Advertisement

Journal of Ethology

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 389–392 | Cite as

Role of body size in dominance interactions between male water striders, Aquarius paludum

  • Chang S. Han
  • Piotr G. Jablonski
Short Communication

Abstract

Water striders are a model system for the study of sexual size dimorphism, but the effect of body size on the dominance relationship between individuals has not been experimentally tested. In 34 staged contests between males of the water strider Aquarius paludum, we determined the effect of body size difference between contestants on the outcome of the aggressive interactions. In contests between a large and a small male, the larger individuals won the interactions significantly more often than expected by chance. This is the first experimental evidence for the importance of body size in pair-wise contests among water striders.

Keywords

Male–male competition Sexual size dimorphism Aquarius paludum Gerridae 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by a grant (3344-20080067) from the College of Natural Sciences, Seoul National University to P.J. and for the equipment purchased for the KRF project no. 0409-20080118, by Korea Research Foundation Grant No. KRF-2007-412-J03001, and from the funds of the second stage of the Brain Korea 21 Project 2009. C.S.H. thanks Chang-ku Kang for helping collect water striders. We thank the members of the Laboratory of Behavioral Ecology and Evolution at SNU for help and support (Sang-im Lee, Byoung-soon Jang, Hong-sup Shin, Won-young Lee, Chang-ku Kang and Hee-yoon Kim). This project was conducted as part of an Animal Behavior class taught by P.G.J. at the School of Biological Sciences SNU.

Supplementary material

Video S1. A video showing two interacting individuals next to each other when the “standing up” posture is used. Video by P. G. Jablonski (wmv 949 kb)

References

  1. Archer J (1988) The behavioural biology of aggression. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnqvist G (1989) Multiple mating in a water strider: mutual benefits or intersexual conflict? Anim Behav 38:749–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blanckenhorn WU (2000) The evolution of body size: what keeps organisms small? Quart Rev Biol 75:385–407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanckenhorn WU, Preziosi RF, Fairbairn DJ (1995) Time and energy constraints and the evolution of sexual size dimorphism? To eat or to mate? Evol Ecol 9:369–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanckenhorn WU, Meier R, Teder T (2007) Rensch’s rule in insects: patterns among and within species. In: Fairbairn DJ, Blanckenhorn WU, Szekely T (eds) Sex, size, and gender roles: evolutionary studies of sexual size dimorphism. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 60–70Google Scholar
  6. Davies NB (1978) Territorial defence in the speckled wood butterfly (Paraarge aegeria): the resident always wins. Anim Behav 26:138–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fairbairn DJ (1990) Factors influencing sexual size dimorphism in temperate water striders. Am Nat 136:61–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fairbairn DJ (1993) Costs of loading associated with mate-carrying in the waterstrider, Aquarius remigis. Behav Ecol 4:224–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fairbairn DJ (1997) Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:659–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fairbairn DJ (2007) Sexual dimorphism in the water strider, Aquarius remigis: a case study of adaptation in response to sexually antagonistic selection. In: Fairbairn DJ, Blanckenhorn WU, Szekely T (eds) Sex, size, and gender roles: evolutionary studies of sexual size dimorphism. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 97–106Google Scholar
  11. Fairbairn DJ, Vermette R, Kapoor NN, Zahiri N (2003) Functional morphology of sexually selected gentalia in the water strider Aquarius remigis. Can J Zool 81:400–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Francis R (1988) On the relationship between aggression and social dominance. Ethology 78:223–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hungerford HB, Matsuda R (1960) Keys to subfamilies, tribes, genera and subgenera of the Gerridae of the world. University of Kansas Publications, LawrenceGoogle Scholar
  14. Jablonski PG (1996) Intruder pressure affects territory size and foraging success in asymmetric contests in the water strider Gerris lacustris. Ethology 102:22–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jablonski PG, Scinski M (1999) Water striders are prescient foragers: use of sensory information for patch assessment in food-based territoriality of Aquarius remigis (Gerridae, Heteroptera). Polish J Ecol 47:247–256Google Scholar
  16. Nummelin M (1987) Ripple signals of the waterstrider Limnoporus rufoscutellatus (Heteroptera, Gerridae). Ann Entomol Fenn 53:17–22Google Scholar
  17. Preziosi RF, Fairbairn DJ, Roff DA, Brennan JM (1996) Body size and fecundity in the waterstrider Aquarius remigis: a test of Darwin’s fecundity advantage hypothesis. Oecologia 108:424–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rowe L (1994) The costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. Anim Behav 48:1049–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rubenstein DI (1984) Resource acquisition and alternative mating strategies in water striders 1. Integr Comp Biol 24:345–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Vepsalainen K, Nummelin M (1985a) Female territoriality in the waterstriders Gerris najas and G. cinereus. Ann Zool Fenn 22:433–439Google Scholar
  21. Vepsalainen K, Nummelin M (1985b) Male territoriality in the waterstrider Limnoporus rufoscutellatus. Ann Zool Fenn 22:441–448Google Scholar
  22. Watson PJ, Stallmann RR, Arnqvist G (1998) Sexual conflict and the energetic costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. Am Nat 151:46–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Wilcox RS, Ruckdeschel T (1982) Food threshold territoriality in a water strider (Gerris remigis). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11:85–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Ethological Society and Springer 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Behavioral Ecology and Evolution, School of Biological SciencesSeoul National UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Institute of EcologyPolish Academy of SciencesLomiankiPoland

Personalised recommendations