Abstract
Predicting the response to selection is at the core of evolutionary biology. Presently, thorough understanding of the effects of selection on the multivariate phenotype is lacking, in particular for behavioral traits. Here, we compared multivariate acoustic mating signals among seven field cricket species contrasting two selection regimes: (1) species producing songs with long trains of pulses for which preference functions for acoustic energy (chirp duty cycle) are linear and likely exert strong directional selection (‘trillers’); (2) species producing songs consisting of short chirps and for which preference functions for chirp duty cycle are concave and directional selection is likely weak or absent (‘chirpers’). We compared the phenotypic variance–covariance matrix (P) among species and uncovered two main patterns: First, surprisingly, pulse rate and chirp rate were positively correlated in six of seven species thus suggesting phenotypic coupling of timescales. Second, chirp rate and chirp duty cycle also covaried, but the direction of covariation differed between chirpers (positive) and trillers (negative). Multi-population Bayesian methods for matrix comparisons, Krzanowski’s subspace comparison and tensor analysis, revealed significant variation in P unrelated to phylogenetic distance, but strongly contrasting chirpers and trillers. We also found differences in the predicted selection response between chirpers and trillers. We thus report that variation in P is higher between than within selection regimes. Although effects from drift and shared ancestry cannot be fully excluded, these findings highlight a role for sexual selection in shaping patterns of phenotypic covariation that can ultimately affect the evolutionary trajectory of a multivariate mating signal.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aguirre, J. D., Hine, E., McGuigan, K., & Blows, M. W. (2014). Comparing G: Multivariate analysis of genetic variation in multiple populations. Heredity, 112(1), 21–29.
Alexander, R. (1962). Evolutionary change in cricket acoustical communication. Evolution, 16, 443–467.
Arnold, S. J., Bürger, R., Hohenlohe, P. A., Ajie, B. C., & Jones, A. G. (2008). Understanding the evolution and stability of the G-matrix. Evolution, 62(10), 2451–2461.
Bégin, M., & Roff, D. A. (2004). From micro- to macroevolution through quantitative genetic variation: Positive evidence from field crickets. Evolution, 58(10), 2287–2304.
Bentsen, C. L., Hunt, J., Jennions, M. D., & Brooks, R. (2006). Complex multivariate sexual selection on male acoustic signaling in a wild population of Teleogryllus commodus. The American Naturalist, 167(4), E102–E116.
Berner, D., Stutz, W. E., & Bolnick, D. I. (2010). Foraging trait (co)variances in stickleback evolve deterministically and do not predict trajectories of adaptive diversification. Evolution, 64(8), 2265–2277.
Bertram, S. M., Fitzsimmons, L. P., McAuley, E. M., Rundle, H. D., & Gorelick, R. (2012). Phenotypic covariance structure and its divergence for acoustic mate attraction signals among four cricket species. Ecology and Evolution, 2(1), 181–195.
Blankers, T., Hennig, R. M., & Gray, D. A. (2015). Conservation of multivariate female preference functions and preference mechanisms in three species of trilling field crickets. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 28(3), 630–641.
Blows, M. W., Chenoweth, S. F., & Hine, E. (2004). Orientation of the genetic variance–covariance matrix and the fitness surface for multiple male sexually selected traits. American Naturalist, 163, 329–340.
Blows, M. W., & Higgie, M. (2003). Genetic constraints on the evolution of mate recognition under natural selection. American Naturalist, 161, 240–253.
Broughton, R. E., & Harrison, R. G. (2003). Nuclear gene genealogies reveal historical, demographic and selective factors associated with speciation in field crickets. Genetics, 163(4), 1389–1401.
Cheverud, J. M. (1988). A comparison of genetic and phenotypic correlations. Evolution: International Journal of Organic Evolution, 42(5), 958–968.
Clemens, J., & Hennig, R. M. (2013). Computational principles underlying the recognition of acoustic signals in insects. Journal of Computational Neuroscience, 35, 75–85.
Flury, B. (1988). Common principal components and related multivariate models. New York: Wiley.
Gerhardt, H. C., & Brooks, R. (2009). Experimental analysis of multivariate female choice in gray treefrogs (Hyla versicolor): Evidence for directional and stabilizing selection. Evolution, 63, 2504–2512.
Gerhardt, H. C., & Huber, F. (2002). Acoustic communication in insects and anurans. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Gray, D. A., & Cade, W. H. (2000). Sexual selection and speciation in field crickets. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97, 14449–14454.
Gray, D. A., Gabel, E., Blankers, T., & Hennig, R. M. (2016a). Multivariate female preference tests reveal latent perceptual biases. Proc R Soc B (in review)
Gray, D. A., Gutierrez, N. J., Chen, T. O. M. L., Weissman, D. B., & Cole, J. A. (2016b). Species divergence in field crickets: Genetics, song, ecomorphology, and pre- and postzygotic isolation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 117(2), 192–205.
Gray, D. A., Huang, H., & Knowles, L. L. (2008). Molecular evidence of a peripatric origin for two sympatric species of field crickets (Gryllus rubens and G. texensis) revealed from coalescent simulations and population genetic tests. Molecular Ecology, 17, 3836–3855.
Grobe, B., Rothbart, M. M., Hanschke, A., & Hennig, R. M. (2012). Auditory processing at two time scales by the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. The Journal of experimental biology, 215, 1681–1690.
Haber, A. (2014). The evolution of morphological integration in the ruminant skull. Evolutionary Biology, 42(1), 99–114.
Hadfield, J. D. (2010). MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: The MCMCglmm R package. Journal of Statistical Software, 33, 1–22.
Hadfield, J. D. (2012). MCMCglmm course notes. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MCMCglmm/vignettes/CourseNotes.pdf.
Hansen, T. F., & Houle, D. (2008). Measuring and comparing evolvability and constraint in multivariate characters. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 21, 1201–1219.
Hazel, L. N., Dickerson, G. E., & Freeman, A. E. (1994). The selection index—Then, now, and for the future. Journal of Dairy Science, 77(10), 3236–3251.
Hedwig, B. (2000). Control of cricket stridulation by a command neuron: Efficacy depends on the behavioral state. Journal of Neurophysiology, 83, 712–722.
Heiberger, R. M., & Holland, B. (2004). Statistical analysis and data display: An intermediate course with examples in S-plus, R, and SAS., Springer texts in statistics New York: Springer.
Hennig, M. R., Blankers, T., & Gray, D. A. (2016). Divergence in male cricket song and multivariate female preference functions in three allopatric sister species. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 202, 347–360.
Hennig, R. M., Heller, K.-G., & Clemens, J. (2014). Time and timing in the acoustic recognition system of crickets. Frontiers in Physiology, 5, 286. doi:10.3389/fphys.2014.00286.
Hine, E., Chenoweth, S. F., Rundle, H. D., & Blows, M. W. (2009). Characterizing the evolution of genetic variance using genetic covariance tensors. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1523), 1567–1578.
Hoback, W. W., & Wagner, W. E., Jr. (1997). The energetic cost of calling in the variable field cricket, Gryllus lineaticeps. Physiological Entomology, 22, 286–290.
Houle, D., Pelabon, C., Wagner, G. P., & Hansen, T. F. (2011). Measurement and meaning in biology. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 86(1), 3–34.
Huang, Y., Ortí, G., Sutherlin, M., Duhachek, A., & Zera, A. (2000). Phylogenetic relationships of North American field crickets inferred from mitochondrial DNA data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 17(1), 48–57.
Jones, A. G., Arnold, S. J., & Bürger, R. (2003). Stability of the G-matrix in a population experiencing pleiotropic mutation, stabilizing selection, and genetic drift. Evolution, 57(8), 1747–1760.
Kolbe, J. J., Revell, L. J., Szekely, B., Brodie, E. D., III, & Losos, J. B. (2011). Convergent evolution of phenotypic integration and its alignment with morphological diversification in caribbean Anolis ecomorphs. Evolution, 65(12), 3608–3624.
Krzanowski, W. J. (1979). Between groups comparison of principal components. Journal of American Statistical Association, 74, 703–707.
Lande, R. (1979). Quantitative genetic analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain: Body size allometry. Evolution: International Journal of Organic Evolution, 33, 402–416.
Lande, R., & Arnold, S. J. (1983). The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution, 37(6), 1210–1226.
Laughlin, D. C., & Messier, J. (2015). Fitness of multidimensional phenotypes in dynamic adaptive landscapes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30(8), 1–10.
Lynch, M., & Walsh, B. (1998). Genetics and analysis of quantitative Traits. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
Melo, D., & Marroig, G. (2014). Directional selection can drive the evolution of modularity in complex traits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(2), 470–475.
Otte, D. (1992). Evolution of cricket songs. Journal of Orthoptera Research, 1, 25–49.
Phillips, P. C., & Arnold, S. J. (1989). Visualizing multivariate selection. Evolution, 43(6), 1209–1222.
R Development Core Team, R. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In R. D. C. Team (Ed.), R foundation for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Ritchie, M. G. (2007). Sexual selection and speciation. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 38(1), 79–102.
Rodríguez, R. L., Hallett, A. C., Kilmer, J. T., & Fowler-Finn, K. D. (2013). Curves as traits: Genetic and environmental variation in mate preference functions. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 26, 434–442.
Roff, D. (2000). The evolution of the G matrix: Selection or drift? Heredity, 84, 135–142.
Roff, D. A., & Fairbairn, D. J. (2012). The evolution of trade-offs under directional and correlational selection. Evolution, 66(8), 2461–2474.
Roff, D., Mousseau, T., & Howard, D. (1999). Variation in genetic architecture of calling song among populations of Allonemobius socius, A. fasciatus, and a hybrid population: Drift or selection? Evolution, 53(1), 216–224.
Rothbart, M. M., & Hennig, R. M. (2012). Calling song signals and temporal preference functions in the cricket Teleogryllus leo. Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, 198(11), 817–825.
Sakaguchi, K. M., & Gray, D. A. (2011). Host song selection by an acoustically orienting parasitoid fly exploiting a multispecies assemblage of cricket hosts. Animal Behaviour, 81(4), 851–858.
Schöneich, S., & Hedwig, B. (2012). Cellular basis for singing motor pattern generation in the field cricket (Gryllus bimaculatus DeGeer). Brain and Behavior, 2(6), 707–725.
Schoneich, S., Kostarakos, K., & Hedwig, B. (2015). An auditory feature detection circuit for sound pattern recognition. Science Advances, 1(8), e1500325.
Steppan, S. J. (1997). Phylogenetic analysis of phenotypic covariance structure. I. Contrasting results from matrix correlation and common principal component analysis. Evolution, 51(2), 571–586.
Steppan, S. J., Phillips, P. C., & Houle, D. (2002). Comparative quantitative genetics: Evolution of the G matrix. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17(7), 320–327.
Swenson, N. G. (2014). Functional and phylogenetic ecology in R. New York, NY: Springer.
Turelli, M. (1988). Phenotypic evolution, constant covariances, and the maintenance of additive variance. Evolution, 42(6), 1342–1347.
Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (2002). Modern applied statistics with S. Statistics and computing. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Wagner, W. E., & Basolo, A. L. (2007). The relative importance of different direct benefits in the mate choices of a field cricket. Evolution, 61(3), 617–622.
Walker, T. J. (2015). Crickets. In Singing insects of North America. http://entnemdept.ifas.ufl.edu/walker/Buzz/crickets.htm.
Willis, J. H., Coyne, J. A., & Kirkpatrick, M. (1991). Can one predict the evolution of quantitative characters without genetics. Evolution, 45(2), 441–444.
Acknowledgments
The manuscript strongly benefitted from comments by Emma Berdan, Jonas Finck, and Michael Reichert and peer review by Derek A. Roff, Katherine Willmore, and four anonymous reviewers. The performed experiments comply with the “Principles of animal care”, publication No. 86-23, revised 1985 of the National Institute of Health, and also with the current laws of Germany. The authors declare no conflict of interest. Data will be deposited in the Dryad Digital Repository. This study is part of the GENART project funded by the Leibniz Association (SAW-2012-MfN-3).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Blankers, T., Gray, D.A. & Matthias Hennig, R. Multivariate Phenotypic Evolution: Divergent Acoustic Signals and Sexual Selection in Gryllus Field Crickets. Evol Biol 44, 43–55 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-016-9388-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-016-9388-1