Advertisement

acta ethologica

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 101–105 | Cite as

Territoriality and male-biased sexual size dimorphism in Argia reclusa (Odonata: Zygoptera)

  • Rhainer Guillermo-Ferreira
  • Kleber Del-Claro
Article

Abstract

In Odonata, many species present sexual size dimorphism (SSD), which can be associated with male territoriality in Zygoptera. We hypothesized that in the territorial damselfly Argia reclusa, male–male competition can favor large males, and consequently, drive selection pressures to generate male-biased SSD. The study was performed at a small stream in southeastern Brazil. Males were marked, and we measured body size and assessed the quality of territories. We tested if larger territorial males (a) defended the best territories (those with more male intrusions and visiting females), (b) won more fights, and (c) mated more. Couples were collected and measured to show the occurrence of sexual size dimorphism. Results indicated that males are larger than females, and that territorial males were larger than non-territorial males. Larger territorial males won more fights and defended the best territories. There was no difference between the mating success of large territorial and small non-territorial males. Although our findings suggest that male territoriality may play a significant role on the evolution of sexual size dimorphism in A. reclusa, we suggest that other factors should also be considered to explain the evolution of SSD in damselflies, since non-territorial males are also capable of acquiring mates.

Keywords

Argia Dimorphism Territoriality Body size Mating success 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Frederico Lencioni for insect identification and Everton Tizo-Pedroso, Pitágoras Bispo, and two anonymous referees for valuable comments. We also thank the Universidade de São Paulo–FFCLRP for logistic support. K. Del-Claro and R. Guillermo-Ferreira thank CNPq for financial support (grant/PQ) and for a doctoral fellowship, respectively.

References

  1. Alcock J (1979) Multiple mating in Calopteryx maculata (Odonata: Calopterygidae) and the advantage of non-contact guarding by males. J Nat His 13:439–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcock J, Houston TF (1996) Mating systems and male size in Australian Hylaeine bees (Hymenoptera: Colletidae). Ethology 102:591–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alcock J (2000) Possible causes of variation in territory tenure in a lekking Pompilid wasp (Hemipepsis ustulata) (Hymenoptera). J Insect Behav 13:439–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Altmman J (1974) Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bart J, Earnst SL (1999) Relative importance of male and territory quality in pairing success of male rock ptarmigan (Lagopus mutus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:355–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bick GH, Bick JC (1965) Demography and behaviour of the damselfly, Argia apicalis (Say), (Odonata: Coenagriidae). Ecology 46:461–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borgia G (1982) Experimental change in resource structure and male density: size-related differences in mating success among males of Scatophaga stercoraria. Evolution 36:307–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Candolin U, Voigt HR (2001) Correlation between male size and territory quality: consequence of male competition or predation risk? Oikos 95:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conrad KF (1992) Relationships of larval phenology and imaginal size to male pairing success in Argia vivida Hagen (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae). Odonatologica 21:213–222Google Scholar
  10. Contreras-Garduño J, Buzatto B, Serrano-Meneses MA, Nájera-Cordero K, Córdoba-Aguilar A (2008) The size of the wing red spot as a heightened condition dependent trait in the American rubyspot. Behav Ecol 19:724–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Corbet PS (1999) Dragonflies behaviour and ecology of Odonata. Harley, EssexGoogle Scholar
  12. Córdoba Aguilar A (2009) Seasonal variation in genital and body size, sperm displacement ability, female mating rate, and male harassment in two calopterygid damselflies (Odonata: Calopterygidae). Biol J Linn Soc 96:815–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Córdoba-Aguilar A, Raihani G, Serrano-Meneses MA, Contreras-Garduño J (2009) The lek mating system of Hetaerina damselflies. Behaviour 146:189–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Block M, Stoks R (2007) Flight-related body morphology shapes mating success in a damselfly. Anim Behav 74:1093–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fincke OM (1984) Giant damselflies in a tropical forest: reproductive biology of Megaloprepus coerulatus with notes on Mecistogaster (Zygoptera: Pseudostigmatidae). Advances in Odonatology 2:13–27Google Scholar
  16. Forsyth A, Montgomerie RD (1987) Alternative reproductive tactics in the territorial damselfly Calopteryx maculata: sneaking by older males. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gribbin SD, Thompson DJ (1991) Egg size and clutch size in females of the damselfly Pyrrhosoma nymphula (Sulzer) (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae). Odonatologica 19:347–357Google Scholar
  18. Guillermo-Ferreira R, Del-Claro K (2011) Resource defense polygyny by Hetaerina rosea Selys (Odonata: Calopterygidae): influence of age and wing pigmentation. Neotrop Entomol 40:78–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johansson F, Rowe L (1999) Life history and behavioral responses to time constraints in a damselfly. Ecology 80:1242–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koenig W (1990) Territory size and duration in the white-tailed skimmer Plathemis Lydia (Odonata: Libellulidae). J Anim Ecol 59:317–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kratochvíl L, Frynta D (2002) Body size, male combat and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in eublepharid geckos (Squamata: Eublepharidae). Biol J Linn Soc 76:303–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuwamura T, Karino K, Nakashima Y (2000) Male morphological characteristics and mating success in a protogynous coral reef fish, Halichoeres melanurus. J Ethol 18:17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller PL (1983) The duration of copulation correlates with other aspects of mating behaviour in Orthetrum chrysostigma (Burmeister) (Anisoptera: Libellulidae). Odonatologica 12:227–238Google Scholar
  24. McElligott AG, Gammell MP, Harty HC, Paini DR, Murphy DT, Walsh JT, Hayden TJ (2001) Sexual size dimorphism in fallow deer (Dama dama): do larger, heavier males gain greater mating success? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:266–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parker GA (1974) Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behavior. J Theor Biol 47:223–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pie M, Del-Claro K (2002) Male x male agoniostic behavior in the Ricardiidae fly Sepsisoma. Stud Neotrop Fauna Environ 37:19–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Plaistow SJ, Siva-Jothy MT (1996) Energetic constraints and male mate-securing tactics in the damselfly Calopteryx splendens xanthostoma (Charpentier). Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1233–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Raihani G, Serrano-Meneses MA, Córdoba-Aguilar A (2008) Male mating tactics in the American rubyspot damselfly: territoriality, nonterritoriality and switching behaviour. Anim Behav 75:1851–1860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Severinghaus L, Kurtak BH, Eickwort GC (1981) The reproductive behavior of Anthidium manicatum (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) and the significance of size for territorial males. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Serrano-Meneses MA, Córdoba-Aguilar A, Méndez V, Layen SJ, Székely T (2007) Sexual size dimorphism in the American Rubyspot: male body size predicts male competition and mating success. Anim Behav 73:987–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Serrano-Meneses MA, Cordoba-Aguilar A, Azpilicueta-Amorin M, Gonzalez-Soriano E (2008a) Sexual selection, sexual size dimorphism and Rensch's rule in Odonata. J Evol Biol 21:1259–1273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Serrano-Meneses MA, Cordoba-Aguilar A, Szekely T (2008b) Sexual size dimorphism: patterns and processes. In: Cordoba-Aguilar A (ed) Dragonflies and damselflies: model organisms for ecological and evolutionary research. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 231–248Google Scholar
  33. Siva-Jothy MT (1999) Male wing pigmentation may affect reproductive success via female choice in a calopterygid damselfly (Zygoptera). Behaviour 136:1365–1377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sokolovska N, Rowe L, Johansson F (2000) Fitness and body size in mature odonates. Ecological Entomology 25:239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Switzer PV (2002) Individual variation in the duration of territory occupation by males of the dragonfly Perithemis tenera (Odonata: Libellulidae). Ann Am Entomol Soc 95:628–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Székely T, Reynolds JD, Figuerola J (2000) Sexual size dimorphism in shorebirds, gulls and alcids: the influence of sexual and natural selection. Evolution 54:1404–1413PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Thornhill R (1981) Panorpa (Mecoptera: Panorpidae) scorpionflies: systems for understanding resource-defense polygyny and alternative male reproductive efforts. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 12:355–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tsubaki Y, Ono T (1987) Effects of age and body size on the male territorial system of the dragonfly, Nannophya pygmaea Rambur (Odonata: Libellulidae). Anim Behav 35:518–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Waage JK (1973) Reproductive behaviour and its relation to territoriality in Calopteryx maculata (Beauvois). Behaviour 47:240–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Watanabe M, Taguchi M (1990) Mating tactics and male wing dimorphism in the damselfly Mnais pruinosa costalis Selys (Odonata: Calopterygidae). J Ethol 8:129–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag and ISPA 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão PretoUniversidade de São PauloRibeirão PretoBrazil
  2. 2.Instituto de Biologia-Campus Umuarama, L.E.C.I., Universidade Federal de UberlândiaUberlândiaBrazil

Personalised recommendations