Eyespan reflects reproductive quality in wild stalk-eyed flies

Evolutionary Ecology

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 83-95

  Cotton, Samuel ^a   Small, Jennifer ^a   Hashim, Rosli ^b   Pomiankowski, Andrew ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

Accessory glands; Fecundity; Fertility; Ornaments; Sexual selection; Stalk eyed fly; Testis; Wild

Indexed keywords

ANTAGONISM; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; FECUNDITY; FERTILITY; FITNESS; FLY; MATE CHOICE; REPRODUCTIVE EFFORT; SEXUAL SELECTION; WILD POPULATION;

ANIMALIA; DIOPSIDAE; HEXAPODA; INVERTEBRATA; TELEOPSIS DALMANNI; VERTEBRATA;

EID: 75549084015     PISSN: 02697653     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10682-009-9292-6     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Al-khairulla H, Warburton D, Knell RJ (2003) Do the eyestalks of female Diopsid flies have a function in intrasexual aggressive encounters? J Insect Behav 16: 679-686. doi: 10. 1023/B: JOIR. 0000007703. 84691. ad.
2. Andersson M (1986) Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences; sexual selection based on viability differences. Evol Int J Org Evol 40: 804-816. doi: 10. 2307/2408465.
3. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
4. Baker RH, Wilkinson GS (2001) Phylogenetic analysis of sexual dimorphism and eyespan allometry in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Evol Int J Org Evol 55: 1373-1385.
5. Baker RH, Ashwell RIS, Richards TA et al (2001) Effects of multiple mating and male eye span on female reproductive output in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. Behav Ecol 12: 732-739. doi: 10. 1093/beheco/12. 6. 732.
6. Baker RH, Denniff M, Futerman P et al (2003) Accessory gland size influences time to sexual maturity and mating frequency in the stalk-eyed fly, Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. Behav Ecol 14: 607-611. doi: 10. 1093/beheco/arg053.
7. Bjorksten TA, Pomiankowski A, Fowler K (2001) Temperature shock during development fails to increase the fluctuating asymmetry of a sexual trait in stalk-eyed flies. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 268: 1503-1510. doi: 10. 1098/rspb. 2001. 1575.
8. Burkhardt D, de la Motte I (1985) Selective pressures, variability, and sexual dimorphism in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Naturwissenschaften 72: 204-206. doi: 10. 1007/BF01195763.
9. Charmantier A, Sheldon BC (2006) Testing genetic models of mate choice evolution in the wild. Trends Ecol Evol 21: 417-419. doi: 10. 1016/j. tree. 2006. 06. 001.
10. Cornwallis CK, Birkhead TR (2008) Plasticity in reproductive phenotypes reveals status-specific correlations between behavioral, morphological, and physiological sexual traits. Evol Int J Org Evol 62: 1149-1161. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1558-5646. 2008. 00346. x.
11. Cotton S, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A (2004a) Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271: 771-783. doi: 10. 1098/rspb. 2004. 2688.
12. Cotton S, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A (2004b) Condition dependence of sexual ornament size and variation in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni (Diptera: Diopsidae). Evol Int J Org Evol 58: 1038-1046.
13. Cotton S, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A (2004c) Heightened condition dependence is not a general feature of male eyespan in stalk-eyed flies (Diptera: Diopsidae). J Evol Biol 17: 1310-1316. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1420-9101. 2004. 00754. x.
14. David P, Hingle A, Greig D et al (1998) Male sexual ornament size but not asymmetry reflects condition in stalk-eyed flies. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 265: 2211-2216. doi: 10. 1098/rspb. 1998. 0561.
15. David P, Bjorksten T, Fowler K et al (2000) Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyed flies. Nature 406: 186-188. doi: 10. 1038/35018079.
16. Ellegren H, Sheldon BS (2008) Genetic basis of fitness differences in natural populations. Nature 452: 169-175. doi: 10. 1038/nature06737.
17. Fisher RA (1958) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford (reprinted 1999, Oxford Univ Press, Oxford).
18. Fry C (2006) Juvenile hormone mediates a trade-off between primary and secondary sexual traits in stalk-eyed flies. Evol Dev 8: 191-201. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1525-142X. 2006. 00089. x.
19. Getty T (2006) Sexually selected signals are not similar to sports handicaps. Trends Ecol Evol 21: 83-88. doi: 10. 1016/j. tree. 2005. 10. 016.
20. Grafen A (1990) Sexual selection unhandicapped by the fisher process. J Theor Biol 144: 473-516. doi: 10. 1016/S0022-5193(05)80087-6.
21. Greenfield MD (1997) Sexual selection in resource defense polygamy: lessons from territorial grasshoppers. In: Chloe J, Crespi B (eds) The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 75-88.
22. Hingle A, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A (2001a) Size-dependent mate preference in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. Anim Behav 61: 589-595. doi: 10. 1006/anbe. 2000. 1613.
23. Hingle A, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A (2001b) The effect of transient food stress on female mate preference in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 268: 1239-1244. doi: 10. 1098/rspb. 2001. 1647.
24. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A (1994) The evolution of mate preferences for multiple handicaps. Evol Int J Org Evol 48: 853-867. doi: 10. 2307/2410492.
25. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A (1999) Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. J Theor Biol 200: 97-109. doi: 10. 1006/jtbi. 1999. 0979.
26. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A, Nee S (1991) The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The "handicap" principle. Evol Int J Org Evol 45: 1431-1442. doi: 10. 2307/2409890.
27. Johnstone RA (1995) Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 70: 1-65. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1469-185X. 1995. tb01439. x.
28. King RC (1970) Ovarian development in Drosophila melanogaster. Academic Press, New York.
29. Kokko H, Jennions MD, Brooks R (2006) Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 37: 43-66. doi: 10. 1146/annurev. ecolsys. 37. 091305. 110259.
30. Lande R (1980) Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evol Int J Org Evol 34: 292-305. doi: 10. 2307/2407393.
31. Lande R, Arnold SJ (1985) Evolution of mating preference and sexual dimorphism. J Theor Biol 117: 651-664. doi: 10. 1016/S0022-5193(85)80245-9.
32. Lorch P, Wilkinson GS, Reillo RP (1993) Copulation duration and sperm precedence in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis whitei. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32: 303-311. doi: 10. 1007/BF00183785.
33. Maynard Smith J, Harper D (2003) Animal signals. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
34. Meier R, Baker RH (2002) A cladistic analysis of Diopsidae (Diptera) based on morphological and DNA sequence data. Insect Syst Evol 33: 325-336.
35. Panhuis TM, Wilkinson GS (1999) Exaggerated eyespan influences male contest outcome in stalk-eyed flies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46: 221-227. doi: 10. 1007/s002650050613.
36. Pomiankowski A (1987) Sexual selection: the handicap principle does work-sometimes. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 231: 123-145.
37. Pomiankowski A (1988) The evolution of female mate preferences for male genetic quality. Ox Surv Evol Biol 5: 136-184.
38. Rogers DW, Baker RH, Chapman T et al (2005a) Direct and correlated responses to artificial selection on male mating frequency in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. J Evol Biol 18: 642-650. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1420-9101. 2004. 00860. x.
39. Rogers DW, Chapman T, Fowler K et al (2005b) Mating-induced reduction in reproductive organ size in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. BMC Evol Biol 5: 37. doi: 10. 1186/1471-2148-5-37.
40. Rogers DW, Grant CA, Chapman T et al (2006) The influence of male and female eyespan on fertility in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. Anim Behav 72: 1363-1369. doi: 10. 1016/j. anbehav. 2006. 03. 027.
41. Rogers DW, Denniff M, Chapman T et al (2008) Male ornament size signals reproductive quality in the stalk-eyed fly Teleopsis dalmanni. BMC Evol Biol 8: 236.
42. Sgrò CM, Hoffmann AA (2004) Genetic correlations, trade-offs and environmental variation. Heredity 93: 241-248. doi: 10. 1038/sj. hdy. 6800532.
43. Simmons LW, Emlen DJ (2006) Evolutionary trade-off between weapons and testes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103: 16346-16351. doi: 10. 1073/pnas. 0603474103.
44. Simmons LW, Zuk M, Rotenberry JT (2005) Immune function reflected in calling song characteristics in a natural population of the cricket Teleogryllus commodus. Anim Behav 69: 1235-1241. doi: 10. 1016/j. anbehav. 2004. 09. 011.
45. Wilkinson GS (1993) Artificial selection alters allometry in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni (Diptera: Diopsidae). Genet Res Camb 62: 213-222.
46. Wilkinson GS, Dodson GN (1997) Function and evolution of antlers and eye stalks in flies. In: Chloe J, Crespi B (eds) The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 310-328.
47. Wilkinson GS, Reillo PR (1994) Female choice response to artificial selection in an exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 225: 1-6. doi: 10. 1098/rspb. 1994. 0001.
48. Wilkinson GS, Amitin EG, Johns PM (2005) Sex-linked correlated responses in female reproductive traits to selection on male eye span in stalk-eyed flies. Integr Comp Biol 45: 500-510. doi: 10. 1093/icb/45. 3. 500.
49. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53: 205-214. doi: 10. 1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3.
50. Zuk M (1988) Parasite load, body size, and age of wild-caught male field crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae): effects on sexual selection. Evol Int J Org Evol 42: 969-976. doi: 10. 2307/2408912.