Author
Listed:
- David Punzalan
- F. Helen Rodd
- Locke Rowe
Abstract
Sexual selection is a potent evolutionary force often invoked to explain observed cases of sexual dimorphism. However, evidence of this process operating on existing phenotypic variation is limited. We investigated whether sexual selection could account for sexual dimorphism in size and color pattern in the ambush bug Phymata americana. We considered the alternative hypothesis that dimorphism merely reflects sex differences in habitat use but found no evidence of sex differences in microhabitat during 2 sampling periods in the wild. Although the form of sexual (phenotypic) selection on male lateral color pattern varied between samples, selection consistently favored lateral coloration in males but not size. For females, weight was a consistent predictor of mating status in both the early and the late season. We performed 2 separate laboratory studies to investigate potential proximate mechanisms of sexual selection that might account for the field data. Although we found that male weight predicted male success in direct male--male competition and male courtship intensity predicted success in male--female interactions, we did not detect any role of male color pattern in either laboratory study. These data suggest that visual signaling is unlikely to play a role in the evolution of color pattern dimorphism in this species. Consistent with the field data, our laboratory results also found that female weight predicted the probability of copulation, possibly indicating that female receptivity coincides with female reproductive cycle (i.e., egg maturation). Copyright 2008, Oxford University Press.
Suggested Citation
David Punzalan & F. Helen Rodd & Locke Rowe, 2008.
"Contemporary sexual selection on sexually dimorphic traits in the ambush bug Phymata americana,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 19(4), pages 860-870.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:19:y:2008:i:4:p:860-870
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:19:y:2008:i:4:p:860-870. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.