, 139:871 | Cite as

Genotype × environment interaction is weaker in genitalia than in mating signals and body traits in Enchenopa treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae)

  • Rafael L. RodríguezEmail author
  • Nooria Al-Wathiqui


Theory predicts that selection acting across environments should erode genetic variation in reaction norms; i.e., selection should weaken genotype × environment interaction (G × E). In spite of this expectation, G × E is often detected in fitness-related traits. It thus appears that G × E is at least sometimes sustained under selection, a possibility that highlights the need for theory that can account for variation in the presence and strength of G × E. We tested the hypothesis that trait differences in developmental architecture contribute to variation in the expression of G × E. Specifically, we assessed the influence of canalization (robustness to genetic or environmental perturbations) and condition-dependence (association between trait expression and prior resource acquisition or vital cellular processes). We compared G × E across three trait types expected to differ in canalization and condition-dependence: mating signals, body size-related traits, and genitalia. Because genitalia are expected to show the least condition-dependence and the most canalization, they should express weaker G × E than the other trait types. Our study species was a member of the Enchenopa binotata species complex of treehoppers. We found significant G × E in most traits; G × E was strongest in signals and body traits, and weakest in genitalia. These results support the hypothesis that trait differences in developmental architecture (canalization and condition-dependence) contribute to variation in the expression of G × E. We discuss implications for the dynamics of sexual selection on different trait types.


Developmental plasticity Maintenance of genetic variation Phytophagous insect 



We thank Bill Eberhard, Kasey D. Fowler-Finn, Gerlinde Höbel, Michael Jennions, Darren Rebar, and three anonymous reviewers for discussion and helpful comments to previous versions of the manuscript. This work was funded by NSF Grant IOS-0919962 to RLR, and by UWM SURF awards to NA-W and RLR.


  1. Al-Wathiqui N, Rodríguez RL (2011) Allometric slopes not underestimated by Ordinary Least Squares regression: a case study with Enchenopa treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae). Ann Ent Soc Am 104:562–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrade CAC, Vieira RD, Ananina G, Klaczko LB (2009) Evolution of the male genitalia: morphological variation of the aedeagi in a natural population of Drosophila mediopunctata. Genetica 135:13–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnqvist G, Thornhill R (1998) Evolution of animal genitalia: patterns of phenotypic and genotypic variation and condition dependence of genital and non-genital morphology in water strider (Heteroptera: Gerridae: Insecta). Genet Res Camb 71:193–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonduriansky R (2007) Sexual selection and allometry: a critical reappraisal of the evidence and ideas. Evolution 61:838–849PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borgia G (1979) Sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. In: Blum MS, Blum NA (eds) Sexual selection and reproductive competition. Academic Press, NY, pp 19–80Google Scholar
  6. Brakefield PM (2006) Evo-devo and contraints on selection. Trends Ecol Evol 21:362–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bussière LF, Hunt J, Stölting KN, Jennions MD, Brooks R (2008) Mate choice for genetic quality when environments vary: suggestions for empirical progress. Genetica 134:69–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cocroft RB, Rodríguez RL, Hunt RE (2008) Host shifts, the evolution of communication and speciation in the Enchenopa binotata complex of treehoppers. In: Tilmon K (ed) Specialization, speciation, and radiation: the evolutionary biology of herbivorous insects. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 88–100Google Scholar
  9. Cocroft RB, Rodríguez RL, Hunt RE (2010) Host shifts and signal divergence: mating signals covary with host use in a complex of specialized plant-feeding insects. Biol J Linn Soc 99:60–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  11. Cotton S, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A (2004) Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypotheses? Proc R Soc Lond B 271:771–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Visser JAGM, Hermisson J, Wagner GP, Meyers LA, Bagheri-Chaichian H, Blanchard JL, Chao L, Cheverud JM, Elena SF, Fontana W, Gibson G, Hansen TF, Krakauer D, Lewontin RC, Ofria C, Rice SH, von Dassow G, Wagner A, Whitlock MC (2003) Evolution and detection of genetic robustness. Evolution 57:1959–1972PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flatt T (2005) The evolutionary genetics of canalization. Q Rev Biol 80:287–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fry JD (1992) The mixed-model analysis of variance applied to quantitative genetics: biological meaning of the parameters. Evolution 46:540–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greenfield MD, Rodríguez RL (2004) Genotype–environment interaction and the reliability of mating signals. Anim Behav 68:1461–1468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hamilton KGA, Cocroft RB (2009) Establishing the identity of existing names in the North American Enchenopa binotata species complex of treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae). Entomol News 120:554–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hansen TF (2006) The evolution of genetic architecture. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:123–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Higgins SL, Hosken DJ, Wedell N (2009) Phenotypic and genetic variation in male genitalia in the seedbug, Lygaeus equestris (Heteroptera). Biol J Linn Soc 98:400–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hill GE (2011) Condition-dependent traits as signals of the functionality of vital cellular processes. Ecol Lett (in press)Google Scholar
  20. Houle D (1992) Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130:195–204PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. House CM, Simmons LW (2007) No evidence for condition-dependent expression of male genitalia in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus. J Evol Biol 20:1322–1332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hunt J, Bussière L, Jennions MD, Brooks R (2004) What is genetic quality? Trends Ecol Evol 19:329–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ingleby FC, Hunt J, Hosken DJ (2010) The role of genotype-by-environment interactions in sexual selection. J Evol Biol 23:2031–2045PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kamimura Y, Iwase R (2010) Evolutionary genetics of genital size and lateral asymmetry in the earwig Euborellia plebeja (Dermpatera: Anisolabididae). Biol J Linn Soc 101:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kemp DJ, Rutowski RL (2007) Genetics, and the potential signal content of iridescent ultraviolet butterfly coloration. Evolution 61:168–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kokko H, Heubel K (2008) Condition-dependence, genotype-by-environment interactions and the lek paradox. Genetica 132:209–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lynch M, Walsh B (1998) Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller LK, Brooks R (2005) The effects of genotype, age, and social environment on male ornamentation, mating behavior, and attractiveness. Evolution 59:2414–2425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mills C, Alatalo RV, Koskela E, Mappes J, Oksanen TA (2007) Signal reliability compromised by genotype-by-environment interaction and potential mechanisms for its preservation. Evolution 61:1748–1757PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moran MD (2003) Arguments for rejecting the sequential Bonferroni in ecological studies. Oikos 100:403–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nakagawa S, Cuthill I (2007) Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol. Revs 82:591–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ostrowski M-F, Jarne P, David P (2000) Quantitative genetics of sexual plasticity: the environmental threshold model and genotype-by-environment interaction for phallus development in the snail Bulinus truncatus. Evolution 54:1614–1625PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Pratt G, Wood TK (1993) Genitalic analysis of males and females in the Enchenopa binotata (Say) complex (Membracidae: Homoptera). Proc Entomol Soc Wash 95:574–582Google Scholar
  34. Radwan J (2008) Maintenance of genetic variation in sexual ornaments: a review of the mechanisms. Genetica 134:113–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rasband WS (1997–2009) ImageJ, U. S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda.
  36. Rodríguez RL, Sullivan LE, Cocroft RB (2004) Vibrational communication and reproductive isolation in the Enchenopa binotata species complex of treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae). Evolution 58:571–578PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Rodríguez RL, Ramaswamy K, Cocroft RB (2006) Evidence that female preferences have shaped male signal evolution in a clade of specialized plant-feeding insects. Proc R Soc B 273:2585–2593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rodríguez RL, Sullivan LM, Snyder RL, Cocroft RB (2008) Host shifts and the beginning of signal divergence. Evolution 62:12–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Roff DA (1997) Evolutionary quantitative genetics. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Roff DA (2002) Life history evolution. Sinauer, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosenthal R (1991) Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Applied social research methods series, vol 6. Revised edition. SAGE Publications, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  42. Rowe L, Houle D (1996) The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1415–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schulte-Hostedde AI, Zinner B, Millar JS, Hickling GJ (2005) Restitution of mass-size residuals: validating body condition indices. Ecology 86:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Service PM, Rose MR (1985) Genetic covariation among life-history components: the effect of novel environments. Evolution 39:943–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sgrò CM, Hoffmann AA (2004) Genetic correlations, tradeoffs and environmental variation. Heredity 93:241–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stearns S, de Jong G, Newman B (1991) The effects of phenotypic plasticity on genetic correlations. Trends Ecol Evol 6:122–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Steppan SJ, Phillips PC, Houle D (2002) Comparative quantitative genetics: evolution of the G matrix. Trends Ecol Evol 17:320–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stirling DG, Réale D, Roff D (2002) Selection, structure and the heritability of behaviour. J Evol Biol 15:277–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sullivan-Beckers L, Cocroft RB (2010) The importance of female choice, male–male competition, and signal transmission as causes of selection on male mating signals. Evolution 64:3158–3171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tomkins JL, Radwan J, Kotiaho JS, Tregenza T (2004) Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol Evol 19:323–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Via S, Conner J (1995) Evolution in heterogeneous environments: genetic variability within and across different grains in Tribolium castaneum. Heredity 74:80–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Via S, Lande R (1985) Genotype–environment interaction and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Evolution 39:505–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Via S, Lande R (1987) Evolution of genetic variability in a spatially heterogeneous environment: effects of genotype–environment interaction. Genet Res Camb 49:147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. West-Eberhard MJ (2003) Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  55. Wood TK (1993) Speciation of the Enchenopa binotata complex (Insecta: Homoptera: Membracidae). In: Lees DR, Edwards D (eds) Evolutionary patterns and processes. Academic Press, NY, pp 299–317Google Scholar
  56. Zeng Z-B, Liu J, Stam LF, Kao C-H, Mercer JM, Laurie CC (2000) Genetic architecture of a morphological shape difference between two Drosophila species. Genetics 154:299–310PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Behavioral and Molecular Ecology Group, Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.Biology DepartmentTufts UniversityMedfordUSA

Personalised recommendations