Evolution of static allometries: Adaptive change in allometric slopes of eye span in stalk-eyed flies

Evolution

Volumn 67, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 453-467

  Voje, Kjetil L ^a   Hansen, Thomas F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

Allometry; Evolutionary constraints; Morphology; Phylogenetic comparative method; Phylogenetic inertia; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; ALLOMETRY; BODY SIZE; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; EYE; FLY; GROWTH MODELING; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MORPHOLOGY; PHYLOGENETICS; POWER LAW; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SEXUAL SELECTION; TIMESCALE;

ADAPTATION; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BODY SIZE; DIPTERA; EYE; FEMALE; GENETICS; HISTOLOGY; MALE; MATE CHOICE; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; PHYLOGENY; SEX DIFFERENCE;

ADAPTATION, BIOLOGICAL; ANIMALS; BODY SIZE; DIPTERA; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; EYE; FEMALE; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; PHYLOGENY; SEX FACTORS;

DIOPSIDAE;

EID: 84873057201     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01777.x     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ .
2. Baker, R. H., and G. S. Wilkinson . 2001. Phylogenetic analysis of sexual dimorphism and eye-span allometry in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Evolution 55:1373-1385.
3. Baker R. H., G. S. Wilkinson, and R. DeSalle . 2001. Phylogenetic utility of different types of molecular data used to infer evolutionary relationships among stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Syst. Biol. 50:87-105
4. Bernstein, S., and R. Bernstein . 2002. Allometry of male genitalia in a species of soldier beetle: support for the one-size-fits-all hypothesis. Evolution 56:1707-1710.
5. Bonduriansky, R. 2007. Sexual selection and allometry: a critical reappraisal of the evidence and ideas. Evolution 61:838-849.
6. Bonduriansky, R., and T. Day . 2003. The evolution of static allometry in sexually selected traits. Evolution 57:2450-2458
7. Buonaccorsi, J. P. 2010. Measurement error. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL .
8. Burkhardt, D., and I. de la Motte . 1983. How stalk-eyed flies eye stalk-eyed flies: observations and measurements of the eyes of Cyrtodiopsis whitei (Diopsidae, Diptera). J. Comp. Physiol. 151:407-421.
9. Burkhardt, D., and I. de la Motte . 1985. Selective pressures, variability, and sexual dimorphism in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Naturwissenschaften 72:204-206.
10. Burkhardt, D., and I. de la Motte . 1988. Big 'antlers' are favoured: female choice in stalk-eyed flies (Diptera, Insecta), field collected harems and laboratory experiments. J. Comp. Physiol. 162:649-652.
11. Butler, M. A., and A. A. King . 2004. Phylogenetic comparative analysis: a modeling approach for adaptive evolution. Am. Nat. 164:683-695.
12. Charnov, E. L. 1993. Life history invariants. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford .
13. Cheverud, J. M. 1982. Relationships among ontogenetic, static and evolutionary allometry. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 59:139-149.
14. Cotton, S., D. W. Rogers, J. Small, A. Pomiankowski, and K. Fowler . 2006. Variation in preference for a male ornament is positively associated with female eye span in the stalk-eyed fly Diasemopsis meigenii. Proc. R Soc. Lond. B 273:1287-1292.
15. Dunlop, J. A., and P. G. Mitov . 2009. Fossil harvestmen (Arachnida, Opiliones) from Bitterfeld amber. In P. Stoev, J. A. Dunlop and S. Lazarov (eds). A life caught in a spider's web. Papers in arachnology in honour of Christo Deltshev. ZooKeys 16:347-375.
16. Eberhard, W. G. 2009. Static allometry and animal genitalia. Evolution 63:48-66.
17. Eberhard, W. G., and E. Gutierrez . 1991. Male dimorphisms in beetles and earwigs and the question of developmental constraints. Evolution 45:18-28.
18. Eberhard, W. G., B. A. Huber, S. Rodriguez, R. L. R. D. Briceño, I. Salas, and V. Rodriguez . 1998. One size fits all? Relationships between the size and degree of variation ingenitalia and other body parts in twenty species of insects and spiders. Evolution 52:415-431.
19. Egset, C. K., G. H. Bolstad, G. Rosenqvist, J. A. Endler, and C. Pélabon . 2011. Allometry and predation in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). J. Evol. Biol. 24:2631-2638.
20. Egset, C. K., T. F. Hansen, A. Le Rouzic, G. H. Bolstad, G. Rosenqvist, and C. Pélabon . 2012. Artificial selection on allometry: change in elevation but not slope. J. Evol. Biol. 25:938-948.
21. Emlen, D. J. 1996. Artifical selection on horn length-body size allometry in the horned beetle Onthophagus acuminatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Evolution 50:1219-1230.
22. Emlen, D. J., and H. F. Nijhout . 2000. The development and evolution of exaggerated morphologies in insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 45:661-708.
23. Fairbairn, D. J. 1997. Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28:659-687
24. Fairbairn, D. J.. 2007. Introduction: the enigma of sexual size dimorphism. Pp. 1-10 in D. J. Fairbairn, W. U. Blanckenhorn, and T. Székely, eds. Sex, size & gender roles: evolutionary studies of sexual size dimorphism. Oxford Univ. Press, New York .
25. Fuller, W. A. 1987. Measurement error models. John Wiley & Sons, New York
26. Frank, S. A. 2009. The common patterns of nature. J. Evol. Biol. 22:1563-1585.
27. Frankino, W. A., B. J. Zwaan, D. L. Stern, and P. M. Brakefield . 2005. Natural selection and developmental constraints in the evolution of allometries. Science 307:718-720.
28. Frankino, W. A., B. J. Zwaan, D. L. Stern, and P. M. Brakefield . 2007. Internal and external constraints in the evolution of morphological allometries in a butterfly. Evolution 61:2958-2970.
29. Frankino, W. A., D. J. Emlen, and A. W. Shingleton . 2009. Experimental approaches to studying the evolution of animal form. Pp. 419-478 in T. Garland, Jr. and M. R. Rose, eds. Experimental evolution: concepts, methods, and applications of selection experiments. Univ. of California Press, Ltd, Berkeley .
30. Green, A. J. 1992. Positive allometry is likely with mate choice, competitive display and other functions. Anim. Behav. 43:170-172.
31. Green, A. J.. 2000. The scaling and selection of sexually dimorphic characters: an example using the Marbled Teal. J. Avian. Biol. 31:345-350.
32. Grimaldi, D. A., and M. S. Engel . 2005. Evolution of the insects. Cambridge Univ. Press, Hong Kong .
33. Gould, S. J. 1966a. Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 41:587-640.
34. Gould, S. J.. 1966b. Allometry in Pleistocene land snails from Bermuda: the influence of size upon shape. J. Paleontol. 40:1131-1141.
35. Gould, S. J.. 1989. A developmental constraint in Cerion, with comments of the definition and interpretation of constraint in evolution. Evolution 43:516-539
36. Gould, S. J.. 2002. The structure of evolutionary theory. Belknap Harvard, Cambridge, MA .
37. Gould, S. J., and R. Lewontin . 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 205:581-98.
38. Hansen, T. F. 1997. Stabilizing selection and the comparative analysis of adaptation. Evolution 51:1341-1351.
39. Hansen, T. F.. 2012. Adaptive landscapes and macroevolutionary dynamics. Pp. 205-226 in E. I. Svensson and R. Calsbeek, eds. The adaptive landscape in evolutionary biology. Oxford Univ. press, New York .
40. Hansen T. F., and K. Bartoszek . 2012. Interpreting the evolutionary regression: the interplay between observational and biological errors in phylogenetic comparative studies. Syst. Biol. 61:413-425
41. Hansen, T. F., and S. H. Orzack . 2005. Assessing current adaptation and phylogenetic inertia as explanations of trait evolution: the need for controlled comparisons. Evolution 59:2063-2072.
42. Hansen, T. F., J. Pienaar, and S. H. Orzack . 2008. A comparative method for studying adaptation to a randomly evolving environment. Evolution 62:1965-1977.
43. Hingle, A., K. Fowler, and A. Pomiankowski . 2001. Size-dependent mate preference in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. Anim. Behav. 61:589-595.
44. Hosken, D. J., A. Minder, and P. I. Ward . 2005. Male genital allometry in Scatophagidae (Diptera). Evol. Ecol. 19:501-515
45. Houle D., C. Pélabon, G. P. Wagner, and T. F. Hansen . 2011. Measurement and meaning in biology. Q. Rev. Biol. 86:3-34
46. Huelsenbeck, J. P., and F. Ronquist . 2001. MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17:754-755.
47. Husak, J. F., G. Ribak, G. S. Wilkinson, and J. G. Swallow . 2011. Compensation for exaggerated eye stalks in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Funct. Ecol. 25:608-616.
48. Huxley, J. 1924. Constant differential growth-ratios and their significance. Nature 114:895-896
49. Huxley, J.. 1932. Problems of relative growth Publisher. L. MacVeagh., New York .
50. Huxley, J. S., and G. Tessier . 1936. Terminology of relative growth. Nature 137:780-781.
51. Kawano, K. 2004. Developmental stability and adaptive variability of male genitalia in sexually dimorphic beetles. Am. Nat. 163:1-15
52. Kawano, K.. 2006. Sexual dimorphism and the making of oversized male characters in beetles (Coleoptera). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 99:327-341
53. Kelly, C., and T. D. Price . 2004. Comparative methods based on species mean values. Math. Biosci. 187:135-54
54. Kodric-Brown, A., R. M. Sibly, and J. H. Brown . 2006. The allometry of ornaments and weapons. PNAS 103:8733-8738.
55. Kotrba, M. 2004. Baltic amber fossils reveal early evolution of sexual dimorphism in stalk-eyed flies (Diptera, Diopsidae). Org. Divers. Evol. 4:265-275.
56. Kozlowski, J., and J. Weiner . 1997. Interspecific allometries are byproducts of body size optimization. Am. Nat. 149:352-380.
57. Labra, A., J. Pienaar, and T. F. Hansen . 2009. Evolution of thermal physiology in Liolaemus lizards: adaptation, phylogenetic inertia, and niche tracking. Am. Nat. 174:204-220.
58. Lande, R. 1979. Quantitative genetic analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain:body size allometry. Evolution 33:402-416.
59. Lande, R.. 1985. Genetic and evolutionary aspects of allometry. Pp. 21-32 in W. L. Jungers, ed. Size and scaling in primate biology. Plenum Press, New York .
60. Lovich J. E., and J. W. Gibbons . 1992. A review of techniques quantifying sexual size dimorphism. Growth, Develop. Aging 56:269-281.
61. Moczek, A. P., and H. F. Nijhout . 2003. Rapid evolution of a polyphenic threshold. Evol. Dev. 5:259-268
62. Mosimann, J. 1970. Size allometry: size and shape variables with characterizations of the lognormal and generalized gamma distributions. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 65:r930-945.
63. Okada, K., and T. Miyatake . 2009. Genetic correlations between weapons, body shape and fighting behaviour in the horned beetle Gnatocerus cornutus. Anim. Behav. 77:1057-1065.
64. Panhuis, T. M., and G. S. Wilkinson . 1999. Exaggerated male eye span influences contest outcome in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 46:221-227.
65. Petrie, M. 1988 Intraspecific variation in structures that display competitive ability: large animals invest relatively more. Anim. Behav. 36:1174-1179
66. Posada, D. 2008. jModelTest: phylogenetic model averaging. Mol. Biol. Evol. 25:1253-1256.
67. R Development Core Team (2010). R: a language and environment for statistical computing, reference index version 2.8.1. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria .
68. Rensch, B. 1959. Evolution above the species level. Columbia Univ. Press, New York .
69. Revell, L. J. 2010. Phylogenetic signal and linear regression on species data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1:319-329.
70. Rossi, W., M. Kotrba, and D. Triebel . 2005. A new Stigmatomyces (Laboulbeniales, Ascomycota) on a stalk-eyed fly (Diopsidae, Diptera) from Bitterfeld amber. Mycol. Res. 109:271-274.
71. Savageau, M. A. 1979. Allometric morphogenesis of complex systems: derivation of the basic equations from first principles. PNAS 76:6023-6025
72. Schmidt-Nielsen, K. 1984. Scaling: why is animal size so important? Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge .
73. Shingleton, A., W. Frankino, T. Flatt, H. F. Nijhout, and D. Emlen . 2007. Size and shape: the developmental regulation of static allometry in insects. Bioessays 29:536-548.
74. Simmons, L. W., and J. L. Tomkins . 1996. Sexual selection and the allometry of earwig forceps. Evol. Ecol. 10:97-104.
75. Smith R. J. 1999. Statistics of sexual size dimorphism. J. Hum. Evol. 36:423-458.
76. Stevens, C. F. 2009. Darwin and Huxley revisited: the origin of allometry. J. Biol. 8:1-7.
77. Swallow, J., G. S. Wilkinson, and J. Marden . 2000. Aerial performance of stalk-eyed flies that differ in eye span. J. Comp. Physiol. B. 170:481-487.
78. Swallow, J. G., L. E. Wallace, S. J. Christianson, P. M. Johns, and G. S. Wilkinson . 2005. Genetic divergence does not predict change in ornament expression among populations of stalk-eyed flies. Mol. Ecol. 14:3787-3800.
79. Tobler A., and H. F. Nijhout . 2010. Developmental constraints on the evolution of wing-body allometry in Manduca sexta. Evol. Dev. 12:592-600.
80. Tomkins, J. L., and L. W. Simmons . 1996. Dimorphisms and fluctuating asymmetry in the forceps of male earwigs. J. Evol. Biol. 9:753-770.
81. Uyeda, J. C., T. F. Hansen, S. J. Arnold, and J. Pienaar . 2011. The million-year wait for macroevolutionary bursts. PNAS 108:15908-15913.
82. von Bertalanffy, L. 1969. General systems theory. George Braziller, New York .
83. Weber, K. E. 1990. Selection on wing allometry in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 126:975-89.
84. Weber, K. E.. 1992. How small are the smallest selectable domains of form? Genetics 130:345-53.
85. West, G. B., J. H. Brown, and B. J. Enquist . 1997. A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science 276:122-126.
86. White, J. F., and S. J. Gould . 1965. Interpretation of the coefficient in the allometric equation. Am. Nat. 99:5-18.
87. Wilkinson, G. S. 1993. Artificial sexual selection alters allometry in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni (Diptera: Diopsidae). Genet. Res. 62:213-222.
88. Wilkinson, G. S., H. Kahler, and R. H. Baker . 1998. Evolution of female mating preferences in stalk-eyed flies. Behav. Ecol. 9:525-533.
89. Worthington, A. M., C. M. Berns, J. Swallow . 2012. Size matters, but so does shape: quantifying complex shape changes in a sexually selected trait in stalk-eyed flies (Diptera:Diopsidae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 106:104-113.