Sexual selection and the evolution of genital shape and complexity in water striders

Evolution

Volumn 66, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 40-54

  Rowe, Locke ^a   Arnqvist, Göran ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Allometry; Coevolution; Gerris; Morphometics; Phylogenetic comparative analysis

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; COEVOLUTION; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; INSECT; MORPHOMETRY; PHYLOGENETICS; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOMETRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; FEMALE GENITAL SYSTEM; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETICS; HETEROPTERA; HISTOLOGY; MALE; MALE GENITAL SYSTEM; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; BIOMETRY; FEMALE; GENITALIA, FEMALE; GENITALIA, MALE; HETEROPTERA; MALE; SELECTION, GENETIC; SEX CHARACTERISTICS;

ANIMALIA; GERRIDAE; GERRIS;

EID: 84855270368     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01411.x     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Andersen, N. M. 1982. The semiaquatic bugs (Heteroptera, Gerromorpha): phylogeny, adaptations, biogeography and classification. Entomonograph vol. 3. Scandinavian Science Press, Klampenborg, Denmark.
2. Andersen, N. M. 1991. Marine insects: genital morphology, phylogeny and evolution of sea skaters, genus Halobates (Hemiptera, Gerridae). Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 103:21-60.
3. Andersen, N. M. 1993. Classification, phylogeny, and zoogeography of the pond skater genusGerris Fabricius(Hemiptera: Gerridae). Can. J. Zool. 71:2473-2508.
4. Andersen, N. M., and L. Cheng. 2005. The marine insectHalobates(Heteroptera: Gerridae): biology, adaptations, distribution, and phylogeny. Oceanogr. Mar Biol. 42:119-179.
5. Andersen, N. M., and T. A. Weir. 1994. The sea skaters, genus Halobates Eschscholtz (Hemiptera: Gerridae), of Australia: taxonomy, phylogeny and zoogeography. Invertebr. Taxon. 8:861-909.
6. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
7. Arbuthnott, D., M. G. Elliot, M. A. McPeek, and B. J. Crespi. 2010. Divergent patterns of diversification in courtship and genitalic characters of Timema walking-sticks. J. Evol. Biol. 23:1399-1411.
8. Arnqvist, G. 1989. Sexual selection in a water strider: the function, mechanism of selection and heritability of a male grasping apparatus. Oikos 56:344-350.
9. Arnqvist, G. 1992. Spatial variation in selective regimes: sexual selection in the water strider, Gerris odontogaster. Evolution 46:914-929.
10. Arnqvist, G. 1998. Comparative evidence for the evolution of genitalia by sexual selection. Nature 393:784-786.
11. Arnqvist, G. 2006. Sensory exploitation and sexual conflict. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 361:375-386.
12. Arnqvist, G., and I. Danielsson. 1999. Postmating sexual selection: the effects of male body size and recovery period on paternity and egg production rate in a water strider. Behav. Ecol. 10:358-365.
13. Arnqvist, G., and L. Rowe. 1995. Sexual conflict and arms races between the sexes: a morphological adaptation for control of mating in a female insect. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 261:123-127.
14. Arnqvist, G., and L. Rowe. 2002a. Correlated evolution of male and female morphologies in water striders. Evolution 56:936-947.
15. Arnqvist, G., and L. Rowe. 2002b. Comparative analysis unveils antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415:787-789.
16. Arnqvist, G., and L. Rowe. 2005. The natural history of sexual conflict. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
17. Bertin, A., and D. J. Fairbairn. 2005. One tool, many uses: precopulatory sexual selection on genital morphology inAquarius remigis. J. Evol. Biol. 18:949-961.
18. Bertin, A., and D. J. Fairbairn. 2007. The form of sexual selection on male genitalia cannot be inferred from within-population variance and allometry- a case study inAquarius remigis. Evolution 61:825-837.
19. Bonduriansky, R. 2007. Sexual selection and allometry: a critical reappraisal of the evidence and ideas. Evolution 61:838-849.
20. Bonduriansky, R., and T. Day. 2003. The evolution of static allometry in sexually selected traits. Evolution 57:2450-2458.
21. Brennan, P. L. R., R. O. Prum, K. G. McCracken, M. D. Sorenson, R. E. Wilson, and T. R. Birkhead. 2007. Coevolution of male and female genital morphology in water fowl. PLoS one 5:e418.
22. Briceno, R. D., and W. G. Eberhard. 2009. Experimental modifications imply a stimulatory function for male tsetse fly genitalia, supporting cryptic female choice theory. J. Evol. Biol. 22:1516-1525.
23. Briskie, J. V., R. Montgomerie, and T. R. Birkhead. 1997. The evolution of sperm size in birds. Evolution 51:937-945.
24. Damgaard, J., and F. A. H. Sperling. 2001. Phylogeny of the water strider genusGerris Fabricius(Heteroptera: Gerridae) based on COI mtDNA, EF-1a nuclear DNA and morphology. Syst. Entomol. 26:241-254.
25. Danielsson, I., and C. Askenmo. 1999. Male genital traits and mating interval affect male fertilization success in the water striderGerris lacustris. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 46:149-156.
26. Eberhard, W. G. 1985. Sexual selection and animal genitalia. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA.
27. Eberhard, W. G. 2006. Sexually antagonistic coevolution in insects is associated with only limited morphological diversity. J. Evol. Biol. 19:657-681.
28. Eberhard, W. G. 2009. Static allometry and animal genitalia. Evolution 63:48-68.
29. Eberhard, W. 2010. Evolution of genitalia: theories, evidence, and new directions. Genetica 138:5-18.
30. Eberhard, W. G., and B. A. Huber. 2010. Spider genitalia: precise maneuvers with a numb structure in a complex lock. Pp. 249-284 in J. Leonard and A. Cordoba-Aguilar, eds. The evolution of primary sexual characters in animals. Oxford, New York.
31. Eberhard, W. G., B. A. Huber, R. L. Rodriguez, R.D. Briceño, I. Salas, and V. Rodriguez. 1998. One size fits all? Relationships between the size and degree of variation in genitalia and other body parts in twenty species of insects and spiders. Evolution 52:415-431.
32. Eberhard, W., R. L. Rodriguez, and M. Polihronakis. 2009. Pitfalls in understanding the functional significance of genital allometry. J. Evol. Biol. 22: 435-445.
33. Fairbairn, D. J., R. Vermette, N. N. Kapoor, and N. Zahiri. 2003. Functional morphology of sexually selected gentalia in the water strider Aquarius remigis. Can. J. Zool. 81:400-413.
34. Felsenstein, J. 2005. PHYLIP (Phylogeny Inference Package) version 3.6. distributed by the author. Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle.
35. Fricke, C., J. Perry, T. Chapman, and L. Rowe. 2009. Conditional economics of sexual conflict. Biol. Lett. 5: 671-674.
36. Garland, T., Jr., P. H. Harvey, and A. R. Ives. 1992. Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically in- dependent contrasts. Syst. Biol. 41:18-32.
37. Garnier, S., F. Magniez-Jannin, J. Y. Rasplus, and P. Alibert. 2005. When morphometry meets genetics: inferring the phylogeography ofCarabus solieriusing Fourier analyses of pronotum and male genitalia. J. Evol. Biol. 18:269-280.
38. Holwell, G. I. 2008. Geographic variation in genital morphology ofCiulfinapraying mantids. J. Zool. 276:108-114.
39. Holwell, G. I., C. Winnick, T. Tregenza, and M. E. Herberstein. 2010. Genital shape correlates with sperm transfer success in the praying mantisCiulfina klassi(Insecta: Mantodea). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64:617-625.
40. Hosken, D. J., and P. Stockley. 2004. Sexual selection and genital evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:87-93.
41. Hosken, D. J., and P. I. Ward. 2001. Experimental evidence for testis size evolution via sperm competition. Ecol. Lett. 4:10-13.
42. House, C. M., and L. W. Simmons. 2003. Genital morphology and fertilization success in the dung beetleOnthophagus taurus: an example of sexually selected male genitalia. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270:447-455.
43. Hotzy, C., and G. Arnqvist. 2009. Sperm competition favors harmful males in seed beetles. Curr. Biol. 19:404-407.
44. Huber, B. A. 2003. Rapid evolution and species-specificity of arthropod genitalia: fact or artifact? Org. Divers. Evol. 3:63-71.
45. Huber, B. A., C. A. Rheims, and A. D. Brescovit. 2005. Two new species of litter-dwelling Metagonia spiders (Araneae, Pholcidae) document both rapid and slow genital evolution. Acta Zool. 86:33-40.
46. Joly, D., and M. Schiffer. 2010. Coevolution of male and female reproductive structures inDrosophila. Genetica 138:105-118.
47. Katvala, M., J. L. Rönn, and G. Arnqvist. 2008. Correlated evolution between male ejaculate allocation and female remating behaviour in seed beetles (Bruchidae). J. Evol. Biol. 21:471-479.
48. Kirkpatrick, M., and M. J. Ryan. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33-38.
49. Klingenberg, C. P. 1996. Multivariate allometry. Pp. 23-49 in L. F. Marcus, M. Corti, A. Loy, G. J. P. Naylor, and D. E. Slice, eds. Advances in morphometrics. Plenum, New York.
50. Kuntner, M., J. A. Coddington, and J. M. Schneider. 2009. Intersexual arms race? Genital coevolution in nephilid spiders (Araneae, Nephilidae). Evolution 63:1451-1463.
51. Liu, J., J. M. Mercer, L. F. Stam, G. C. Gibson, Z. B. Zeng, and C. C. Laurie. 1996. Genetic analysis of a morphological shape difference in the male genitalia ofDrosophila simulansandD-mauritiana. Genetics 142:1129-1996.
52. Maklakov, A. A., and G. Arnqvist. 2009. Testing for direct and indirect effects of mate choice by manipulating female choosiness. Curr. Biol. 19:1903-1906.
53. McLellan, T., and J. A. Endler. 1998. The relative success of some methods for measuring and describing the shape of complex objects. Syst. Biol. 47:264-281.
54. McPeek, M. A., L. Shen, J. Z. Torrey, and H. Farid. 2008. The tempo and mode of 3-dimensional morphological evolution in male reproductive structures. Am. Nat. 171:E158-E178.
55. Michel, F. A. 1961. The taxonomic value of the male genitalia of the genusGerris Fabricus(Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Gerridae). M.Sc. Thesis, Oregon State University, OR.
56. Monti, L., M. Baylac, and B. Lalanne-Cassou. 2001. Elliptic Fourier analysis of the form of genitalia in twoSpodopteraspecies and their hybrids (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 72:391-400.
57. Mutanen, M., A. Kaitala, and M. Mönkkönen. 2006. Genital variation within and between three closely relatedEuxoamoth species: testing the lock and key hypothesis. J. Zool. 268:109-119.
58. Nessler, S. H., G. Uhl, and J. M. Schneider. 2007. A non-sperm transferring genital trait under sexual selection: an experimental approach. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 274:2337-2341.
59. Polak, M., and A. Rashed. 2010. Microscale laser surgery reveals adaptive function of male intromittent genitalia. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 277: 1371-1376.
60. Presgraves, D. C., R. H. Baker, and G. S. Wilkinson. 1999. Coevolution of sperm and female reproductive tract morphology in stalk-eyed flies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266:1041-1047.
61. Preziosi, R. F., and D. F. Fairbairn. 1996. Sexual size dimorphism and selection in the wild in the water striderAquarius remigis: body size, components of body size and male mating success. J. Evol. Biol. 9:317-336.
62. Preziosi, R. F., and D. F. Fairbairn. 2000. Lifetime selection on adult body size and components of body size in a water strider: opposing selection and maintenance of sexual size dimorphism. Evolution 54:558-566.
63. Ramm, S. A., L. Khoo, and P. Stockley. 2010. Sexual selection and the rodent baculum: an intraspecific study in the house mouse (Mus musculus domesticus). Genetica 138:129-137.
64. Revell, L. J. 2009. Size-correction and principal components for interspecific comparative studies. Evolution 63:3258-3268.
65. Revell, L. J., and A. S. Harrison. 2008. PCCA: a program for phylogenetic canonical correlation analysis. Bioinformatics 24:1018-1020.
66. Rohlf, F. J. 2008. tpsDig, version 2.12. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY.
67. Rohlf, F. J., and L. F. Marcus. 1993. A revolution in morphometrics. Trends Ecol. Evol. 8:129-132.
68. Ronkainen, K., A. Kaitala, and R. Huttunen. 2005. The effect of abdominal spines on female mating frequency and fecundity in a water strider. J. Insect Behav. 18:619-631.
69. Rönn, J., M. Katvala, and G. Arnqvist. 2007. Coevolution between harmful male genitalia and female resistance in seed beetles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 104: 10921-10925.
70. Routto, J., D. Mazzi, K. Van der Linde, P. Mirol, R. K. Butlin, and A. Hoikakala. 2007. The extent of variation in male song, wing and genital characters among allopatricDrosophila montanapopulations. J. Evol. Biol. 20:1591-1601.
71. Rowe, L., and G. Arnqvist. 2002. Sexually antagonistic coevolution in a mating system: combining experimental and comparative approaches to address evolutionary processes. Evolution 56:754-767.
72. Rowe, L., G. Arnqvist, J. Krupa, and A. Sih. 1994. Sexual conflict and the evolutionary ecology of mating patterns: water striders as a model system. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9:289-293.
73. Rowe, L., and T. Day. 2006. Detecting sexual conflict and sexually antagonistic coevolution. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 361:277-285.
74. Rowe, L., K. Westlake, and D. C. Currie. 2006. The functional significance of elaborate secondary sexual traits and their evolution in the water striderRheumatobates rileyi. Can. Entomol. 138:568-577.
75. Sarraille, J. J., and L. S. Myers. 1994. FD3 - a program for measuring fractal dimension. Edicat. Phychol. Meas. 54:94-97.
76. Sawada, M. 1999. Model II: geometric mean regression add-in for Excel. University of Ottawa. Available at.
77. Scudder, G. G. E. 1971. Comparative morphology of insect genitalia. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 16:379-406.
78. Shen, L., H. Farid, and M. A. McPeek. 2009. Modelling three-dimensional morphological structures using spherical harmonics. Evolution 63:1003-1016.
79. Sih, A., M. Lauer, and J. J. Krupa. 2002. Path analysis and the relative importance of male-female conflict, female choice and male-male competition in water striders. Anim. Behav. 63:1079-1089.
80. Simmons, L. W., C. M. House, J. Hunt, and F. Garcia-Gonzalez. 2009. Evolutionary response to sexual selection in male genital morphology. Curr. Biol. 19:1442-1446.
81. Slice, D. E. 2002. Morpheus et al. - multiplatform software for morphometrics analysis. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY.
82. Slice, D. E. 2007. Geometric morphometrics. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 36:261-281.
83. Song, H., and J. W. Wenzel. 2008. Mosaic pattern of genital divergence in three populations of Shistocerca lineata Scudder, 1899 (Orthoptera: Acrididae: Cyrtacanthacridinae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 94:289-301.
84. Song, H. J. 2009. Species-specificity of male genitalia is characterized by shape, size, and complexity. Insect Syst. Evol. 40:159-170.
85. Song, H. J., and S. R. Bucheli. 2010. Comparison of phylogenetic signal between male genitalia and non-genital characters in insect systematics. Cladistics 26:23-35.
86. Soto, I. M., V. P. Carreira, J. J. Fanara, and E. Hasson. 2007. Evolution of male genitalia: environmental and genetic factors affect genital morphology in twoDrosophilasibling species and their hybrids. BMC Evol. Biol. 7:77.
87. Tatarnic, N. J., and G. Cassis. 2010. Sexual coevolution in the traumatically inseminating plant bug genusCoridromius. J. Evol. Biol. 23:1321-1326.
88. Van der Niet, T., C. P. E. Zollikofer, M. S. Ponce de León, S. D. Johnson, and H. P. Linder. 2010. Three-dimensional geometric morphometrics for studying floral shape variation. Trends Plant Sci. 15:423-426.
89. Wedell, N., and D. J. Hosken. 2010. The evolution of male and female internal reproductive organs in insects. Pp. 307-331 in J. Leonard and A. Cordoba-Aguilar, eds. The evolution of primary sexual characters in animals. Oxford, New York.
90. Wenninger, E. J., and A. L. Averill. 2006. Influence of body and genital morphology on relative male fertilization success in oriental beetle. Behav. Ecol. 17:656-663.
91. Westlake, K. P., L. Rowe, and D. C. Currie. 2000. Phylogeny of the water strider genusRheumatobates(Heteroptera: Gerridae). Syst. Entomol. 25:125-145.
92. Zeng, Z. B., J. J. Liu, L. F. Stam, C. H. Kao, J. M. Mercer, and C. C. Laurie. 2000. Genetic architecture of a morphological shape difference between twoDrosophilaspecies. Genetics 154:299-310.