No fecundity cost of female secondary sexual trait expression in the horned beetle Onthophagus sagittarius

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 21, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 1227-1235

  Simmons, L W ^a   Emlen, D J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA   (United States)

Author keywords

Costs of reproduction; Dung beetles; Female contest competition; Female sexual ornaments; Male mate choice

Indexed keywords

BEETLE; FECUNDITY; FITNESS; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATE CHOICE; MORPHOLOGY; ORNAMENTATION; PARENTAL INVESTMENT; PHYLOGENETICS; REPRODUCTIVE COST; SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERISTICS; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BEETLE; BODY SIZE; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; FERTILITY; HORN; LONGEVITY; MALE; MATE CHOICE; PHENOTYPE; PHYLOGENY; PHYSIOLOGY; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT;

ANIMALS; BEETLES; BODY SIZE; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; FERTILITY; HORNS; LONGEVITY; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; PHENOTYPE; PHYLOGENY; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT, HERITABLE; SEX CHARACTERISTICS;

COLEOPTERA; ONTHOPHAGUS; SAGITTARIUS;

EID: 49549120814     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01575.x     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Alatalo, R.V., Hoglund, J. Lundberg, A. 1988. Patterns of variation in tail ornament size in birds. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 34 : 363 374.
2. Amundsen, T. 2000. Why are female birds ornamented? Trends Ecol. Evol. 15 : 149 155.
3. Amundsen, T. Forsgren, E. 2001. Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98 : 13155 13160.
4. Amundsen, T., Forsgren, E. Hansen, L.T.T. 1997. On the function of female ornaments: male bluethroats prefer colourful females. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264 : 1579 1586.
5. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
6. Arnqvist, G. Rowe, L. 2005. Sexual Conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
7. Bernet, P., Rosenqvist, G. Berglund, A. 1998. Female-female competition affects female ornamentation in the sex-role reversed pipefish Syngnathus typhle. Behaviour 135 : 535 550.
8. Blanckenhorn, W.U., Hosken, D.J., Martin, O.Y., Reim, C., Teuschl, Y. Ward, P.I. 2002. The costs of copulating in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Behav. Ecol. 13 : 353 358.
9. Bonduriansky, R. 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol. Rev. 76 : 305 339.
10. Bonduriansky, R. Day, T. 2003. The evolution of static allometry in sexually selected traits. Evolution 57 : 2450 2458.
11. Burns, K.J. 1998. A phylogenetic perspective on the evolution of sexual dichromatism in tanagers (Thraupidae): the role of female versus male plumage. Evolution 52 : 1219 1224.
12. Chapman, T., Liddle, L.F., Kalb, J.M., Wolfner, M.F. Partridge, L. 1995. Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 373 : 241 244.
13. Chenoweth, S.F., Doughty, P. Kokko, H. 2006. Can non-directional male mating preferences facilitate honest female ornamentation? Ecol. Lett. 9 : 179 184.
14. Chenoweth, S.F., Petfield, D., Doughty, P. Blows, M.W. 2007. Male choice generates stabilizing sexual selection on a female fecundity correlate. J. Evol. Biol. 20 : 1745 1750.
15. Chenoweth, S.F., Rundle, H.D. Blows, M.W. 2008. Genetic constraints and the evolution of display trait sexual dimorphism by natural and sexual selection. Am. Nat. 171 : 22 34.
16. Clutton-Brock, T.H. Parker, G.A. 1992. Potential reproductive rates and the operation of sexual selection. Q. Rev. Biol. 67 : 437 456.
17. Cook, D. 1988. Sexual selection in dung beetles. II. Female fecundity as an estimate of male reproductive success in relation to horn size, and alternative behavioural strategies in Onthophagus binodis Thunberg (Scarabaeidae: Onthophagini). Aust. J. Zool. 36 : 521 532.
18. Darwin, C. 1871. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. John Murray, London.
19. Doutrelant, C., Grégoire, A., Grnac, N., Gomez, D., Lambrechts, M.M. Perret, P. 2008. Female coloration indicates female reproductive capacity in blue tits. J. Evol. Biol. 21 : 226 233.
20. Emlen, D.J. 1994. Environmental control of horn length dimorphism in the beetle Onthophagus acuminatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 256 : 131 136.
21. Emlen, D.J. 1997. Alternative reproductive tactics and male-dimorphism in the horned beetle Onthophagus acuminatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 41 : 335 342.
22. Emlen, D.J. 2001. Costs and the diversification of exaggerated animal structures. Science 291 : 1534 1536.
23. Emlen, D.J., Hunt, J. Simmons, L.W. 2005a. Evolution of sexual dimorphism in the expression of beetle horns: phylogenetic evidence for modularity, evolutionary lability, and constraint. Am. Nat. 166 : S42 S68.
24. Emlen, D.J., Marangelo, J., Ball, B. Cunningham, C.W. 2005b. Diversity in the weapons of sexual selection: horn evolution in the beetle genus Onthophagus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Evolution 59 : 1060 1084.
25. Emlen, D.J., Szafran, Q., Corley, L.S. Dworkin, I. 2006. Insulin signaling and limb-patterning: candidate pathways for the origin and evolutionary diversification of beetle "horns". Heredity 97 : 179 191.
26. Fabre, J.H. 1918. The Sacred Beetle and Others. Hodder and Stoughton, London.
27. Fitzpatrick, S., Berglund, A. Rosenqvist, G. 1995. Ornaments or offspring - costs to reproductive success restrict sexual selection processes. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 55 : 251 260.
28. Grafen, A. 1990. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol. 144 : 517 546.
29. Hasson, O. 1990. The role of amplifiers in sexual selection: an integration of the amplifying and the Fisherian mechanisms. Evol. Ecol. 4 : 277 289.
30. Heinsohn, R., Legge, S. Endler, J.A. 2005. Extreme reversed sexual dichromatism in a bird without sex role reversal. Science 309 : 617 619.
31. Hendrix, L.J., Carter, M.W. Scott, D.T. 1982. Covariance analysis with heterogeneity of slopes in fixed models. Biometrics 38 : 641 650.
32. Hunt, J. Simmons, L.W. 2000. Maternal and paternal effects on offspring phenotype in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus. Evolution 54 : 936 941.
33. Hunt, J. Simmons, L.W. 2001. Status-dependent selection in the dimorphic beetle Onthophagus taurus. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268 : 2409 2414.
34. Hunt, J. Simmons, L.W. 2002a. Behavioural dynamics of biparental care in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus. Anim. Behav. 64 : 65 75.
35. Hunt, J. Simmons, L.W. 2002b. The genetics of maternal care: direct and indirect genetic effects on phenotype in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99 : 6828 6832.
36. Hunt, J., Simmons, L.W. Kotiaho, J.S. 2002. A cost of maternal care in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus? J. Evol. Biol. 15 : 57 64.
37. Irwin, R.E. 1994. The evolution of plumage dichromatism in the new world blackbirds: social selection on female brightness? Am. Nat. 144 : 890 907.
38. Kiltie, R.A. 1985. Evolution and function of horns and horn-like organs in female ungulates. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 24 : 299 320.
39. Kotiaho, J.S. Simmons, L.W. 2003. Longevity cost of reproduction for males but no longevity cost of mating or courtship for females in the male-dimorphic dung beetle Onthophagus binodis. J. Insect Physiol. 49 : 817 822.
40. Kraaijeveld, K., Kraaijeveld-Smit, F.J.L. Komdeur, J. 2007. The evolution of mutual ornamentation. Anim. Behav. 74 : 657 677.
41. Kvarnemo, C., Moore, G.I. Jones, A.G. 2007. Sexually selected females in the monogamous Western Australian seahorse. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 274 : 521 525.
42. Lande, R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34 : 292 305.
43. LeBas, N.R. 2006. Female finery is not for males. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21 : 170 173.
44. LeBas, N.R., Hockham, L.R. Ritchie, M.G. 2003. Nonlinear and correlational sexual selection on "honest" female ornamentation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270 : 2159 2165.
45. Lee, J.M. Peng, Y.-S. 1981. Influence of adult size of Onthophagus gazella on manure pat degradation, nest construction, and progeny size. Environ. Entomol. 10 : 626 630.
46. Moczek, A.P. Cochrane, J. 2006. Intraspecific female brood parasitism in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus. Ecol. Entomol. 31 : 316 321.
47. Moczek, A.P. Emlen, D.J. 2000. Male horn dimorphism in the scarab beetle Onthophagus taurus: do alternative reproductive tactics favor alternative phenotypes? Anim. Behav. 59 : 459 466.
48. Moczek, A.P. Nijhout, H.F. 2004. Trade-offs during the development of primary and secondary sexual traits in a horned beetle. Am. Nat. 163 : 184 191.
49. Nijhout, H.F. Emlen, D.J. 1998. Competition among body parts in the development and evolution of insect morphology. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95 : 3685 3689.
50. Nordeide, J.T., Rudolfsen, G. Eegeland, E.S. 2006. Ornaments or offspring? Female sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.) trade off carotenoids between spines and eggs. J. Evol. Biol. 19 : 431 439.
51. Ord, T.J. Stuart-Fox, D. 2006. Ornament evolution in dragon lizards: multiple gains and widespread losses reveal a complex history of evolutionary change. J. Evol. Biol. 19 : 797 808.
52. Parker, G.A. Simmons, L.W. 1996. Parental investment and the control of sexual selection: predicting the direction of sexual competition. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263 : 315 321.
53. Partridge, L., Green, A. Fowler, K. 1987. Effects of egg-production and of exposure to males on female survival in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Insect Physiol. 33 : 745 749.
54. Pomfret, J.C. Knell, R.J. 2008. Crowding, sex ratio and horn evolution in a South African beetle community. Proc. R. Soc. B 275 : 315 321.
55. Rice, W.R. 1984. Sex chromosomes and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38 : 735 742.
56. Roberts, S.C. 1996. The evolution of hornedness in female ruminants. Behaviour 133 : 399 442.
57. Robinson, M.R. Kruuk, L.E.B. 2007. Function of weaponry in females: the use of horns in intrasexual competition for resources in female Soay sheep. Biol. Lett. 3 : 651 654.
58. Roulin, A., Dijkstra, C., Riols, C. Ducrest, A.-L. 2001. Female- and male-specific signals of quality in the barn owl. J. Evol. Biol. 14 : 255 266.
59. Servedio, M.R. Lande, R. 2006. Population genetic models of male and mutual mate choice. Evolution 60 : 674 685.
60. Simmons, L.W. Emlen, D.J. 2006. Evolutionary trade-off between weapons and testes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103 : 16349 16351.
61. Simmons, L.W. Tomkins, J.L. 1996. Sexual selection and the allometry of earwig forceps. Evol. Ecol. 10 : 97 104.
62. Taylor, P.W., Hasson, O. Clark, D.L. 2000. Body postures and patterns as amplifiers of physical condition. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267 : 917 922.
63. Visser, M.E. Lessells, C.M. 2001. The costs of egg production and incubation in great tits (Parus major). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268 : 1271 1277.
64. Wicker, C. Jallon, J.M. 1995. Influence of ovary and ecdysteroids on pheromone biosynthesis in Drosophila melanogaster (Diptera, Drosophilidae). Eur. J. Entomol. 92 : 197 202.
65. Wiens, J.J. 1999. Phylogenetic evidence for multiple losses of a sexually selected character in phrynosomatid. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266 : 1529 1535.
66. Wright, D., Kerje, S., Brändström, H., Schütz, K., Kindmark, A., Andersson, L., Jensen, P. Pizzari, T. 2008. The genetic architecture of a female sexual ornament. Evolution 62 : 86 98.
67. Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection - a selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53 : 205 214.