Mate choice in the dung beetle Onthophagus sagittarius: Are female horns ornaments?

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 424-430

  Watson, Nicola L ^a   Simmons, Leigh W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Female horns; Mutual mate choice; Parental provisioning

Indexed keywords

BEETLE; BODY SIZE; EVOLUTIONARILY STABLE STRATEGY; MATE CHOICE; ORNAMENTATION; PHENOTYPE; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SEXUAL SELECTION;

COLEOPTERA; ONTHOPHAGUS; SAGITTARIUS;

EID: 76749120426     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arp207     Document Type: Article

References (94)

1. Amundsen T, Forsgren E. 2001. Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 98:13155-13160.
2. Amundsen T, Forsgren E, Hansen LTT. 1997. On the function of female ornaments: female bluethroats prefer colorful males. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 264:1579-1586. (Pubitemid 27504136)
3. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
4. Bateman AJ. 1948. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity. 2: 349-368.
5. Berglund A, Bisazza A, Pilastro A. 1996. Armaments and ornaments: evolutionary explanation of traits of dual utility. Biol J Linn Soc. 58:385-399.
6. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Bernet P. 1997. Ornamentation predicts reproductive success in female pipefish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 40: 140-145.
7. Bleiwess R. 1992. Widespread polychromatic in female sunangel hummingbirds (Heliangelus: Trochilidae). Biol J Linn Soc. 45:291-314.
8. Bonduriansky R. 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol Rev. 76:305-339.
9. Brown WD. 1997. Female remating and the intensity of female choice in black-horned tree crickets, Oecanthus nigricornis. Behav Ecol. 8: 66-74.
10. Burley N. 1988. The differential allocation hypothesis: an experimental test. Am Nat. 132:611-628.
11. Burns KJ. 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. Chenoweth SF, Blows MW. 2005. Contrasting mutual sexual selection on homologous signal in Drosophila serrata. Am Nat. 165:281-289.
13. Chenoweth SF, Doughty P, Kokko H. 2007. Can non-directional male mating preferences facilitate honest female ornamentation? Ecol Lett. 9:179-184.
14. Clutton-Brock TH. 2009. Sexual selection in females. Anim Behav. 77:3-11.
15. Clutton-Brock TH, Vincent ACJ. 1991. Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females. Nature. 351:58-60.
16. Cook DF. 1998. 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: Coleoptera). Aust J Zool. 36:521-532.
17. Cook DF. 1990. Differences in courtship, mating and postovulatory behavior between male morphs of the dung beetle Onthophagus binodis Thunberg (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Anim Behav. 40: 428-436.
18. Cordero C, Eberhard WG. 2003. Female choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptations: a critical review of some current research. J Evol Biol. 16:1-6.
19. Cornwallis CK, Birkhead TR. 2007. Experimental evidence that female ornamentation increases the acquisition of sperm and signals fecundity. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 274:583-590.
20. Cratsley CK, Lewis SM. 2003. Female preference for male courtship flashed in Photinus ignitus fireflies. Behav Ecol. 14:135-140.
21. Crawley MJ. 1993. GLIM for ecologists. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
22. Cunningham EJA, Birkhead TR. 1998. Sex roles and sexual selection. Anim Behav. 56:1311-1321.
23. Darwin C. 1871. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.
24. De Lope F, Møller P. 1993. Female reproductive effort depends on the degree of ornamentation of their mates. Evolution. 47:1152-1160.
25. Emlen DJ. 1994. Environmental control of horn length dimorphism in the dung beetle Onthophagus acuminatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaei-dae). Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 256:131-136.
26. Emlen DJ. 1997. Alternative reproductive tactics and male dimorphism in the horned beetle Onthophagus acuminatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 41:335-341.
27. Emlen DJ, Hunt J, Simmons LW. 2005. Evolution of sexual dimorphism in the expression of beetle horns: phylogenetic evidence for modularity, evolutionary lability, and constraint. Am Nat. 166: S42-S68.
28. Emlen DJ, Marangelo J, Ball B, Cunningham CW. 2005. Diversity in the weapons of sexual selection: horn evolution in the beetle genus Onthophagus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Evolution. 59:1060-1084.
29. Emlen ST, Oring LW. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. Science. 197:215-223.
30. Fitzpatrick S, Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 1995. Ornaments or offspring: costs to reproductive success restrict sexual selection processes. Biol J Linn Soc. 55:25-260.
31. González Meǵias A, Sánchez-Piñero F. 2004. Response of host species to brood parasitism in dung beetles: importance of nest location by parasitic species. Funct Ecol. 18:914-924.
32. Griggio M, Devigili A, Hoi H, Pilastro A. 2009. Female ornamentation and directional male mate preference in the rock sparrow. Behav Ecol. 20:1072-1078.
33. Griggio M, Valera F, Casas A, Pilastro A. 2005. Males prefer ornamented females: a field experiment of male choice in the rock sparrow. Anim Behav. 69:1243-1250.
34. Hanssen SA, Folstad I, Erikstad KE. 2006. White plumage reflects individual quality in female eiders. Anim Behav. 71:337-343.
35. Head ML, Hunt J, Brooks R. 2006. Genetic association between male attractiveness and female differential allocation. Biol Lett. 2: 341-344.
36. Heinsohn R, Legge S, Endler JA. 2005. Extreme reversed sexual di-chromatism in a bird without sex role reversal. Science. 309: 617-619.
37. Hill GE. 1993. Male mate choice and the evolution of female coloration in the house finch. Evolution. 47:1515-1525.
38. Hoelzer GA. 1989. The good parent process of sexual selection. Anim Behav. 38:1067-1078.
39. Hunt J, Brooks R, Jennions MD. 2005. Female mate choice as a condition-dependent life-history trait. Am Nat. 166:79-92.
40. Hunt J, Simmons LW. 1997. Patterns of fluctuating asymmetry in beetle horns: an experimental examination of the honest signaling hypothesis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 41:109-114.
41. Hunt J, Simmons LW. 1998. Patterns of parental provisioning covary with male morphology in a horned beetle (Onthophagus taurus) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 42:447-451.
42. Hunt J, Simmons LW. 2000. Maternal and paternal effects on offspring phenotype in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus. Evolution. 54:936-941.
43. Hunt J, Simmons LW. 2002a. Behavioral dynamics of biparental care in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus. Anim Behav. 64:65-75.
44. Hunt J, Simmons LW. 2002b. Confidence of paternity and paternal care: covariation revealed through the experimental manipulation of the mating system in the beetle Onthophagus taurus. J Evol Biol. 15:784-795.
45. Hunt J, Simmons LW, Kotiaho JS. 2002. A cost of maternal care in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus? J Evol Biol. 15:57-64.
46. Irwin RE. 1994. The evolution of plumage dichromatism in the New World blackbirds: social selection on female brightness? Am Nat. 144:890-907.
47. Jawor JM, Gray N, Beall SM, Breitwisch R. 2004. Multiple ornaments correlate with aspects of condition and behavior if female northern cardinals, Cardinalis cardinalis. Anim Behav. 67:875-882. (Pubitemid 38617313)
48. Johnson K. 1988. Sexual selection in pinyon jays. II. Male choice and female-female competition. Anim Behav. 36:1048-1053.
49. Jones IL, Hunter FM. 1999. Evidence for mutual inter-and intra-sexual selection favoring a crested auklet ornament. Anim Behav. 57:521-528.
50. Kokko H. 1998. Should advertising parental care be honest? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 256:1871-1878.
51. Kokko H, Johnstone RA. 2002. Why is mutual mate choice not the norm? Operational sex ratios, sex roles and the evolution of sexually dimorphic and monomorphic signaling. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Biol Sci. 357:319-330.
52. Kotiaho JS. 2002. Sexual selection and condition dependence of courtship display in three species of horned dung beetles. Behav Ecol. 13:791-799.
53. Kotiaho JS, Puurtinen M. 2007. Mate choice for indirect genetic benefits: scrutiny of the current paradigm. Funct Ecol. 21:638-644.
54. Kotiaho JS, Simmons LW. 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 Phys. 49:817-822.
55. Kotiaho JS, Simmons LW, Hunt J, Tomkins JL. 2003. Males influence maternal effects that promote sexual selection: a quantitative genetic experiment with dung beetles Onthophagus taurus. Am Nat. 161:852-859.
56. Kotiaho JS, Tomkins JL, Simmons LW. 2001. Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature. 410:684-686.
57. Kraaijeveld K, Kraaijeveld-Smit FJL, Komdeur J. 2007. The evolution of mutual ornamentation. Anim Behav. 74:657-677.
58. Lande R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution. 34:292-305.
59. LeBas NR. 2006. Female finery is not for males. Trends Ecol Evol. 21:170-173.
60. LeBas NR, Hockham LR, Ritchie MG. 2003. Nonlinear and correlational sexual selection on 'honest' female ornamentation. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 270:2159-2165.
61. LeBas NR, Marshall NJ. 2000. The role of color in signaling and male choice in the Agamid lizard Ctenophorus ornatus. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 267:445-452.
62. Lee JM, Peng YS. 1981. Influence of adult size of Onthophagus gazella on manure pat degradation, nest construction and progeny size. Environ Entomol. 10:626-630.
63. Linville SU, Breitwish R, Schilling AJ. 1998. Plumage brightness as an indicator of parental care in northern cardinals. Anim Behav. 55: 119-127.
64. Massaro M, Davis LS, Darby JT. 2003. Carotenoid-derived ornaments reflect parental quality in male and female yellow-eyed penguins (Megadyptes antipodes). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 55:169-175.
65. Moczek AP, Cochrane J. 2006. Intraspecific female brood parasitism in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus. Ecol Entomol. 31:316-321.
66. Moczek AP, Emlen DJ. 2000. Male horn dimorphism in the scarab beetle, Onthophagus taurus: do alternative reproductive tactics favour alternative phenotypes? Anim Behav. 59:459-466.
67. Møller AP, Jennions MD. 2001. How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection? Naturwissenschaften. 88:401-415.
68. Morales J, Moreno J, Merino S, Sanz JJ, Tomas G, Arriero E, Lobato E, De la Puente MJ. 2007. Female ornaments in the pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypotenuse: associations with age, health and reproductive success. Ibis. 149:245-254.
69. Murphy TG, Hernandez-Mucino D, Osorio-Beristain M, Montgom-erie R, Omland KE. 2009. Carotenoid-based status signaling by females in the tropical streak-backed oriole. Behav Ecol. 20: 1000-1006.
70. Nordeide JT. 2002. Do male sticklebacks prefer females with red ornamentation? Can J Zool. 80:1344-1349.
71. Nordeide JT, Rudolfsen G, Egeland ES. 2006. Ornaments or offspring? Female sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.) trade off car-otenoids between spines and eggs. J Evol Biol. 19:431-439.
72. Otronen M. 1988. Intra-and intersexual interactions at breeding burrows in the horned beetle, Coprophanaeous ensifer. Anim Behav. 36: 741-748.
73. Owens IPF, Thompson DBA. 1994. Sex differences, sex ratios and sex roles. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 258:93-99.
74. Pilastro A, Griggio M, Matessi G. 2003. Male rock sparrows adjust their breeding strategy according to female ornamentation: parental or mating investment? Anim Behav. 66:265-271.
75. Pizzari T, Cornwallis CK, Lovie H, Jakobsson S, Birkhead TR. 2003. Sophisticated sperm allocation in male fowl. Nature. 426:70-74.
76. Rosenqvist G. 1990. Male mate choice and female-female competition for mates in the pipefish Nerophis ophidion. Anim Behav. 39: 1110-1115.
77. Roulin A. 1999. Nonrandom pairing by male barn owls (Tyto alba) with respect to a female plumage trait. Behav Ecol. 10:688-695.
78. Roulin A, Jungi TW, Pfister H, Dijkstra C. 2000. Female barn owls (Tyto alba) advertise good genes. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 267: 937-941.
79. Schluter D. 1988. Estimating the form of natural selection on a quantitative trait. Evolution. 42:849-861.
80. Servedio MR. 2007. Male versus female mate choice: sexual selection and the evolution of species recognition via reinforcement. Evolution. 61:2772-2789.
81. Servedio MR, Lande R. 2006. Population genetic models of male and mutual mate choice. Evolution. 60:674-685.
82. Sheldon BC. 2000. Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends Ecol Evol. 15:397-402.
83. Siefferman L, Hill GE. 2005. Evidence for sexual selection on structural plumage coloration in female eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis). Evolution. 59:1819-1828. (Pubitemid 41266783)
84. Simmons LW, Emlen DJ. 2006. Evolutionary trade-off between weapons and testes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 103:16346-16351.
85. Simmons LW, Emlen DJ. 2008. No fecundity cost of female secondary sexual trait expression in the horned beetle Onthophagus sagittarius. J Evol Biol. 21:1227-1235.
86. Simmons LW, Tomkins JL, Hunt JC. 1999. Sperm competition games played by dimorphic male beetles. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 266:145-150.
87. Sowig P. 1996. Duration and benefits of biparental brood care in the dung beetle Onthophagus vacca (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Ecol Entomol. 21:81-86.
88. Torres R, Velando A. 2005. Male preference for female foot color in the socially monogamous blue-footed booby, Sula nebouxii. Anim Behav. 69:59-65.
89. Trail PW. 1990. Why should lek breeders be monomorphic? Evolution. 44:1837-1852.
90. Trivers RL. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B, editor. Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871-1971. Chicago: Aldine Press. p. 139-179.
91. Velando A, Lessells CM, Marquez JC. 2001. The function of female and male ornaments in the Inca Tern: evidence for links between ornament expression and both adult condition and reproductive performance. J Avian Biol. 32:311-318.
92. Weiss SL, Kennedy EA, Bernhard JA. 2009. Female-specific ornamentation predicts offspring quality in the striped plateau lizard, Sclepo-rus virgatus. Behav Ecol. 20:1063-1071.
93. Wiens JJ. 1999. Phylogenetic evidence for multiple losses of a sexually selected character in phryonosomatid lizards. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 266:1529-1535.
94. Zahavi A. 1975. Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol. 53:205-214.