Handicap theory is applied to females but not males in relation to mate choice in the stalk-eyed fly Sphyracephala detrahens.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 11 2020
12 11 2020
Historique:
received:
12
03
2020
accepted:
30
10
2020
entrez:
13
11
2020
pubmed:
14
11
2020
medline:
29
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Handicap theory explains that exaggeratedly developed sexual traits become handicaps but serve as honest signals of quality. Because very weak signals are less likely to provide benefits than to simply incur costs, it is interesting to elucidate how sexual traits are generated and developed during evolution. Many stalk-eyed fly species belonging to tribe Diopsini exhibit marked sexual dimorphism in their eye spans, and males with larger eye spans have larger bodies and reproductive capacities, which are more advantageous in terms of contests between males and acceptance for mating by females. In this study, we investigated the role of eye span in a more primitive species, Sphyracephala detrahens, in tribe Sphyracephalini with less pronounced sexual dimorphism. Male-male, female-female, and male-female pairs showed similar contests influenced by eye span, which was correlated with nutrition and reproductive ability in both sexes. During mating, males did not distinguish between sexes and chose individuals with larger eye spans, whereas females did not choose males. However, males with larger eye spans copulated repeatedly. These results indicate that, in this species, eye span with a small sexual difference does not function in sex recognition but affects contest and reproductive outcomes, suggesting the primitive state of sexual dimorphism.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33184354
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-76649-3
pii: 10.1038/s41598-020-76649-3
pmc: PMC7661502
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
19684Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Fisher, R. A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection: A Complete Variorum Edition (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1930).
doi: 10.5962/bhl.title.27468
Zahavi, A. Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53, 205–214 (1975).
doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3
Berglund, A., Bisazza, A. & Pilastro, A. Armaments and ornaments: An evolutionary explanation of traits of dual utility. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 58, 385–399 (1996).
doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1996.tb01442.x
Grafen, A. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol. 144, 517–546 (1990).
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5193(05)80088-8
Weatherhead, P. J. & Robertson, R. J. Offspring quality and the polygyny threshold: “The sexy son hypothesis”. Am. Nat. 113, 201–208 (1979).
doi: 10.1086/283379
Kodric-Brown, A. & Brown, J. H. Truth in advertising: The kinds of traits favored by sexual selection. Am. Nat. 124, 309–323 (1984).
doi: 10.1086/284275
Bonduriansky, R. Sexual selection and allometry: A critical reappraisal of the evidence and ideas. Evol. Int. J. Org. Evol. 61, 838–849 (2007).
doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00081.x
Emlen, D. J., Warren, I. A., Johns, A., Dworkin, I. & Lavine, L. C. A mechanism of extreme growth and reliable signaling in sexually selected ornaments and weapons. Science 337, 860–864. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1224286 (2012).
doi: 10.1126/science.1224286
Ralls, K. Mammals in which females are larger than males. Q. Rev. Biol. 51, 245–276 (1976).
doi: 10.1086/409310
Slatkin, M. Ecological causes of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38, 622–630 (1984).
doi: 10.2307/2408711
Hedrick, A. V. & Temeles, E. J. The evolution of sexual dimorphism in animals: Hypotheses and tests. Trends Ecol. Evol. 4, 136–138 (1989).
doi: 10.1016/0169-5347(89)90212-7
Trivers, R. Parental investment and sexual selection. In Sexual Selection and Human Descent, 136–179 (Aldean de Gruiter, New York, 1972)
Teder, T. & Tammaru, T. Sexual size dimorphism within species increases with body size in insects. Oikos 108, 321–334 (2005).
doi: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13609.x
Feijen, H. R. & Griffiths, G. C. Flies of the nearctic region, Vol. 9, Cyclorrhapha III (Schizophora other than Calyptratae), Part 12, Diopsidae (Schweizerbart Science Publishers, Stuttgart, 1989).
Chapman, T., Pomiankowski, A. & Fowler, K. Stalk-eyed flies. Curr. Biol. 15, R533-535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2005.07.015 (2005).
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2005.07.015
Swallow, J. G., Wilkinson, G. S. & Marden, J. H. Aerial performance of stalk-eyed flies that differ in eye span. J. Comp. Physiol. B 170, 481–487 (2000).
doi: 10.1007/s003600000124
Ribak, G. & Swallow, J. G. Free flight maneuvers of stalk-eyed flies: Do eye-stalks affect aerial turning behavior?. J. Comp. Physiol. A Neuroethol. Sens. Neural Behav. Physiol. 193, 1065–1079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-007-0259-1 (2007).
doi: 10.1007/s00359-007-0259-1
Cotton, S., Fowler, K. & Pomiankowski, A. Condition dependence of sexual ornament size and variation in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni (Diptera: Diopsidae). Evolution 58, 1038–1046 (2004).
Rogers, D. W., Denniff, M., Chapman, T., Fowler, K. & Pomiankowski, A. Male sexual ornament size is positively associated with reproductive morphology and enhanced fertility in the stalk-eyed fly Teleopsis dalmanni. BMC Evol. Biol. 8, 236. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-8-236 (2008).
doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-8-236
Wilkinson, G. S., Kahler, H. & Baker, R. H. Evolution of female mating preferences in stalk-eyed flies. Behav. Ecol. 9, 525–533 (1998).
doi: 10.1093/beheco/9.5.525
Wilkinson, G. S. & Dodson, G. N. Function and evolution of antlers and eye stalks in flies. In The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids (eds Choe, J. & Crespi, B.) 310–328 (Cambridge University Press, 1997).
Baker, R. H. & Wilkinson, G. S. Phylogenetic analysis of sexual dimorphism and eye-span allometry in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Evolution 55, 1373–1385 (2001).
Panhuis, T. M. & Wilkinson, G. S. Exaggerated male eye span influences contest outcome in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 46, 221–227 (1999).
doi: 10.1007/s002650050613
Wigby, S. et al. Seminal fluid protein allocation and male reproductive success. Curr. Biol. 19, 751–757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.03.036 (2009).
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.03.036
Bath, E., Wigby, S., Vincent, C., Tobias, J. A. & Seddon, N. Condition, not eyespan, predicts contest outcome in female stalk-eyed flies, Teleopsis dalmanni. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1826–1836 (2015).
doi: 10.1002/ece3.1467
Chapman, N. C. et al. The complexity of mating decisions in stalk-eyed flies. Ecol. Evol. 7, 6659–6668. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3225 (2017).
doi: 10.1002/ece3.3225
Smith, M. J. & Harper, D. G. Animal signals: Models and terminology. J. Theor. Biol. 177, 305–311 (1995).
doi: 10.1006/jtbi.1995.0248
Smith, J. M. & Harper, D. Animal Signals (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003).
Cotton, A. J., Cotton, S., Small, J. & Pomiankowski, A. Male mate preference for female eyespan and fecundity in the stalk-eyed fly, Teleopsis dalmanni. Behav. Ecol. 26, 376–385 (2014).
doi: 10.1093/beheco/aru192
Cotton, S., Fowler, K. & Pomiankowski, A. Heightened condition dependence is not a general feature of male eyespan in stalk-eyed flies (Diptera: Diopsidae). J. Evol. Biol. 17, 1310–1316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00754.x (2004).
doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00754.x
Al-khairulla, H., Warburton, D. & Knell, R. J. Do the eyestalks of female diopsid flies have a function in intrasexual aggressive encounters?. J. Insect Behav. 16, 679–686 (2003).
doi: 10.1023/B:JOIR.0000007703.84691.ad
Wilkinson, G. S., Presgraves, D. C. & Crymes, L. Male eye span in stalk-eyed flies indicates genetic quality by meiotic drive suppression. Nature 391, 276–279. https://doi.org/10.1038/34640 (1998).
doi: 10.1038/34640
Zera, A. J. & Harshman, L. G. The physiology of life history trade-offs in animals. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32, 95–126 (2001).
doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114006
Chittka, L., Skorupski, P. & Raine, N. E. Speed–accuracy tradeoffs in animal decision making. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 400–407 (2009).
doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.02.010
Marco, A. & Lizana, M. The absence of species and sex recognition during mate search by male common toads, Bufo bufo. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 14, 1–8 (2002).
doi: 10.1080/08927014.2002.9522756
Barlow, G. The Cichlid Fishes: Nature’s Grand Experiment in Evolution (Basic Books, New York, 2008).
Scharf, I. & Martin, O. Y. Same-sex sexual behavior in insects and arachnids: Prevalence, causes, and consequences. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 67, 1719–1730 (2013).
doi: 10.1007/s00265-013-1610-x
Kotrba, M. Baltic amber fossils reveal early evolution of sexual dimorphism in stalk-eyed flies (Diptera: Diopsidae). Organ. Divers. Evol. 4, 265–275 (2004).
doi: 10.1016/j.ode.2004.02.005
Takeuchi, T., Yabuta, S. & Tsubaki, Y. The erroneous courtship hypothesis: Do insects really engage in aerial wars of attrition?. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 118, 970–981 (2016).
doi: 10.1111/bij.12770
Takeuchi, T. Agonistic display or courtship behavior? A review of contests over mating opportunity in butterflies. J. Ethol. 35, 3–12 (2017).
doi: 10.1007/s10164-016-0487-3