Applications. Evolution. 38:720-734.
6. Arnold SJ, Wade MJ. 1984b. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: Theory. Evolution. 38:709-719.
7. Bjork A, Pitnick S. 2006. Intensity of sexual selection along the anisogamy-isogamy continuum. Nature 441:742-745.
8. Bowie MH, Hodge S, Banks JC, Vink CJ. 2006. An appraisal of simple tree-mounted shelters for non-lethal monitoring of weta (Orthoptera: Anostostomatidae and Rhaphidophoridae) in New Zealand nature reserves. J Insect Conserv. 10:261-268.
9. Brodie ED, Moore AJ, Janzen FJ. 1995. Visualizing and quantifying natural selection. Trends Ecol Evol. 10:313-318.
10. Brooks R, Endler JA. 2001. Direct and indirect sexual selection and quantitative genetics of male traits in guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Evolution. 55:1002-1015.
11. Conner JK. 2001. How strong is natural selection? Trends Ecol Evol. 16:215-217.
12. Crow JF. 1958. Some possibilities for measuring selection intensities in man. Hum Biol. 30:1-13.
13. Darwin C. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: J. Murray.
14. Dawson J, Lucas R. 2000. Nature guide to the New Zealand forest. Auckland (New Zealand): Random House New Zealand.
15. Emlen ST, Oring LW. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science. 197:215-223.
16. Endler JA. 1986. Natural selection in the wild. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
17. Fairbairn DJ, Preziosi RF. 1996. Sexual selection and the evolution of sexual size dimorphism in the water strider, Aquarius remigis. Evolution. 50:1549-1559.
18. Fairbairn DJ, Wilby AE. 2001. Inequality of opportunity: measuring the potential for sexual selection. Evol Ecol Res. 3:667-686.
19. Field LH. 2001. Aggression behaviour in New Zealand tree wetas. In: Field LH, editor. The biology of wetas, king crickets and their allies. Wallingford (UK): CAB International. p. n333-n349.
20. Field LH, Deans NA. 2001. Sexual selection and secondary sexual characters of wetas and king crickets. In: Field LH, editor. The biology of wetas, king crickets and their allies. Wallingford (UK): CAB International. p. 179-204.
21. Field LH, Glasgow S. 2001. Defence behaviour. In: Field LH, editor. The biology of wetas, king crickets and their allies. Wallingford (UK): CAB International. p. 297-316.
22. Field LH, Jarman TH. 2001. Mating behaviour. In: Field LH, editor. The biology of wetas, king crickets and their allies. Wallingford (UK): CAB International. p. 317-332.
23. Field LH, Sandlant GR. 1983. Aggression and mating behavior in the Stenopelmatidae (Orthoptera, Ensifera), with reference to New Zealand wetas. In: Gwynne DT, Morris GK, editors. Orthopteran mating systems - sexual competition in a diverse group of insects. Boulder (CO): Westview Press. p. 120-146.
24. Field LH, Sandlant GR. 2001. The gallery-related ecology of New Zealand tree wetas, Hemideina femorata and Hemideina crassidens (Orthoptera, Anostostomatidae). In: Field LH, editor. The biology of wetas, king crickets and their allies. Wallingford (UK): CAB International. p. 243-257.
25. Gibbs GW. 2001. Habitats and biogeography of New Zealand's deinacridine and tusked weta species. In: Field LH, editor. The biology of wetas, king crickets and their allies. Wallingford (UK): CAB International. p. 35-55.
26. Gwynne DT, Jamieson I. 1998. Sexual selection and sexual dimorphism in a harem-polygynous insect, the alpine weta (Hemideina maori, Orthoptera Stenopelmatidae). Ethol Ecol Evol. 10: 393-402.
27. mates have it? Evolution. 58: 1877-1879.
28. Hauber ME, Lacey EA. 2005. Bateman's principle in cooperatively breeding vertebrates: the effects of non-breeding alloparents on variability in female and male reproductive success. Integr Comp Biol. 45:903-914.
29. Hersch EI, Phillips PC. 2004. Power and potential bias in field studies of natural selection. Evolution. 58:479-485.
30. Hoekstra HE, Hoekstra JM, Berrigan D, Vignieri SN, Hoang A, Hill CE, Beerli P, Kingsolver JG. 2001. Strength and tempo of directional selection in the wild. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 98:9157-9160.
31. Jamieson IG. 2002. The relationship between male head size and harem size in the sexually dimorphic mountain stone weta Hemideina maori. Ecol Entomol. 27:41-48.
32. Kelly CD. 2005. Allometry and sexual selection of male weaponry in Wellington tree weta, Hemideina crassidens. Behav Ecol. 16:145-152.
33. Kelly CD. 2006a. Fighting for harems: assessment strategies during male-male contests in the sexually dimorphic Wellington tree weta. Anim Behav. 72:727-736.
34. Kelly CD. 2006b. Movement patterns and gallery use by the sexually dimorphic Wellington tree weta. New Zealand J Ecol. 30:273-278.
35. Kelly CD. 2006c. Resource quality or harem size: what influences male tenure at refuge sites in tree weta (Orthoptera: Anostostomatidae)? Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 60:175-183.
36. Kelly CD. 2006d. The relationship between resource control, association with females and male weapon size in a male-dominance insect. Ethology. 112:362-369.
37. Kingsolver JG, Hoekstra HE, Hoekstra JM, Berrigan D, Vignieri SN, Hill CE, Hoang A, Gibert P, Beerli P. 2001. The strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations. Am Nat 157:245-261.
38. Kwiatkowski MA, Sullivan BK. 2002. Geographic variation in sexual selection among populations of an iguanid lizard, Sauromalus obesus (=ater). Evolution. 56:2039-2051.
39. Lande R, Arnold SJ. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution. 37:1210-1226.
40. LeBas NR, Hockham LR, Ritchie MG. 2003. Nonlinear and correlational sexual selection on 'honest' female ornamentation. Proc R Soc Lond B. 270:2159-2165.
41. Legendre P. 2002. Program for multiple linear regression (ordinary or through the origin) with permutation test - user's notes. Montreal (QC): Departement de sciences biologiques, Universite de Montreal.
42. Leisnham PT, Jamieson IG. 2004. Relationship between male head size and mating opportunity in the harem-defence, polygynous tree weta Hemideina maori (Orthoptera: Anostostomatidae). New Zealand J Ecol. 28:49-54.
43. Lloyd M. 1967. Mean crowding. J Anim Ecol. 36:1030.
44. Lorch PD. 2005. Using upper limits of "Bateman gradients" to estimate the opportunity for sexual selection. Integr Comp Biol. 45:924-930.
45. McLain DK. 1992. Population density and the intensity of sexual selection on body length in spatially or temporally restricted natural populations of a seed bug. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 30:347-356.
46. Mills SC, Grapputo A, Koskela E, Mappes T. 2007. Quantitative measure of sexual selection with respect to the operational sex ratio: a comparison of selection indices. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 274:143-150.
47. Mitchell-Olds T, Shaw RG. 1987. Regression analysis of natural selection: statistical inference and biological interpretation. Evolution. 41:1149-1161.
48. Mitchell-Olds T, Shaw RG. 1990. Comments on the causes of natural selection. Evolution. 44:2158-2158.
49. Moller H. 1985. Tree wetas (Hemideina crassicruris) (Orthoptera: Stenopelmatidae) of Stephens Island, Cook Strait. New Zealand J Zool. 12:55-69.
50. Sandlant GR. 1981. Aggressive behaviour of the canterbury weta Hemideina femorata (Blanchard) (Orthoptera: Stenopelmatidae): its adaptive significance in resource allocation (M.Sc.). Christchurch (New Zealand): University of Canterbury.
51. Schluter D. 1988. Estimating the form of natural selection on a quantitative trait. Evolution. 42:849-861.
52. Schluter D, Smith JNM. 1986. Natural selection on beak and body size in the song sparrow. Evolution. 40:221-231.
53. Shuster SM, Wade MJ. 2003. Mating systems and strategies. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
54. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. 1995. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. 3rd ed. New York: Freeman.
55. Spencer AM. 1995. Sexual maturity in the male tree weta Hemideina crassidens (Orthoptera: Stenopelamatidae) (M.Sc.). Wellington (New Zealand): Victoria University.
56. Sutherland WJ. 1985. Chance can produce a sex difference in variance in mating success and explain Bateman's data. Anim Behav. 33: 1349-1352.
57. Trewick SA, Morgan-Richards M. 2000. Artificial weta roosts: a technique for ecological study and population monitoring of Tree weta (Hemideina) and other invertebrates. New Zealand J Ecol. 24: 201-208.
58. Wade MJ. 1979. Sexual selection and variance in reproductive success. Am Nat. 114:742-764.
59. Wade MJ. 1995. The ecology of sexual selection: mean crowding of females and resource-defense polygyny. Evol Ecol. 9:118-124.
60. Wade MJ, Arnold SJ. 1980. The intensity of sexual selection in relation to male sexual behaviour, female choice, and sperm precedence. Anim Behav 28:446-461.
61. Wade MJ, Kalisz S. 1990. The causes of natural selection. Evolution. 44:1947-1955.
62. Wade MJ, Shuster SM. 2005. Don't throw Bateman out with the bath-water! Integr Comp Biol. 45:945-951.