Effects of ornamentation and phylogeny on the evolution of wing shape in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae)

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 1281-1293

  Husak, J F ^a   Ribak, G ^b   Baker, R H ^c   Rivera, G ^d   Wilkinson, G S ^e   Swallow, J G ^a,f  

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

^b TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

^c DIVISION OF INVERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY   (United States)

^d IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e Bldg 142   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Compensatory traits; Functional convergence; Many to one mapping; Ornament costs; Stalk eyed flies; Wing shape

Indexed keywords

COMPENSATION; CONVERGENT EVOLUTION; DIVERGENCE; EYE; FLY; FUNCTIONAL MORPHOLOGY; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; ORNAMENTATION; PHENOTYPE; PHYLOGENY; SEXUAL SELECTION; SHAPE; WING MORPHOLOGY;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; DIPTERA; EVOLUTION; FORELIMB; HISTOLOGY; MALE; PHYLOGENY;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; DIPTERA; MALE; PHYLOGENY; WING;

DIOPSIDAE;

EID: 84879237744     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12133     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Adams, D.C. & Collyer, M.L. 2009. A general framework for the analysis of phenotypic trajectories in evolutionary studies. Evolution 63: 1143-1154.
2. Alfaro, M., Bolnick, D.I. & Wainwright, P.C. 2004. Evolutionary dynamics of complex biomechanical systems: an example using the four-bar mechanism. Evolution 58: 495-503.
3. Alfaro, M.E., Bolnick, D.I. & Wainwright, P.C. 2005. Evolutionary consequences of many-to-one mapping of jaw morphology to mechanics in labrid fishes. Am. Nat. 165: E140-E154.
4. Andersson, S. & Andersson, M. 1994. Tail ornamentation, size dimorphism and wing length in the genus Euplectes (Ploceinae). Auk 111: 80-86.
5. Baker, R.H. & Wilkinson, G.S. 2001. Phylogenetic analysis of eye stalk allometry and sexual dimorphism in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Evolution 55: 1373-1385.
6. Baker, R. & Wilkinson, G.S. 2003. Phylogenetic analysis of correlation structure in stalk-eyed flies (Diasemopsis, Diopsidae). Evolution 57: 87-103.
7. Baker, R.H., Wilkinson, G.S. & DeSalle, R. 2001. The phylogenetic utility of different types of molecular data used to infer evolutionary relationships among stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Syst. Biol. 50: 87-105.
8. Balmford, A., Jones, I.L. & Thomas, A.L.R. 1994. How to compensate for costly sexually selected tails: the origin of sexually dimorphic wings in long-tailed birds. Evolution 48: 1062-1070.
9. Blomberg, S.P., Garland, T. Jr & Ives, A.R. 2003. Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57: 717-745.
10. Bookstein, F.L. 1991. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data. Cambridge University Press, New York.
11. ter Braak, C.J.F. 1992 Permutation versus bootstrap significance tests in multiple regression and ANOVA. In: Bootstrapping and Related Techniques (K.H. Jockel, ed), pp. 79-86. Springer, Berlin.
12. Bullen, R.D. & McKenzie, N.L. 2007. Bat wing airfoil and planform structures relating to aerodynamic cleanliness. Aust. J. Zool. 55: 237-247.
13. Burkhardt, D. & de la Motte, I. 1985. Selective pressures, variability and sexual dimorphism in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Naturwissenschaften 72: 204-206.
14. 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. J. Comp. Physiol. 162: 649-652.
15. Bush, A.M., Powell, M.G., Arnold, W.S., Bert, T.M. & Daley, G.M. 2002. Time-averaging, evolution, and morphologic variation. Paleobiology 28: 9-25.
16. Byers, J., Hebets, E. & Podos, J. 2010. Female mate choice based upon male motor performance. Anim. Behav. 79: 771-778.
17. Collyer, M.L. & Adams, D.C. 2007. Analysis of two-state multivariate phenotypic change in ecological studies. Ecology 88: 683-692.
18. Combes, S.A. & Daniel, T.L. 2003. Flexural stiffness in insect wings I. Scaling and the influence of wing venation. J. Exp. Biol. 206: 2979-2987.
19. Cotton, S., Rogers, D.W., 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. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 273: 1287-1292.
20. Dickinson, M.H., Farley, C.T., Full, R.J., Koehl, M.A.R., Kram, R. & Lehman, S. 2000. How animals move: an integrative view. Science 288: 100-106.
21. Dryden, I.L. & Mardia, K.V. 1998. Statistical Shape Analysis. Wiley, Chichester.
22. Dudley, R. 2000. The Biomechanics of Insect Flight. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
23. Egge, A.R., Brandt, Y. & Swallow, J.G. 2011. Sequential analysis of aggressive interactions in the stalk-eyed fly Teleopsis dalmanni. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65: 369-379.
24. Ennos, A.R. 1988. The importance of torsion in the design of insect wings. J. Exp. Biol. 140: 137-160.
25. Ennos, A.R. 1989. Comparative functional morphology of the wings of Diptera. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 96: 27-47.
26. Feijen, H.R. 1989. Diopsidae. Cyclorrhapha III (Schizophora other than Calyptratae). In: Flies of the Neartic Region. (G.C.D. Griffiths, ed.), Vol.9, Part 12. pp. 1-122. E. Schweizerbartsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart.
27. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. 125: 1-15.
28. Földvári, M., Pomiankowski, A., Cotton, S. & Carr, M. 2007. A morphological and molecular description of a new Teleopsis species (Diptera:Diopsidae) from Thailand. Zootaxa 1620: 37-51.
29. Garland, T. Jr, Dickerman, A.W., Janis, C.M. & Jones, J.A. 1993. Phylogenetic analysis of covariance by computer simulation. Syst. Biol. 42: 265-292.
30. Garland, T. Jr, Harvey, P.H. & Ives, A.R. 1992. Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst. Biol. 41: 18-32.
31. Garland, T. Jr, Midford, P.E. & Ives, A.R. 1999. An introduction to phylogenetically based statistical methods, with a new method for confidence intervals on ancestral states. Am. Zool. 39: 374-388.
32. Gidaszewski, N.A., Baylac, M. & Klingenberg, C.P. 2009. Evolution of sexual dimorphism of wing shape in the Drosophila melanogaster subgroup. BMC Evol. Biol. 9: 110.
33. Gonzalez, L. & Manly, B.F.J. 1998. Analysis of variance by randomization with small data sets. Environmetrics 9: 53-65.
34. Grafen, A. 1990. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol. 144: 517-546.
35. Grodnitsky, D.L. 1999. Form and Function of Insect Wings: The Evolution of Biological Structures. Johns Hopkins Univ Press, Baltimore, MD.
36. Harmon, L.J., Weir, J.T., Brock, C.D., Glor, R.E. & Challenger, W. 2008. GEIGER: investigating evolutionary radiations. Bioinformatics 24: 129-131.
37. Hedenström, A. & Møller, A.P. 1992. Morphological adaptations to song flight in passerine birds: a comparative study. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 247: 183-187.
38. Hingle, A., Fowler, K. & Pomiankowski, A. 2001. Size-dependent mate preference in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. Anim. Behav. 61: 589-595.
39. Holm, S. 1979. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand. J. Stat. 6: 65-70.
40. Huey, R.B., Gilchrist, G.W., Carlson, M.L., Berrigan, D. & Serra, L. 2000. Rapid evolution of a geographic cline in size in an introduced fly. Science 287: 308-309.
41. Husak, J.F. & Fox, S.F. 2008. Sexual selection on locomotor performance. Evol. Ecol. Res. 10: 213-228.
42. Husak, J.F. & Swallow, J.G. 2011. Compensatory traits and the evolution of male ornaments. Behaviour 148: 1-29.
43. Husak, J.F., Fox, S.F., Lovern, M.B. & Van Den Bussche, R.A. 2006. Faster lizards sire more offspring: sexual selection on whole-animal performance. Evolution 60: 2122-2130.
44. Husak, J.F., Ribak, G., Wilkinson, G.S. & Swallow, J.G. 2011a. Compensation for exaggerated eyestalks in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Funct. Ecol. 25: 608-616.
45. Husak, J.F., Ribak, G., Wilkinson, G.S. & Swallow, J.G. 2011b. Sexual dimorphism in wing beat frequency in relation to eye span in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 104: 670-679.
46. Irschick, D.J. & 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.
47. Irschick, D.J., Meyers, J.J., Husak, J.F. & Le Galliard, J.F. 2008. How does selection operate on whole-organism functional performance capacities? A review and synthesis. Evol. Ecol. Res. 10: 177-196.
48. Johansson, F., Söderquist, M. & Bokma, F. 2009. Insect wing shape evolution: independent effects of migratory and mate guarding flight on dragonfly wings. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 97: 362-372.
49. Kaboli, M., Aliabadian, M., Guillaumet, A., Roselaar, C.S. & Prodon, R. 2007. Ecomorphology of the wheatears (genus Oenanthe). Ibis 149: 792-805.
50. Kembel, S.W., Cowan, P.D., Helmus, M.R., Cornwell, W.K., Morlon, H., Ackerly, D.D. et al. 2010. Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics 26: 1463-1464.
51. Kotiaho, J.S. 2001. Costs of sexual traits: a mismatch between theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Biol. Rev. 76: 365-376.
52. Lailvaux, S.P. & Irschick, D.J. 2006. A functional perspective on sexual selection: Insights and future prospects. Anim. Behav. 72: 263-273.
53. Losos, J.B. 2011. Convergence, adaptation, and constraint. Evolution 65: 1827-1840.
54. Maddison, W.P. & Maddison, D.R. 2009. Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 2.72 http://mesquiteproject.org
55. Marchetti, K., Price, T. & Richman, A. 1995. Correlates of wing morphology with foraging behaviour and migration distance in the genus Phylloscopus. J. Avian Biol. 26: 177-181.
56. Marcus, L.F., Corti, M., Loy, A., Naylor, G.J.P. & Slice, D.E. 1996 Advances in Morphometrics. Plenum Press, New York.
57. Midford, P.E., Garland, T. Jr & Maddison, W.P. 2005. PDAP Package of Mesquite. Version 1.07.
58. Oufiero, C.E. & Garland, T. Jr 2007. Evaluating performance costs of sexually selected traits. Funct. Ecol. 21: 676-689.
59. Panhuis, T.M. & Wilkinson, G.S. 1999. Exaggerated male eye span influences contest outcome in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 46: 221-227.
60. Pélabon, C., Hansen, T.F., Carter, A.J.R. & Houle, D. 2010. Evolution of variation and variability under fluctuating, stabilizing, and disruptive selection. Evolution 64: 1912-1925.
61. R Development Core Team. 2011. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at http://www.R-project.org.
62. Revell, L.J. 2009. Size-correction and principal components for interspecific comparative studies. Evolution 63: 3258-3268.
63. Revell, L.J. 2010. Phylogenetic signal and linear regression on species data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1: 319-329.
64. Revell, L.J. 2012. Phytools: An R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol. Evol. 3: 217-223.
65. Ribak, G. & Swallow, J.G. 2007. Free flight maneuvers of stalk-eyed flies: do eye-stalks affect aerial turning behavior? J. Comp. Physiol. A. 193: 1065-1079.
66. Ribak, G., Pitts, M.L., Wilkinson, G.S. & Swallow, J.G. 2009. Wing shape, wing size, and sexual dimorphism in eye-span in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 98: 860-871.
67. Rice, W.R. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43: 223-225.
68. Rohlf, F.J. 2004. tpsSpline. Version 1.20. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York. Freeware available at: http//life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph/.
69. Rohlf, F.J. 2006. tpsDig. Version 2.1. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York. Freeware available at: http//life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph/.
70. Rohlf, F.J. & Slice, D. 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst. Zool. 39: 40-59.
71. Shang, J.K., Combes, S.A., Finio, B.M. & Wood, R.J. 2009. Artificial insect wings of diverse morphology for flapping-wing micro air vehicles. Bioinspir. Biomim. 4: 036002.
72. Slice, D.E. 2001. Landmark coordinates aligned by Procrustes analysis do not lie in Kendall's shape space. Syst. Biol. 50: 141-149.
73. Small, J., Cotton, S., Fowler, K. & Pomiankowski, A. 2009. Male eyespan and resource ownership affect contest outcome in the stalk-eyed fly, Teleoplsis dalmanni. Anim. Behav. 78: 1213-1220.
74. Stamatakis, A., Ludwig, T. & Meier, H. 2005. RAxML-III: a fast program for maximum likelihood-based inference of large phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 21: 456-463.
75. Stark, J., Bonacum, J., Remsen, J. & DeSalle, R. 1999. The evolution and development of dipteran wing veins: a systematic approach. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 44: 97-129.
76. Swallow, J.G., Wilkinson, G.S. & Marden, J.H. 2000. Aerial performance of stalk-eyed flies that differ in eyespan. J. Comp. Physiol. B. 170: 481-487.
77. Számádo, S. 2011. The cost of honesty and the fallacy of the handicap principle. Anim. Behav. 81: 3-10.
78. Vanhooydonck, B., Herrel, A., Van Damme, R. & Irschick, D.J. 2006. The quick and the fast: the evolution of acceleration capacity in Anolis lizards. Evolution 60: 2137-2147.
79. Voelker, G. 2001. Morphological correlates of migratory distance and flight display in the avian genus Anthus. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 73: 425-435.
80. Wainwright, P.C. 2007. Functional versus morphological diversity in macroevolution. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. S. 38: 381-401.
81. Wainwright, P.C., Alfaro, M., Bolnick, D.I. & Hulsey, C.D. 2005. Many-to-one mapping of form to function: a general principle in organismal design? Integr. Comp. Biol. 45: 256-262.
82. Wilkinson, G.S. & Dodson, G.N. 1997. Function and evolution of antlers and eye stalks in flies. In: The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids (J. Choe & B. Crespi, eds), pp. 310-328. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
83. Wilkinson, G.S. & Taper, M. 1999. Evolution of genetic variation for condition dependent ornaments in stalk-eyed flies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266: 1685-1690.
84. Wilkinson, G.S., Kahler, H. & Baker, R.W. 1998. Evolution of female mate preferences in stalk-eyed flies. Behav. Ecol. 9: 525-533.
85. Wootton, R.J. 1992. Functional morphology of insect wings. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 37: 113-140.
86. Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection - a selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53: 205-214.