Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 65, Issue 5, pp 995–1005 | Cite as

Alternative mating tactics in dimorphic males of the harvestman Longiperna concolor (Arachnida: Opiliones)

  • Camila Zatz
  • Rachel M. Werneck
  • Rogelio Macías-Ordóñez
  • Glauco MachadoEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Intense male–male competition for females may drive the evolution of male morphological dimorphism, which is frequently associated with alternative mating tactics. Using modern techniques for the detection of discontinuous allometries, we describe male dimorphism in the Neotropical harvestman Longiperna concolor, the males of which use their elongated, sexually dimorphic legs IV in fights for the possession of territories where females lay eggs. We also tested three predictions related to the existence of alternative mating tactics: (1) if individuals with relatively longer legs IV (majors) are more likely to monopolize access to reproductive resources, they are expected to remain close to stable groups of females more than individuals with relatively shorter legs IV (minors) do; (2) if minors achieve fertilization by moving between territories, they are expected to be less faithful to specific sites; and (3) majors should be observed in aggressive interactions more often. We individually marked all the individuals from a population of Longiperna during the reproductive season and recorded the location of each sighting for males and females as well as the identity of males involved in fights. Majors were more likely to have harems, and large majors were even more likely to do so. Majors were more philopatric and all males involved in fights belonged to this morph. These results strongly suggest that the mating tactic of the majors is based on resource defense whereas that of the minors probably relies on sneaking into the territories of the majors and furtively copulating with females.

Keywords

Discontinuous allometry Fight Male–male competition Mating system Polyphenism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the staff of the Intervales State Park for logistical support, to many friends for helping with the fieldwork, to R. Knell, R. Munguía Steyer and R. Guevara for helping with the statistical analyses, to B.A. Buzatto, R. Munguía Steyer, E. Costa-Schmidt, P.S. Santos Filho, A. Eterovic, P.E.C. Peixoto, and three anonymous reviewers for comments on the manuscript, and to B.A. Buzatto for some of the photos used in Fig. 1. The specimens were identified by R. Pinto-da-Rocha, curator of the arachnological collection at the Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo (MZSP) where voucher specimens were deposited. CZ and RMW have student grants from the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP 07/56841-2; 09/09453-2), GM has research grants from FAPESP (no. 02/00381-0; 09/50031-4; 08/06604-7) and from the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), and RMO is supported by the Instituto de Ecología, A.C.

References

  1. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Brockmann HJ (2008) Alternative reproductive tactics in insects. In: Oliveira R, Taborsky M, Brockmann HJ (eds) Alternative reproductive tactics: an integrative approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 177–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buzatto BA, Machado G (2008) Resource defense polygyny shifts to female defense polygyny over the course of the reproductive season of a Neotropical harvestman. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buzatto BA, Requena GS, Martins EG, Machado G (2007) Effects of maternal care on the lifetime reproductive success of females in a Neotropical harvestman. J Anim Ecol 76:937–945PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buzatto BA, Requena GS, Lourenço RS, Munguía-Steyer R, Machado G (2010) Conditional male dimorphism and alternative reproductive tactics in a Neotropical arachnid (Opiliones). Evol Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10682-010-9431-0
  6. Cook JM, Bean D (2006) Cryptic male dimorphism and fighting in a fig wasp. Anim Behav 71:1095–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eberhard WG, Gutierrez EE (1991) Male dimorphisms in beetles and earwigs and the question of developmental constraints. Evolution 45:18–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eberhard WG, Garcia-C JM, Lobo J (2000) Size-specific defensive structures in a horned weevil confirm a classic battle plan: avoid fights with larger opponents. Proc R Soc Lond Biol Sci 267:1129–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Emlen DJ (1994) Environmental control of horn length dimorphism in the beetle Onthophagus acuminatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Proc R Soc Lond Biol Sci 256:131–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Emlen DJ (1997) Diet alters male horn allometry in the beetle Onthophagus acuminatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 264:567–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emlen DJ, Nijhout HF (2000) The development and evolution of exaggerated morphologies in insects. Annu Rev Entomol 45:661–708PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gadgil M (1972) Male dimorphism as a consequence of sexual selection. Am Nat 106:574–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gross MR (1996) Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: diversity within sexes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:92–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huxley JS (1932) Problems of relative growth. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Jasieński M, Bazzaz FA (1999) The fallacy of ratios and the testability of models in biology. Oikos 84:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karino K, Niiyama H, Chiba M (2005) Horn length is the determining factor in the outcomes of escalated fights among male Japanese horned beetles, Allomyrina dichotoma L. (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). J Insect Behav 18:805–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kästner A (1968) Order Opiliones, harvestmen. In: Invertebrate zoology, vol. 2. Wiley, New York, pp 229–247Google Scholar
  19. Kelly CD (2006) The relationship between resource control, association with females and male weapon size in a male-dominance insect. Ethology 112:362–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Knell RJ (2009) On the analysis of non-linear allometries. Ecol Entomol 34:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Knell RJ, Pomfret JC, Tomkins JL (2004) The limits of elaboration: curved allometries reveal the constraints on mandible size in stag beetles. Proc R Soc Lond Biol Sci 271:523–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kotiaho JS, Tomkins JL (2001) The discrimination of alternative male morphologies. Behav Ecol 12:553–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kury AB (1992) Notes on Mitobatinae VI. A review of Metamitobates Roewer (Opiliones, Gonyleptidae, Mitobatinae). Mitt Zool Mus Berlin 68:157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Machado G, Macías-Ordóñez R (2007) Reproduction. In: Pinto-da-Rocha R, Machado G, Giribet G (eds) Harvestmen: the biology of Opiliones. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 414–454Google Scholar
  25. Macías-Ordóñez R (1997) The mating system of Leiobunum vittatum Say 1821 (Arachnida: Opiliones: Palpatores): resource defense polygyny in the striped harvestman. Dissertation. Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, p 167Google Scholar
  26. Macías-Ordóñez R, Machado G, Pérez-González A, Shultz JW (2010) Genitalic evolution in Opiliones. In: Leonard J, Córdoba-Aguilar A (eds) The evolution of primary characters in animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 285–306Google Scholar
  27. Maynard-Smith J, Price GR (1973) The logic of animal conflict. Nature 246:15–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moczek AP, Emlen DJ (2000) Male horn dimorphism in the scarab beetle, Onthophagus taurus: do alternative reproductive tactics favour alternative phenotypes? Anim Behav 59:459–466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Muggeo VMR (2003) Estimating regression models with unknown break-points. Stats Med 22:3055–3071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Muggeo VMR (2008) Segmented: an R package to fit regression models with broken-line relationships. R News 8(1):20–25Google Scholar
  31. Nijhout HF, Wheeler DE (1996) Growth models of complex allometries in holometabolous insects. Am Nat 148:40–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ostfeld RS (1987) On the distinction between female defense and resource defense polygyny. Oikos 48:238–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Parker GA (1970) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol Rev 45:525–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Parker GA (1990) Sperm competition games: sneaks and extra-pair copulations. Proc R Soc Lond Biol Sci 242:127–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org
  36. Radwan J, Unrug J, Tomkins JL (2002) Status-dependence and morphological trade-offs in the expression of a sexually selected character in the mite, Sancassania berlesei. J Evol Biol 15:744–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rice WR, Gaines SD (1994) ‘Heads I win, tails you lose’: testing directional alternative hypotheses in ecological and evolutionary research. Trends Ecol Evol 9:235–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Romo-Beltrán A, Macías-Ordóñez R, Córdoba-Aguilar A (2009) Male dimorphism, territoriality and mating success in the tropical damselfly, Paraphlebia zoe Selys (Odonata: Megapodagrionidae). Evol Ecol 23:699–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shuster SM (1987) Alternative reproductive behaviors: three discrete male morphs in Paracerceis sculpta, an intertidal isopod from the Northern Gulf of California. J Crustacean Biol 7:318–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shuster SM (2008) The expression of crustacean mating strategies. In: Oliveira R, Taborsky M, Brockmann HJ (eds) Alternative reproductive tactics: an integrative approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 224–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shuster SM, Wade MJ (2003) Mating systems and strategies. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  42. Taborsky M, Oliveira RF, Brockmann HJ (2008) The evolution of alternative reproductive tactics: concepts and questions. In: Oliveira RF, Taborsky M, Brockmann HJ (eds) Alternative reproductive tactics: an integrative approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Taylor PW, Elwood RW (2003) The mismeasure of animal contests. Anim Behav 65:1195–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tomkins JL (1999) Environmental and genetic determinants of the male forceps length dimorphism in the European earwig Forficula auricularia L. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 47:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tomkins JL, Hazel W (2007) The status of the conditional evolutionarily stable strategy. Trends Ecol Evol 22:522–528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tomkins JL, LeBas NR, Unrug J, Radwan J (2004) Testing the status-dependent ESS model: population variation in fighter expression in the mite Sancassania berlesei. J Evol Biol 17:1377–1388PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tomkins JL, Kotiaho JS, LeBas NR (2005) Matters of scale: positive allometry and the evolution of male dimorphisms. Am Nat 165:389–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vanacker D, Hendrickx F, Maes L, Verraes P, Maelfait J-P (2004) Can multiple mating compensate for slower development and shorter adult life in a male dimorphic dwarf spider? Biol J Linn Soc 82:269–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Via S, Lande R (1985) Genotype–environment interactions and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Evolution 39:505–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. West-Eberhard MJ (2003) Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  51. Willemart RH (2001) Egg covering behavior of the Neotropical harvestman Promitobates ornatus (Opiliones, Gonyleptidae). J Arachnol 28:249–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Willemart RH, Farine JP, Gnaspini P (2009a) Sensory biology of Phalangida harvestmen (Arachnida, Opiliones): a review, with new morphological data on 18 species. Acta Zool-Stockholm 90:209–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Willemart RH, Osses F, Chelini MC, Macías-Ordóñez R, Machado G (2009b) Sexually dimorphic legs in a Neotropical harvestman (Arachnida, Opiliones): ornament or weapon? Behav Proc 80:51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zatz C (2010) Seleção sexual e evolução do dimorfismo sexual em duas espécies de opiliões (Arachnida: Opiliones). Dissertation. Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil, p 50Google Scholar
  55. Zimmerer EJ, Kallman K (1989) Genetic basis for alternative reproductive tactics in the pygmy swordtail, Xiphophorus nigrensis. Evolution 43:1298–1307CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Camila Zatz
    • 1
  • Rachel M. Werneck
    • 1
  • Rogelio Macías-Ordóñez
    • 2
  • Glauco Machado
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia, Departamento de Ecologia, Instituto de BiociênciasUniversidade de São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Departamento de Biología EvolutivaInstituto de EcologíaVeracruzMexico
  3. 3.Departamento de Ecologia, Instituto de BiociênciasUniversidade de São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations