Gender differences in survival and antipredatory behavior in stalk-eyed flies

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 759-766

  Worthington, Amy M ^a   Swallow, John G ^a  

^a W O Farber Center for Civic Leadership   (United States)

Author keywords

antipredator behavior; predation risk; sexual selection; stalk eyed flies

Indexed keywords

ANTIPREDATOR DEFENSE; BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EYE; FLY; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; LOCOMOTION; MORPHOLOGY; ORNAMENTATION; PREDATION RISK; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SEX-RELATED DIFFERENCE; SEXUAL SELECTION; SURVIVAL; TRADE-OFF;

ARACHNIDA; DIOPSIDAE; PHIDIPPUS AUDAX; TELEOPSIS DALMANNI;

EID: 77954373864     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arq050     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Allen BJ, Levinton JS. 2007. Costs of bearing a sexually selected ornamental weapon in a fiddler crab. Funct Ecol. 21:154-161.
2. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
3. Andersson M. 1986. Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution. 40:804-816.
4. Anholt BR. 1997. Sexual size dimorphism an sex-specific survival in adults of the damselfly Lestes disjunctus. Ecol Entomol. 22:127-132.
5. Arnold SJ. 1983. Morphology, performance and fitness. Am Zool. 23:347-361.
6. Barbosa A, Møller AP. 1999. Aerodynamic costs of long tails in male barn swallows Hirundo rustica and the evolution of sexual size dimorphism. Behav Ecol. 10:128-135.
7. Basalo AL, Alcaraz G. 2003. The turn of the sword: length increases male swimming costs in swordtails. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 270:1631-1636.
8. Basalo AL, Wagner WE. 2004. Covariation between predation risk, body size and fin elaboration in the green swordtail, Xiphophorus helleri. Biol J Linn Soc. 83:87-100.
9. Blumstein DT, Evans C, Daniels JC. 2006. JWatcher 1.0. [cited 2009 January 5]. Available from: http://www.jwatcher.ucla.edu/.
10. Bokony V, Liker A, Lendvai AZ, Kulcsar A. 2008. Risk taking and survival in the house sparrow Passer domesticus: are plumage ornaments costly? Ibis. 150:139-151.
11. Brown HP. 1946. A technique for rearing spiders. Turtox News. 24:76.
12. David P, Hingle A, Greig D, Rutherford A, Pomiankowski A, Fowler K. 1998. Male sexual ornament size but not asymmetry reflects condition in stalk-eyed flies. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 265:2211-2216.
13. Dugatkin LA, Godin J-GJ. 1992. Prey approaching predators: a cost-benefit perspective. Ann Zool Fennici. 29:233-252.
14. Evans MR, Thomas ALR. 1992. The aerodynamic and mechanical effects of elongated tails in the scarlet-tufted malachite sunbird: measuring the cost of a handicap. Anim Behav. 43:337-347.
15. Fisher RA. 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
16. Garland T Jr, Carter PA. 1994. Evolutionary physiology. Ann R Physiol. 56:579-621.
17. Gibbs AG. 1999. Laboratory selection for the comparative physiologist. J Exp Biol. 202:2709-2718.
18. Godin J-GJ, Davis SA. 1995. Who dares, benefits: predator approach behavior in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata) deters predator pursuit. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 259:193-200.
19. Grether GF. 1997. Survival cost of an intrasexually selected ornament in a damselfly. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 264:207-210.
20. Haas R. 1976. Sexual selection in Nothobranchius guentheri (Pisces: cyp-rinodontidae). Evolution. 30:614-622.
21. Hedrick AV. 2000. Crickets with extravagant mating songs compensate for predation risk with extra caution. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol. 267:671-675.
22. Hoglund J, Sheldon BC. 1998. The cost of reproduction and sexual selection. Oikos. 83:478-483.
23. Husak JF. 2006. Does survival depend on how fast you can run or how fast you do run? Funct Ecol. 20:1080-1086.
24. Husak JF, Fox SF. 2006. Field use of sprint speed by collared lizards (Crotaphytus collaris): compensation and sexual selection. Evolution. 60:1888-1895.
25. Irschick DJ. 2002. Evolutionary approaches for studying functional morphology: examples from studies of performance capacity. Integr Comp Biol. 42:278-290.
26. Irschick DJ, Garland T Jr. 2001. Integrating function and ecology in studies of adaptation: investigations of locomotor capacity as a model system. Ann Rev Ecol Syst. 32:367-396.
27. Irschick DJ, Herrel A, Vanhooydonck B, Van Damme R. 2007. A functional approach to sexual selection. Funct Ecol. 21:621-626.
28. Irschick DJ, Meyers JJ, Husak JF, Le Galliard JF. 2008. How does selection operate on whole-organism functional performance capacities? A review and synthesis. Evol Ecol Res. 10:177-196.
29. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A, Nee S. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The 'handicap' principle. Evolution. 45:1431-1442.
30. Jackson RR. 1974. Rearing methods for spiders. J Arachnol. 2:53-56.
31. Jackson RR, Nelson XJ, Sune GO. 2005. A spider that feeds indirectly on vertebrate blood by choosing female mosquitoes as prey. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA. 102:15155-15160.
32. Jennions MD, Møller AP, Petrie M. 2001. Sexually selected traits and adult survival: a meta-analysis. Q Rev Biol. 76:3-36.
33. Knell RJ, Fruhauf N, Norris KA. 1999. Conditional expression of a sexually-selected trait in the stalk-eyed fly Diasemopsis aethiopica. Ecol Entomol. 24:323-328.
34. Kotiaho J. 2001. Costs of sexual traits: a mismatch between theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Biol Rev. 76:365-376.
35. Kotiaho J, Alatalo RV, Mappes J, Parri S, Rivero A. 1998. Male mating success and risk of predation in a wolf spider: a balance between sexual selection and natural selection? J Anim Ecol. 67:287-291.
36. Land MF. 1969. Structure of the retinae of the principle eyes of jumping spiders (Salticidae: Dendryphantinae) in relation to visual optics. J Exp Biol. 51:443-470.
37. Lande R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution. 33:292-305.
38. Lauder GV. 1996. The argument from design. In: Rose MR, Lauder GV, editors. Adaptation. San Diego (CA): Academic Press. p. 55-91.
39. Møller AP, de Lope F. 1994. Differential costs of a secondary sexual character: an experimental test of the handicap principle. Evolution. 48:1676-1683.
40. Moodie GEE. 1972. Predation, natural selection, and adaptation in an unusual threespine stickleback. Heredity. 28:155-167.
41. Nelson XJ, Jackson RR, Sune G. 2005. Use of Anopheles-specific prey-capture behavior by the small juveniles of Evarcha culicivora, a mosquito-eating jumping spider. J Arachnol. 33:541-548.
42. Nelson XL, Jackson RR. 2006. A predator from East Africa chooses malaria vectors as preferred prey. PLoS one. 1(1):e132.
43. Nowicki S, Searcy WA, Peters S. 2002. Brain development, song learning and mate choice in birds: a review and experimental test of the "nutritional stress hypothesis''. J Comp Physiol A. 188: 1003-1014.
44. Oufiero CE, Garland T Jr. 2007. Evaluation performance costs of sexually selected traits. Funct Ecol. 21:676-689.
45. Panhuis TM, Wilkinson GS. 1999. Exaggerated male eye span influences contest outcome in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Behav Ecol So-ciobiol. 46:221-227.
46. Partridge L, Fowler K. 1993. Responses and correlated responses to artificial selection on thorax length in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 47:213-226.
47. Pitcher TJ. 1992. Who dares, wins: the function and evolution of predator inspection behavior in shoaling fish. Neth J Zool. 42: 371-391.
48. Price T, Schulter D, Heckman NE. 1993. Sexual selection when the female directly benefits. Biol J Linn Soc. 48:187-211.
49. Provost C, Lucas E, Coderre D. 2006. Prey preference of Hyaliodes vitripennis as an intraguild predator: active predator choice or passive selection? Biol Control. 37:148-154.
50. Reguera P, Pomiankowski A, Fowler K, Chapman T. 2004. Low cost of reproduction in female stalk-eyed flies, Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. J Insect Physiol. 50:103-108.
51. Ribak G, Swallow JS. 2007. Free flight maneuvers of stalk-eyed flies: do eye-stalks affect aerial turning behavior? J Comp Physiol A. 193: 1065-1079.
52. Ribak G, Egge AR, Swallow JG. 2009. Saccadic head rotations during walking in the stalk-eyed fly (Cyrtodiapsis dalmanni). Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 276:1643-1649.
53. SAS Institute Inc. 2002-2004. SAS 9.1.3 help and documentation. Cary (NC): SAS Institute Inc.
54. Stuart-Fox DM, Moussalli A, Marshal NJ, Owens IPF. 2003. Conspicuous males suffer higher predation risk: visual modeling and experimental evidence from lizards. Anim Behav. 66:541-550.
55. Swallow JS, Wilkinson GS, Marden JH. 2000. Aerial performance of stalk-eyed flies that differ in eye span. J Comp Physiol B. 170: 481-487.
56. Vanhooydonck B, Van Damme R, Herrel A, Irschick DJ. 2007. A performance based approach to distinguish indices from handicaps in sexual selection studies. Funct Ecol. 21:645-652.
57. Vega-Redondo F, Hasson O. 1993. A game-theoretic model of predator prey signaling. J Theor Biol. 162:309-319.
58. Wainwright PC, Alfaro ME, Bolnick DI, Husley CD. 2005. Many-to-one mapping of form and function: a general principle to organismal design? Integr Comp Biol. 45:256-262.
59. Wilkinson GS. 1987. Equilibrium analysis of sexual selection in Dro-sophila melanogaster. Evolution. 41:11-21.
60. Wilkinson GS. 1993. Artificial selection alters allometry in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni (Diptera: Diopsidae). Genet Res. 62:213-222.
61. Wilkinson GS, Johns PM, Kelleher ES, Muscedere ML, Lorsong A. 2006. Fitness effects of X chromosome drive in the stalk-eyed fly, Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. J Evol Biol. 19:1851-1860.
62. Wilkinson GS, Reillo PR. 1994. Female choice response to artificial selection on an exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 255:1-6.
63. Wilkinson GM, Taper M. 1999. Evolution of genetic variation for condition dependent traits in stalk-eyed flies. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 266:1685-1690.
64. Zahavi A. 1975. Mate-selection-selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol. 53:205-214.
65. Zahavi A. 1977. Cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). J Theor Biol. 67:603-605.
66. Zhang JX, Song DX. 2003. Six new and one newly recorded species of Salticidae (Arachnida: Araneae) from Singapore and Malaysia. Raffles Bull Zool. 51:187-195.
67. Zuk M, Kulluru GR. 1998. Exploitation of sexual signals by predators and parasitoids. Q Rev Biol. 73:415-438.