Strongly Sexually Dimorphic Forelegs Are Not More Condition-dependent Than Less Dimorphic Traits in

Overview

Journal Evol Ecol

Date 2023 May 8

PMID 37152714

Authors

Jhoniel Perdigon Ferreira

Patrick T Rohner

Stefan Lupold

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10682-022-10226-0.

Citing Articles

Vertically inherited microbiota and environment-modifying behaviors indirectly shape the exaggeration of secondary sexual traits in the gazelle dung beetle.

Rohner P, Moczek A Ecol Evol. 2023; 13(11):e10666.

PMID: 37915805 PMC: 10616735. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.10666.

References

Evans J, Garcia-Gonzalez F . The total opportunity for sexual selection and the integration of pre- and post-mating episodes of sexual selection in a complex world. J Evol Biol. 2016; 29(12):2338-2361. DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12960. View

Somjee U, Woods H, Duell M, Miller C . The hidden cost of sexually selected traits: the metabolic expense of maintaining a sexually selected weapon. Proc Biol Sci. 2018; 285(1891). PMC: 6253382. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2018.1685. View

Lupold S, Manier M, Puniamoorthy N, Schoff C, Starmer W, Luepold S . How sexual selection can drive the evolution of costly sperm ornamentation. Nature. 2016; 533(7604):535-8. DOI: 10.1038/nature18005. View

Cotton S, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A . Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis?. Proc Biol Sci. 2004; 271(1541):771-83. PMC: 1691662. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2688. View

Miller C, McDonald G, Moore A . The tale of the shrinking weapon: seasonal changes in nutrition affect weapon size and sexual dimorphism, but not contemporary evolution. J Evol Biol. 2016; 29(11):2266-2275. DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12954. View

Johnstone R, Rands S, Evans M . Sexual selection and condition-dependence. J Evol Biol. 2009; 22(12):2387-94. DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01822.x. View

Nijhout H, Emlen D . Competition among body parts in the development and evolution of insect morphology. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998; 95(7):3685-9. PMC: 19896. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.95.7.3685. View

Kemp D, Rutowski R . Condition dependence, quantitative genetics, and the potential signal content of iridescent ultraviolet butterfly coloration. Evolution. 2007; 61(1):168-83. DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00014.x. View

Miller C, Svensson E . Sexual selection in complex environments. Annu Rev Entomol. 2013; 59:427-45. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-ento-011613-162044. View

10.

David P, Bjorksten T, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A . Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyed flies. Nature. 2000; 406(6792):186-8. DOI: 10.1038/35018079. View

11.

SPIETH H . Courtship behavior in Drosophila. Annu Rev Entomol. 1974; 19:385-405. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.en.19.010174.002125. View

12.

Hill G . Condition-dependent traits as signals of the functionality of vital cellular processes. Ecol Lett. 2011; 14(7):625-34. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01622.x. View

13.

Cattelan S, Evans J, Garcia-Gonzalez F, Morbiato E, Pilastro A . Dietary stress increases the total opportunity for sexual selection and modifies selection on condition-dependent traits. Ecol Lett. 2019; 23(3):447-456. DOI: 10.1111/ele.13443. View

14.

Fox R, Fromhage L, Jennions M . Sexual selection, phenotypic plasticity and female reproductive output. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2019; 374(1768):20180184. PMC: 6365872. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2018.0184. View

15.

Setoguchi S, Kudo A, Takanashi T, Ishikawa Y, Matsuo T . Social context-dependent modification of courtship behaviour in Drosophila prolongata. Proc Biol Sci. 2015; 282(1818):20151377. PMC: 4650149. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2015.1377. View

16.

Bonduriansky R, Rowe L . Sexual selection, genetic architecture, and the condition dependence of body shape in the sexually dimorphic fly Prochyliza xanthostoma (Piophilidae). Evolution. 2005; 59(1):138-51. View

17.

Bonduriansky R, Day T . The evolution of static allometry in sexually selected traits. Evolution. 2003; 57(11):2450-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb01490.x. View

18.

Blanckenhorn W . The evolution of body size: what keeps organisms small?. Q Rev Biol. 2000; 75(4):385-407. DOI: 10.1086/393620. View

19.

Bonduriansky R . Sexual selection and allometry: a critical reappraisal of the evidence and ideas. Evolution. 2007; 61(4):838-49. DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00081.x. View

20.

Bro-Jorgensen J, Johnstone R, Evans M . Uninformative exaggeration of male sexual ornaments in barn swallows. Curr Biol. 2007; 17(10):850-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.03.042. View