Selection on weapon allometry in the wild.

Allometry is the scaling relationship between a trait and body size. This relationship can often explain considerable morphological variation within and among species. Nevertheless, much remains unknown about the factors that underlie allometric patterns. For example, when different allometric relationships are observed amongst closely related species, these differences are regularly considered to be products of selection. However, directional selection on allometry (particularly the slope) has rarely been tested and observed in natural populations. Here, we investigate selection on the scaling relationship between weapon size and body size (i.e., weapon allometry) in a wild population of giant mesquite bugs, Pachylis neocalifornicus (previously Thasus neocalifornicus). Males in this species use their weapons (enlarged femurs) to compete with one another over access to resources and females. We found that large males with relatively large weapons successfully secured access to mates. However, we also found that small males with relatively small weapons could access mates as well. These two patterns together can increase the allometric slope of the sexually selected weapon, suggesting a straightforward process by which the allometric slope can evolve.

[1]  Z. Emberts,et al.  Weapon morphology and performance predict fighting outcomes in the giant mesquite bug, Pachylis neocalifornicus , 2023, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.

[2]  L. A. Campos,et al.  Phylogeny of Pachylis Lepeletier & Serville, 1825 (Hemiptera, Coreidae, Coreinae) with Thasus Stål, 1865 as a new synonym, and the redescription of Pachylis laticornis (Fabricius, 1798) , 2022, Zoosystema.

[3]  A. Palaoro,et al.  Biomechanics influence sexual dimorphism in the giant mesquite bug, Thasus neocalifornicus. , 2021, Zoology.

[4]  J. Wiens,et al.  Damage from intraspecific combat is costly , 2021, Behavioral Ecology.

[5]  Wei Song Hwang,et al.  Weapon performance drives weapon evolution , 2021, Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

[6]  Z. Emberts,et al.  Defensive structures influence fighting outcomes , 2020, bioRxiv.

[7]  Christine W. Miller,et al.  The evolution of autotomy in leaf‐footed bugs , 2020, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[8]  R. L. Rodríguez,et al.  Why the static allometry of sexually-selected traits is so variable: the importance of function. , 2019, Integrative and comparative biology.

[9]  Christine W. Miller,et al.  The hidden cost of sexually selected traits: the metabolic expense of maintaining a sexually selected weapon , 2018, Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

[10]  C. E. Allen,et al.  On the evolution of extreme structures: static scaling and the function of sexually selected signals , 2018, Animal Behaviour.

[11]  Matthew C. Metz,et al.  Predation shapes the evolutionary traits of cervid weapons , 2018, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[12]  B. Buzatto,et al.  Sexual Selection and Static Allometry: The Importance of Function , 2018, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[13]  L. Simmons,et al.  Experimental manipulation reveals a trade‐off between weapons and testes , 2018, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[14]  Paul N. Joseph,et al.  Males that drop a sexually selected weapon grow larger testes , 2018, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[15]  D. Emlen,et al.  Selection on an extreme weapon in the frog‐legged leaf beetle (Sagra femorata) , 2017, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[16]  Christine W. Miller,et al.  Seasonal Effects on the Population, Morphology and Reproductive Behavior of Narnia femorata (Hemiptera: Coreidae) , 2017, Insects.

[17]  Christine W. Miller,et al.  The tale of the shrinking weapon: seasonal changes in nutrition affect weapon size and sexual dimorphism, but not contemporary evolution , 2016, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[18]  Christine W. Miller,et al.  Coreidae (Insecta: Hemiptera) Limb Loss and Autotomy , 2016 .

[19]  Christine W. Miller,et al.  Resource quality affects weapon and testis size and the ability of these traits to respond to selection in the leaf‐footed cactus bug, Narnia femorata , 2016, Ecology and evolution.

[20]  I. Dworkin,et al.  Tipping the scales: Evolution of the allometric slope independent of average trait size , 2016, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[21]  K. L. Voje,et al.  Scaling of Morphological Characters across Trait Type, Sex, and Environment , 2016, The American Naturalist.

[22]  T. F. Hansen,et al.  Complex constraints on allometry revealed by artificial selection on the wing of Drosophila melanogaster , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[23]  Christine W. Miller,et al.  Different environments lead to a reversal in the expression of weapons and testes in the heliconia bug, Leptoscelis tricolor (Hemiptera: Coreidae) , 2015 .

[24]  Christine W. Miller,et al.  Sexual selection is influenced by both developmental and adult environments , 2014, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[25]  T. F. Hansen,et al.  Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Evolution of Morphological Allometry , 2022 .

[26]  C. Pélabon,et al.  ALLOMETRIC CONSTRAINTS AND THE EVOLUTION OF ALLOMETRY , 2014, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[27]  Thomas F Hansen,et al.  EVOLUTION OF STATIC ALLOMETRIES: ADAPTIVE CHANGE IN ALLOMETRIC SLOPES OF EYE SPAN IN STALK‐EYED FLIES , 2013, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[28]  T. F. Hansen,et al.  Artificial selection on allometry: change in elevation but not slope , 2012, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[29]  Christine W. Miller,et al.  The form of sexual selection arising from male–male competition depends on the presence of females in the social environment , 2012, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[30]  F. H. Rodd,et al.  Temporally Variable Multivariate Sexual Selection on Sexually Dimorphic Traits in a Wild Insect Population , 2010, The American Naturalist.

[31]  J. DiBattista,et al.  It's about time: the temporal dynamics of phenotypic selection in the wild. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[32]  D. Gwynne,et al.  Sexual Selection for Male Mobility in a Giant Insect with Female‐Biased Size Dimorphism , 2008, The American Naturalist.

[33]  R. Bonduriansky ORIGINAL ARTICLE doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00081.x SEXUAL SELECTION AND ALLOMETRY: A CRITICAL REAPPRAISAL OF THE EVIDENCE AND IDEAS , 2006 .

[34]  James H. Brown,et al.  The allometry of ornaments and weapons. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[35]  P. Brakefield,et al.  Natural Selection and Developmental Constraints in the Evolution of Allometries , 2005, Science.

[36]  P. Conway Tipping the Scales , 2004, Science's STKE.

[37]  M. Peruggia Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (2nd ed.) , 2003 .

[38]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach , 2003 .

[39]  T. Miyatake Multi-Male Mating Aggregation in Notobitus meleagris (Hemiptera: Coreidae) , 2002 .

[40]  M. Rosenberg Fiddler crab claw shape variation : a geometric morphometric analysis across the genus Uca (Crustacea : Brachyura : Ocypodidae) , 2002 .

[41]  D. Berrigan,et al.  Strength and tempo of directional selection in the wild , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[42]  G. Wilkinson,et al.  PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF SEXUAL DIMORPHISM AND EYE‐SPAN ALLOMETRY IN STALK‐EYED FLIES (DIOPSIDAE) , 2001, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[43]  J. M. Hoekstra,et al.  The Strength of Phenotypic Selection in Natural Populations , 2001, The American Naturalist.

[44]  Olaf Ellers,et al.  Scaling in biology , 2001, Complex..

[45]  D. Emlen,et al.  Male horn dimorphism in the scarab beetle, Onthophagus taurus: do alternative reproductive tactics favour alternative phenotypes? , 2000, Animal Behaviour.

[46]  W. Eberhard Sexual behavior of Acanthocephala declivis guatemalana (Hemiptera: Coreidae) and the allometric scaling of their modified hind legs , 1998 .

[47]  K. Kawano Cost of evolving exaggerated mandibles in stag beetles (Coleoptera : Lucanidae) , 1997 .

[48]  G. Wilkinson Artificial sexual selection alters allometry in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni (Diptera: Diopsidae) , 1993 .

[49]  T. Mitchell-Olds,et al.  REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF NATURAL SELECTION: STATISTICAL INFERENCE AND BIOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION , 1987, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[50]  P. L. Mitchell Combat and Territorial Defense of Acanthocephala femorata (Hemiptera: Coreidae) , 1980 .

[51]  H. Akaike A new look at the statistical model identification , 1974 .

[52]  S. Gould ALLOMETRY AND SIZE IN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY , 1966, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[53]  G. Holwell,et al.  Scramble competition polygyny in terrestrial arthropods , 2017 .

[54]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[55]  G. Wilkinson,et al.  PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF SEXUAL DIMORPHISM AND EYE-SPAN ALLOMETRY IN STALK-EYED FLIES (DIOPSIDAE) , 2001 .

[56]  G. Jong Covariances Between Traits Deriving From Successive Allocations of a Resource , 1993 .

[57]  G. Bidder Constant Differential Growth-ratios and their Significance , 1925, Nature.

[58]  D'arcy W. Thompson,et al.  On Growth and Form , 1917, Nature.