Size matters, but so does shape: Quantifying complex shape changes in a sexually selected trait in stalk-eyed flies (Diptera: Diopsidae)

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Volumn 106, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 104-113

  Worthington, Amy M ^a   Berns, Chelsea M ^a   Swallow, John G ^b  

^a IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Constraint; Geometric morphometrics; Sexual dimorphism; Sexual selection; Stalk eyed flies; Teleopsis dalmanni

Indexed keywords

BODY SHAPE; BODY SIZE; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; FITNESS; FLY; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MORPHOLOGY; MORPHOMETRY; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMALIA; DIOPSIDAE; DIPTERA; TELEOPSIS DALMANNI;

EID: 84859348374     PISSN: 00244066     EISSN: 10958312     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2011.01841.x     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Adams DC. 2010. Parallel evolution of character displacement driven by competitive selection in terrestrial salamanders. BMC Evolutionary Biology 10: 1-10.
2. Adams DC, Nistri A. 2010. Ontogenetic convergence and evolution of foot morphology in European cave salamanders (Family: Plethodontidae). BMC Evolutionary Biology 10: 1-10.
3. Adams DC, Rohlf FJ. 2000. Ecological character displacement in Plethodon: biomechanical differences found from a geometric morphometric study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97: 4106-4111.
4. Adams DC, Rohlf FJ, Slice DE. 2004. Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the 'revolution'. Italian Journal of Zoology 71: 5-16.
5. Adams DC, West ME, Collyer ML. 2007. Location-specific sympatric morphological divergence as a possible response to species interactions in West Virginia Plethodon salamander communities. Journal of Animal Ecology 76: 289-295.
6. Allen BJ, Levinton JS. 2007. Costs of bearing a sexually selected ornamental weapon in a fiddle crab. Functional Ecology 21: 154-161.
7. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8. Anholt BR. 1997. Sexual size dimorphism and sex-specific survival in adults of the damselfly Lestes disjunctus. Ecological Entomology 22: 127-132.
9. Arnold SJ. 1983. Morphology, performance, and fitness. American Zoologist 23: 347-361.
10. Baker RH, Denniff M, Futerman P, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A, Chapman T. 2003. Accessory gland size influences time to sexual maturity and mating frequency in the stalk-eyed fly, Cyrtodiapsis dalmanni. Behavioral Ecology 14: 607-611.
11. Baker RH, Wilkinson GS. 2001. Phylogenetic analysis of sexual dimorphism and eye-span allometry in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Evolution 55: 1373-1385.
12. Basolo AL, Alcaraz G. 2003. The turn of the sword: length increases male swimming costs in swordtails. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 270: 1631-1636.
13. Basolo AL, Wagner WE. 2004. Covariation between predation risk, body size and fin elaboration in the green swordtail, Xiphophorus helleri. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 83: 87-100.
14. Bean D, Cook JM. 2001. Male mating tactics and lethal combat in the nonpollinating fig wasp Sycoscapter australis. Animal Behaviour 62: 535-542.
15. Berns CM, Adams DC. 2010. Bill shape and sexual shape dimorphism between two species of temperate hummingbirds: black-chinned hummingbirds (Archilochus alexandri) and ruby-throated hummingbirds (Archilochus colubris). The Auk 127: 626-635.
16. Bookstein F, Schäfer K, Prossinger H, Seidler H, Fieder M, Stringer C, Weber GW, Arsuaga JL, Slice DE, Rohlf FJ, Recheis W, Mariam AJ, Marcus LF. 1999. Comparing frontal cranial profiles in archaic and modern homo by morphometric analysis. The Anatomical Record 257: 217-224.
17. Burkhardt D, de la Motte I. 1985. Selective pressures, variability and sexual dimorphism in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Die Naturwissenschaften 72: 204-206.
18. Burkhardt D, de la Motte I. 1987. Physiological, behavior, and morphometric data elucidate the evolutive significance of stalked eyes in Diopsidae (Diptera). Entomologia Generalis 12: 221-233.
19. Burkhardt D, de la Motte I. 1988. Big 'antlers' are favored: female choice in stalk-eyed flies (Diptera, Insecta), field collected harems and laboratory experiments. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 162: 649-652.
20. Buschbeck EK, Roosevelt JL, Hoy RR. 2001. Eye stalks or no eye stalks: a structural comparison of pupal development in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis and in Drosophola. Journal of Comparative Neurology 433: 486-498.
21. Butler MA, Sawyer SA, Losos JB. 2007. Sexual dimorphism and adaptive radiation in Anolis lizards. Nature 447: 202-205.
22. Cotton S, Rogers DW, Small J, Pomiankowski A, Fowler K. 2006. Variation in preference for a male ornament is positively associated with female eyespan in the stalk-eyed fly Diasemopsis meigenii. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 273: 1287-1292.
23. Emlen DJ. 2001. Costs and the diversification of exaggerated animal structures. Science 291: 1534-1536.
24. Evans MR, Thomas ALR. 1992. The aerodynamical and mechanical effects of elongated tails in the scarlet-tufted malachite sunbird: measuring the cost of a handicap. Animal Behavior 43: 337-347.
25. Fisher RA. 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
26. Fry CL. 2006. Trade-offs within and between sexual traits in stalk-eyed flies (Diptera: Diopsidae). Unpublished D. Phil. Thesis, University of Maryland.
27. Gidaszewski N, Baylac M, Klingenberg CP. 2009. Evolution of sexual dimorphism of wing shape in the Drosophila melanogaster subgroup. BMC Evolutionary Biology 9: 110-120.
28. Gower JC. 1975. Generalized Procrustes analysis. Psychometrika 40: 33-51.
29. Grafen A. 1990. Biological signals as handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology 144: 517-546.
30. Gunz P, Mitteroecker P, Bookstein F. 2005. Semi-landmarks in three dimensions. In: Slice DE, ed. Modern morphometrics in physical anthropology. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 73-98.
31. Haas R. 1976. Sexual selection in Nothobranchius guentheri (Pisces:Cyprinidontidae). Evolution 30: 614-622.
32. Hendry AP, Kelly ML, Kinnison MT, Reznick DL. 2006. Parallel evolution of the sexes? Effects of predation and habitat features on the size and shape of guppies. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 19: 741-754.
33. Herrel A, DeGrauw E, Lemos-Espinal JA. 2001. Head shape and bite performance in Xenosaurid lizards. Journal of Experimental Zoology 290: 101-107.
34. Hingle A, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A. 2001. Size-dependent mate preference in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. Animal Behaviour 61: 589-595.
35. Hurley I, Pomiankowski A, Fowler K, Smith H. 2002. Fate map of the eye-antennal imaginal disc in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. Development Genes and Evolution 212: 38-42.
36. Husak JF, Ribak G, Wilkinson GS, Swallow JG. 2011. Compensation for exaggerated eyestalks in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Functional Ecology 25: 608-616.
37. Husak JF, Swallow JG. 2011. Compensatory traits and the evolution of male ornaments. Behaviour 148: 1-29.
38. Irschick DJ, Meyers JJ, Husak JF, Le Galliard JF. 2008. How does selection operate on whole-organism functional performance capacities? A review and synthesis. Evolutionary Ecology Research 10: 177-196.
39. Kelly CD, Adams DC. 2010. Sexual selection, ontogenetic acceleration, and hypermorphosis generates male trimorphism in Wellington tree weta. Evolutionary Biology 37: 200-209.
40. Kotiaho JS. 2001. Costs of sexual traits: a mismatch between theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Biological Reviews 76: 365-376.
41. Kotiaho JS, Alatalo RV, Mappes J, Nielsen MG, Parri S, Rivero A. 1998. Energetic cost of size and sexual signaling in a wolf spider. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B 265: 2203-2209.
42. Lande R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 33: 292-305.
43. Lande R, Arnold SJ. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37: 1210-1226.
44. Møller AP, Barbosa A, Cuervo JJ, de Lope F, Merino S, Saino N. 1998. Sexual selection and tail streamers in the barn swallow. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 265: 409-414.
45. Møller AP, de Lope F, Saino N. 1995. Sexual selection in the barn swallow Hirundo rustica. VI. Aerodynamic adaptations. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 8: 671-687.
46. Nijhout HF. 1994. Insect hormones. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
47. Nijhout HF, Emlen DJ. 1998. Competition among body parts in the development and evolution of insect morphology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95: 3685-3689.
48. Nijhout HF, Wheeler DE. 1996. Growth models of complex allometries in holometabolous insects. American Naturalist 148: 40-56.
49. Oufiero CE, Garland T Jr. 2007. Evaluating performance costs of sexually selected traits. Functional Ecology 21: 676-689.
50. Panhuis TM, Wilkinson GS. 1999. Exaggerated male eyespan influences contest outcome in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 46: 221-227.
51. R Development Core Team. 2010. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Version 2.11.1. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
52. Ribak G, Egge AR, Swallow JG. 2009a. Saccadic head rotations during walking in the stalk-eyed fly (Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni). Proceedings of the Royal Society B 276: 1643-1649.
53. Ribak G, Pitts ML, Wilkinson GS, Swallow JG. 2009b. Wing shape, wing size and sexual-dimorphism in eye-span in stalk-eyed flies. (Diopsidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 98: 860-871.
54. Ribak G, Swallow JG. 2007. Free flight maneuvers of stalk-eyed flies: do eye stalks limit aerial turning behavior? Journal of Comparative Physiology A 193: 1065-1079.
55. Rohlf FJ. 2010. Tpsdig. Vsn. 2.16. Stony Brook, NY: Department of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University.
56. Rohlf FJ, Marcus LF. 1993. A revolution in morphometrics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 129-132.
57. Rohlf FJ, Slice DE. 1990. Extentions of the procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Systematic Zoology 39: 40-59.
58. Schaum D, van der Merwe CW. 1961. Theory and problems of college physics. New York: Schaum Publishing.
59. Schillito FJ. 1971. Dimorphism in flies with stalked eyes. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 50: 297-305.
60. Serb JM, Alejandrino A, Otárola-Castillo E, Adams DC. 2011. Morphological convergence of shell shape in distantly related scallop species (Mollusca: Pectinidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 163: 571-584.
61. Small J, Cotton S, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A. 2009. Male eyespan and resource ownership affect contest outcome in the stalk-eyed fly, Teleopsis dalmanni. Animal Behaviour 78: 1213-1220.
62. Stuart-Fox DM, Moussalli A, Marshal NJ, Owens IPF. 2003. Conspicuous males suffer higher predation risk: visual modeling and experimental evidence from lizards. Animal Behaviour 66: 541-550.
63. Swallow JG, Wilkinson GS, Marden JH. 2000. Aerial performance of stalk-eyed flies that differ in eye span. Journal of Comparative Physiology B 170: 481-487.
64. Valenzuela N, Adams DC, Bowden RM, Gauger AC, Douglas ME. 2004. Geometric morphometric sex estimation for hatchling turtles: a powerful alternative for detecting subtle sexual shape dimorphism. Copeia 4: 735-742.
65. Vehrencamp SL, Bradbury JW, Gibson RM. 1989. The energetic cost of display in male sage grouse. Animal Behavior 38: 885-896.
66. Wilkinson GS. 1993. Artificial selection alters allometry in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni (Diptera: Diopsidae). Genetical Research 62: 213-222.
67. Wilkinson GS, Dodson GN. 1997. Function and evolution of antlers and eyestalks in flies. In: Choe J, Crespi B, eds. The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. New York: Cambridge University Press, 310-328.
68. Wilkinson GS, Kahler H, Baker RH. 1998. Evolution of female mate preferences in stalk-eyed flies. Behavioral Ecology 9: 525-533.
69. Wilkinson GS, Taper M. 1999. Evolution of genetic variation for condition dependent traits in stalk-eyed flies. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 266: 1685-1690.
70. Worthington AM, Swallow JG. 2010. Gender differences in survival and antipredatory behavior in stalk-eyed flies. Behavioral Ecology 21: 759-766.
71. Worthington AM, Swallow JG. 2011. Sequential analysis reveals behavioral differences underlying female-biased predation risk in stalk-eyed flies. Ethology 117: 829-837.
72. Zahavi A. 1975. Mate selection - a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology 53: 205-214.
73. Zuk M, Kolluru GR. 1998. Exploitation of sexual signals by predators and parasitoids. Quarterly Review of Biology 73: 415-438.