A weapons–testes trade-off in males is amplified in female traits

Miller, Charles H.; Joseph, Paul; Kilner, Rebecca M.; Emberts, Zachary

doi:10.1098/rspb.2019.0906

Cited by 12 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 64 publications

(120 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Greenway et al., 2019; Somjee et al., 2018). Since both testes and weapons also have similar developmental timings and crucial reproductive functions, they may experience life‐history trade‐offs (Miller et al., 2019; Simmons et al., 2017). Thus, investing in one of these traits may lead to reduced investment in the other.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade‐offs between weapons and testes do not manifest at high social densities

Miller

Joseph

Emberts

2021

J of Evolutionary Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social conditions can alter the allocation of resources to reproductive traits. For example, an increase in social density during development is frequently associated with an increase in the testes mass of males. Sperm competition theory assumes that increased investment in testes should come at the expense of investing into precopulatory traits, such as sexually selected weaponry. However, much remains unknown about the role of the social context on the concurrent, relative investment in both testes and weapons. We found that the leaf‐footed cactus bug, Narnia femorata (Hemiptera: Coreidae), grew nearly 20% larger testes when raised in high social densities. In addition to manipulating social density, we used autotomy (limb loss) to limit investment in their hindlimb weapon during development. At low densities, we found that those that lost a weapon during development grew larger testes by adulthood, supporting previous work demonstrating a weapons–testes trade‐off. However, at high social densities, males that dropped a hindlimb did not grow larger testes, though testes were already large at this density. These results underscore the importance of the social context to resource allocation patterns within the individual.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade‐offs between weapons and testes do not manifest at high social densities

Miller

Joseph

Emberts

2021

J of Evolutionary Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2018; Miller et al. 2019). Given these costs, enlarged hind legs likely have a function beyond locomotion (e.g., some males use them in intrasexual fights over access to females; Miyatake 1997; Mitchell 1980; Eberhard 1998; Miller and Emlen 2010; Miller et al.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of autotomy in leaf‐footed bugs

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sacrificing body parts is one of many behaviors that animals use to escape predation. This trait, termed autotomy, is classically associated with lizards. However, several other taxa also autotomize, and this trait has independently evolved multiple times throughout Animalia. Despite having multiple origins and being an iconic antipredatory trait, much remains unknown about the evolution of autotomy. Here, we combine morphological, behavioral, and genomic data to investigate the evolution of autotomy within leaf-footed bugs and allies (Insecta: Hemiptera: Coreidae + Alydidae). We found that the ancestor of leaf-footed bugs autotomized and did so slowly; rapid autotomy (<2 min) then arose multiple times. The ancestor likely used slow autotomy to reduce the cost of injury or to escape nonpredatory entrapment but could not use autotomy to escape predation. This result suggests that autotomy to escape predation is a co-opted benefit (i.e., exaptation), revealing one way that sacrificing a limb to escape predation may arise. In addition to identifying the origins of rapid autotomy, we also show that across species variation in the rates of autotomy can be explained by body size, distance from the equator, and enlargement of the autotomizable appendage. K E Y W O R D S : Autotomy, evolutionary ecology, evolutionary origins, latitudinal gradient, phylogenetic comparative methods, predator-prey.

show abstract

“…Despite both sexes bearing weapons, the costs of bearing them likely differ between sexes (Miller, Joseph, Kilner, & Emberts, 2019). First, there are metabolic costs of producing and maintaining metabolic active tissue (Somjee, Woods, Duell, & Miller, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since resources are limited, allocating them to weapons may trade‐off with other fitness‐enhancing traits (Zera & Harshman, 2001). For instance, females that allocate energy to weapons have lower gonadal development and offspring viability (Miller et al, 2019; Zuk & Stoehr, 2002). Thus, bearing weapons may pose a cost in terms of lifetime reproductive success for females (Hare & Simmons, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Harder, better, faster, stronger: Weapon size is more sexually dimorphic than weapon biomechanical components in two freshwater anomuran species

Palaoro

Muniz

Santos

2020

Journal of Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sexual selection influences the evolution of morphological traits that increase the likelihood of monopolizing scarce resources. When such traits are used during contests, they are termed weapons. Given that resources are typically linked to monopolizing mating partners, theory expects only males to bear weapons. In some species, however, females also bear weapons, although typically smaller than male weapons. Understanding why females bear smaller weapons can thus help us understand the selective pressures behind weapon evolution. However, most of our knowledge comes from studies on weapon size, while the biomechanics of weapons, such as the size of the muscles, efficiency, and shape are seldom studied. Our goal was to test if the theoretical expectations for weapon size sexual dimorphism also occur for weapon biomechanics using two aeglid crab species. Males of both species had larger claws which were also stronger than female claws. Male claws were also more efficient than females' claws (although we used only one species in this analysis). For weapon shape, though, only one species differed in the mean claw shape. Regarding scaling differences, in both species, male claws had higher size scaling than females, while only one species had a higher shape scaling. However, male weapons did not have higher scaling regarding strength and efficiency than females. Thus, males apparently allocate more resources in weapons than females, but once allocated, muscle and efficiency follow a similar developmental pathway in both sexes. Taken together, our results show that sexual dimorphism in weapons involves more than differences in size. Shape differences are especially intriguing because we cannot fully understand its causes. Yet, we highlight that such subtle differences can only be detected by measuring and analysing weapon shape and biomechanical components. Only then we might better understand how weapons are forged.

show abstract

A weapons–testes trade-off in males is amplified in female traits

Cited by 12 publications

References 64 publications

Trade‐offs between weapons and testes do not manifest at high social densities

Trade‐offs between weapons and testes do not manifest at high social densities

The evolution of autotomy in leaf‐footed bugs

Harder, better, faster, stronger: Weapon size is more sexually dimorphic than weapon biomechanical components in two freshwater anomuran species

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About