2009
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01707.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimal climbing speed explains the evolution of extreme sexual size dimorphism in spiders

Abstract: Several hypotheses have been put forward to explain the evolution of extreme sexual size dimorphism (SSD). Among them, the gravity hypothesis (GH) explains that extreme SSD has evolved in spiders because smaller males have a mating or survival advantage by climbing faster. However, few studies have supported this hypothesis thus far. Using a wide span of spider body sizes, we show that there is an optimal body size (7.4 mm) for climbing and that extreme SSD evolves only in spiders that: (1) live in high‐habita… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
44
2

Year Published

2009
2009
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 67 publications
3
44
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Bigger size and/or body condition as an adult infers more food as a juvenile, which provides further evidence that juvenile food limitation negatively affects long distance mate location ability in adult mantids. These results are in stark contrast to those predicted by scramble competition theory [48], which proposes that small males may have an indirect advantage if they mature earlier (and therefore smaller) or a direct advantage if small size means greater agility [34,49,50]. However, it has also been suggested that large size might mean higher survivorship during mate searching over the long distances expected when females are sparsely distributed [34,51-53].…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 59%
“…Bigger size and/or body condition as an adult infers more food as a juvenile, which provides further evidence that juvenile food limitation negatively affects long distance mate location ability in adult mantids. These results are in stark contrast to those predicted by scramble competition theory [48], which proposes that small males may have an indirect advantage if they mature earlier (and therefore smaller) or a direct advantage if small size means greater agility [34,49,50]. However, it has also been suggested that large size might mean higher survivorship during mate searching over the long distances expected when females are sparsely distributed [34,51-53].…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 59%
“…An important difference between these clades is that in nephilids, size evolution between the sexes runs independently (Kuntner and Coddington 2009;Kuntner and Elgar 2014), whereas in argiopines it is highly positively correlated (Cheng and Kuntner 2014). The correlated evolution of argiopine male and female size implies that female size changes also depend on evolutionary pressures on males (Elgar 1991;Moya-Laraño et al 2009;Vollrath and Parker 1992). However, even if females are restricted in evolutionary size increase, their fecundity may For abbreviations see Table 1 Table plausibly increase via morphological evolution, such as adding additional abdominal volume though shape changes.…”
Section: Species Level Patterns In Argiopinaementioning
confidence: 97%
“…In scrambling species, male fertilisation success depends primarily on the ability to detect and locate females (Parker 1978;Thornhill and Alcock 1983), with selection favouring male traits that allow for quick recognition and response to signals and/ or for directed and rapid locomotion. For example, males with longer antennae may be better at detecting and orienting towards signalling females (Hanks et al 1996;Bertin and Cezilly 2003); small males may be faster to reach females if they mature earlier and are more agile than larger males (for review see Andersson 1994;Vencl 2004;Kasumovic and Andrade 2009;Moya-Larano et al 2009); and males with larger legs/wings in relation to their body size may have a greater locomotory ability that allows them to rapidly find females (Carroll and Salamon 1995; and see Berwaerts and Van Dyck 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%