Advertisement

Pay attention to the ladies: female aggressive behavior and weapon allometry provide clues for sexual selection in freshwater anomurans (Decapoda: Aeglidae)

  • Marcelo M. Dalosto
  • Luciane Ayres-Peres
  • Paula B. Araujo
  • Sandro Santos
  • Alexandre V. PalaoroEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Contesting scarce resources can trigger the evolution of specialized morphological structures (i.e., animal weapons). While most research focus on male weapons, females might also bear weapons, although generally smaller and less conspicuous than male weapons. Social selection is evoked to explain female weaponry in which females fight for nonsexual resources such as food and shelter. Males might fight for similar resources but are expected to have proportionally larger weapons due to additional inputs from sexual selection. We tested whether males have proportionally larger weapons than females in two species of Aegla crabs. Interestingly, only males of one species had proportionally larger claws than females. Given that these larger weapons typically correlate to increased aggression, we expected males to fight more intensely than females. Thus, we compared intrasexual contests of males and females of the same species. Females fought similarly to males: latency, contest duration, and frequency of highly aggressive acts were similar between the sexes. Therefore, despite males having proportionally larger weapons in one species (as predicted by sexual selection), they fought similarly to females. Our results hint that fighting might not necessarily be the source of selection for sexual dimorphism we typically expect. Other sources, such as the frequency of fighting and predation pressure, might be selecting larger claws in males despite the similar fights, while fecundity costs might downsize female claws. We highlight that comparing female with male weapons and the associated fighting behavior shows that selection on weapons is not as straightforward as we might think.

Significance statement

We show that studying the highly neglected female weapon allometry and usage allows us to infer on the selective process acting on animal weapons. We show here that males of one species have proportionally larger weapons, and, despite that, males fight similarly to females in every aspect analyzed. Therefore, fighting per se might not be the sole source of selection to explain sexual dimorphism. Other sources, such as frequency of fighting, and how expensive it is to produce gametes might be additional sources of selection.

Keywords

Animal weapons Animal contests Female fighting 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Glauco Machado for the fruitful discussions on female weapons.

Data accessibility

All code and data are deposited on GitHub: https://github.com/alexandrepalaoro/femaleweapons.

Funding information

MMD thanks CAPES (process no: 23081.048599/2018-42) and AVP thanks FAPESP (process: 2016/22679-3) for the post-doctoral grants. SS thanks CNPq for the productivity grant (process: 311142/2014-1).

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Supplementary material

265_2019_2741_MOESM1_ESM.docx (2.8 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 2880 kb)

References

  1. Adam CL, Marochi MZ, Masunari S et al (2018) Ontogenetic shape changes and sexual dimorphism in Aegla marginata Bond-Buckup and Buckup, 1994. An Acad Bras Ciênc 90:1521–1532.  https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201820170441 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen BJ, Levinton JS (2007) Costs of bearing a sexually selected ornamental weapon in a fiddler crab. Funct Ecol 21:154–161.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2006.01219.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almerão M, Bond-Buckup G, de Mendonça SM (2010) Mating behavior of Aegla platensis (Crustacea, Anomura, Aeglidae) under laboratory conditions. J Ethol 28:87–94.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-009-0159-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersson MB (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnott G, Elwood RW (2009) Assessment of fighting ability in animal contests. Anim Behav 77:991–1004.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.02.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ayres-Peres L, Araujo PB, Santos S (2011) Description of the agonistic behavior of Aegla longirostri (Decapoda: Aeglidae). J Crustac Biol 31:379–388.  https://doi.org/10.1651/10-3422.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ayres-Peres L, Araujo PB, Jara CG, Palaoro AV, Santos S (2015) How variable is agonistic behavior among crab species? A case study on freshwater anomurans (Crustacea: Decapoda: Aeglidae). J Zool 297:115–122.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baeza JA, Asorey CM (2012) Testing the role of male–male competition in the evolution of sexual dimorphism: a comparison between two species of porcelain crabs. Biol J Linn Soc 105:548–558.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2011.01803.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baeza JA, Farías NE, Luppi TA, Spivak ED (2010) Refuge size, group living and symbiosis: testing the “resource economic monopolization” hypothesis with the shrimp Betaeus lilianae and description of its partnership with the crab Platyxanthus crenulatus. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 389:85–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2010.03.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barría EM, Santos S, Jara CG, Butler CJ (2014) Sexual dimorphism in the cephalothorax of freshwater crabs of genus Aegla leach from Chile (Decapoda, Anomura, Aeglidae): an interspecific approach based on distance variables. Zoomorphology 133:379–389.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00435-014-0231-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baumart JS, Dalosto MM, Gonçalves AS, Palaoro AV, Santos S (2015) How to deal with a bad neighbor? Strategies of sympatric freshwater decapods (Crustacea) for coexistence. Hydrobiologia 762:29–39.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-015-2331-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Benso-Lopes F, Santos S, Palaoro AV (2019) Underwater compensation for exaggerated weaponry: the role of morphology and environment on crab locomotor performance. J Exp Zool Part Ecol Integr Physiol doi 331:382–391.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.2305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Berglund A (2013) Why are sexually selected weapons almost absent in females? Curr Zool 59:564–568.  https://doi.org/10.1093/czoolo/59.4.564 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bonduriansky R (2007) Sexual selection and allometry: a critical reappraisal of the evidence and ideas. Evolution 61:838–849.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00081.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Bonduriansky R, Chenoweth SF (2009) Intralocus sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol 24:280–288.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.12.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Bücker F, Gonçalves R, Bond-Buckup G, Melo AS (2008) Effect of environmental variables on the distribution of two freshwater crabs (Anomura: Aeglidae). J Crustac Biol 28:248–251.  https://doi.org/10.1163/20021975-99990371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bueno SLS, Shimizu RM, Moraes JCB (2016) A remarkable anomuran: the taxon Aegla Leach, 1820. Taxonomic remarks, distribution, biology, diversity and conservation. In: Kawai T, Cumberlidge N (eds) A global overview of the conservation of freshwater decapod crustaceans. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 23–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Charles GK, Ord TJ (2012) Factors leading to the evolution and maintenance of a male ornament in territorial species. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:231–239.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-011-1271-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cogo GB, Santos S (2013) The role of aeglids in shredding organic matter in Neotropical streams. J Crustac Biol 33:519–526.  https://doi.org/10.1163/1937240X-00002165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cogo GB, Biasi C, Santos S (2018) Selection of food items by the omnivorous freshwater crustacean Aegla longirostri (Decapoda, Aeglidae). Fundam Appl Limnol Arch Für Hydrobiol 192:43–51. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1127/fal/2018/1158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Colpo KD, Ribeiro LO, Santos S (2005) Population biology of the freshwater anomuran Aegla longirostri (Aeglidae) from South Brazilian streams. J Crustac Biol 25:495–499.  https://doi.org/10.1651/C-2543 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cribari-Neto F, Zeileis A (2010) Beta regression in R. J Stat Softw 34:1–24.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v034.i02 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dalosto MM, Palaoro A.V. (in press) Intra- and interspecific behavioral interactions of Aeglidae with a comparison with other decapods. In: Bueno SLS, Santos S (eds) Aeglidae: life history and conservation status of unique freshwater anomuran decapods. Taylor & Francis/CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Dalosto MM, Santos S (2011) Differences in oxygen consumption and diel activity as adaptations related to microhabitat in Neotropical freshwater decapods (Crustacea). Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 160:461–466.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2011.07.026 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Dalosto MM, Palaoro AV, de Oliveira D et al (2014) Population biology of Aegla platensis (Decapoda: Anomura: Aeglidae) in a tributary of the Uruguay River, state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Zool Curitiba 31:215–222.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-46702014000300002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Emlen DJ (2008) The evolution of animal weapons. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:387–413.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173502 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Emlen ST, Wrege PH (2004) Size dimorphism, intrasexual competition, and sexual selection in wattled jacana (Jacana jacana), a sex-role-reversed shorebird in Panama. Auk Ornithol Adv 121:391–403.  https://doi.org/10.1642/0004-8038(2004)121[0391:SDICAS]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Figler MH, Cheverton HM, Blank GS (1999) Shelter competition in juvenile red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii): the influences of sex differences, relative size, and prior residence. Aquaculture 178:63–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(99)00114-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fujiwara S, Kawai H (2016) Crabs grab strongly depending on mechanical advantages of pinching and disarticulation of chela. J Morphol 277:1259–1272.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.20573 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Garvey JE, Stein RA, Thomas HM (1994) Assessing how fish predation and interspecific prey competition influence a crayfish assemblage. Ecology 75:532–547.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1939556 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goyens J, Dirckx J, Dierick M, van Hoorebeke L, Aerts P (2014) Biomechanical determinants of bite force dimorphism in Cyclommatus metallifer stag beetles. J Exp Biol 217:1065–1071.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.091744 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Goyens J, Dirckx J, Aerts P (2016) Jaw morphology and fighting forces in stag beetles. J Exp Biol 219:2955–2961.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.141614 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Hardy ICW, Briffa M (2013) Animal contests. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  34. Hare RM, Simmons LW (2018) Sexual selection and its evolutionary consequences in female animals. Biol Rev doi 94:929–956.  https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12484 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hughes M, Williamson T, Hollowell K, Vickery R (2014) Sex and weapons: contrasting sexual dimorphisms in weaponry and aggression in snapping shrimp. Ethology 120:982–994.  https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Huxley JS (1924) Constant differential growth-ratios and their significance. Nature 114:895–896.  https://doi.org/10.1038/114895a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kojima W, Sugiura S, Makihara H, et al (2014) Rhinoceros beetles suffer male-biased predation by mammalian and avian predators. Zoolog Sci 31:109–115. doi:  https://doi.org/10.2108/zsj.31.109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lailvaux SP, Irschick DJ (2007) The evolution of performance-based male fighting ability in Caribbean Anolis lizards. Am Nat 170:573–586.  https://doi.org/10.1086/521234 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Levinton JS, Allen BJ (2005) The paradox of the weakening combatant: trade-off between closing force and gripping speed in a sexually selected combat structure. Funct Ecol 19:159–165.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0269-8463.2005.00968.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. López-Greco LS, Viau V, Lavolpe M et al (2004) Juvenile hatching and maternal care in Aegla uruguayana (Anomura, Aeglidae). J Crustac Biol 24:309–313.  https://doi.org/10.1651/C-2441 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mariappan P, Balasundaram C, Schmitz B (2000) Decapod crustacean chelipeds: an overview. J Biosci 25:301–313.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02703939 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. McCullough EL, Tobalske BW, Emlen DJ (2014) Structural adaptations to diverse fighting styles in sexually selected weapons. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:14484–14488.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1409585111 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. McCullough EL, Miller CW, Emlen DJ (2016) Why sexually selected weapons are not ornaments. Trends Ecol Evol 31:742–751.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.07.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Moore P (2007) Agonistic behavior in freshwater crayfish: the influence of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on aggressive behavior and dominance. In: Duffy J, Thiel M (eds) Evolutionary ecology of social and sexual systems: Crustacea as model organisms. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 90–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Muniz DG, Machado G (2018) Mate sampling influences the intensity of sexual selection and the evolution of costly sexual ornaments. J Theor Biol 447:74–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2018.03.026 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Brien D, Boisseau R, Duell M et al (2019) Muscle mass drives cost in sexually selected arthropod weapons. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 286:20191063.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.1063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Palaoro AV, Briffa M (2017) Weaponry and defenses in fighting animals: how allometry can alter predictions from contest theory. Behav Ecol 28:328–336.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arw163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Palaoro AV, Ayres-Peres L, Santos S (2013) Modulation of male aggressiveness through different communication pathways. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:283–292.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-012-1448-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Palaoro AV, Dalosto MM, Costa JR, Santos S (2014) Freshwater decapod (Aegla longirostri) uses a mixed assessment strategy to resolve contests. Anim Behav 95:71–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.06.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pélabon C, Firmat C, Bolstad GH, Voje KL, Houle D, Cassara J, Rouzic AL, Hansen TF (2014) Evolution of morphological allometry. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1320:58–75.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12470 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Pinheiro MAA, Fransozo A (1993) Relative growth of the speckled swimming crab Arenaeus Cribrarius (Lamarck, 1818) (Brachyura, Portunidae), near Ubatuba, state of São Paulo, Brazil. Crustaceana 65:377–389.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156854093X00801 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, et al (2018) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1–137. https://svn.r-project.org/R-packages/trunk/nlme
  53. Pinto NS, Palaoro AV, Peixoto PEC (2019) All by myself? Meta-analysis of animal contests shows stronger support for self than for mutual assessment models. Biol Rev 94:1430–1442.  https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12509 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Preziosi RF, Fairbairn DJ (1997) Sexual size dimorphism and selection in the wild in the waterstrider Aquarius remigis: lifetime fecundity selection on female total length and its components. Evolution 51:467–474.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb02434.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  56. Reeve JP, Fairbairn DJ (1999) Change in sexual size dimorphism as a correlated response to selection on fecundity. Heredity 83:697–706.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2540.1999.00616.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Rico-Guevara A, Hurme KJ (2019) Intrasexually selected weapons. Biol Rev 94:60–101.  https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rohner PT, Blanckenhorn WU (2018) A comparative study of the role of sex-specific condition dependence in the evolution of sexually dimorphic traits. Am Nat 192:E202–E215.  https://doi.org/10.1086/700096 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Schielzeth H (2010) Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. Methods Ecol Evol 1:103–113.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00012.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Siqueira AF, Palaoro AV, Santos S (2013) Mate preference in the Neotropical freshwater crab Aegla longirostri (Decapoda: Anomura): does the size matter? Mar Freshw Behav Physiol 46:219–227.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10236244.2013.808832 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stankowich T (2012) Armed and dangerous: predicting the presence and function of defensive weaponry in mammals. Adapt Behav 20:32–43.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1059712311426798 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stankowich T, Caro T (2009) Evolution of weaponry in female bovids. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 276:4329–4334.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.1256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stockley P, Campbell A (2013) Female competition and aggression: interdisciplinary perspectives. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 368:20130073. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0073 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tierney AJ, Godleski MS, Massanari JR (2000) Comparative analysis of agonistic behavior in four crayfish species. J Crustac Biol 20:13. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1163/20021975-99990016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tobias JA, Montgomerie R, Lyon BE (2012) The evolution of female ornaments and weaponry: social selection, sexual selection and ecological competition. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 367:2274–2293.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0280 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Trevisan A, Santos S (2014) Population dynamics of Aegla manuinflata Bond-Buckup and Santos 2009 (Decapoda: Aeglidae), an threatened species. Acta Limnol Bras 26:154–162.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S2179-975X2014000200006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vieira MC, Peixoto PEC (2013) Winners and losers: a meta-analysis of functional determinants of fighting ability in arthropod contests. Funct Ecol 27:305–313.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vlach P, Valdmanová L (2015) Morphometry of the stone crayfish (Austropotamobius torrentium) in the Czech Republic: allometry and sexual dimorphism. Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 16.  https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2015012
  69. Voje KL (2016) Scaling of morphological characters across trait type, sex, and environment. Am Nat 187:89–98.  https://doi.org/10.1086/684159 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Watson NL, Simmons LW (2010) Reproductive competition promotes the evolution of female weaponry. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 277:2035–2040.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.2335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zimmermann BL, Dambros CS, Santos S (2016) Association of microhabitat variables with the abundance and distribution of two Neotropical freshwater decapods (Anomura: Brachyura). J Crustac Biol 36:198–204.  https://doi.org/10.1163/1937240X-00002408 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Ecologia e EvoluçãoUniversidade Federal de Santa MariaSanta MariaBrazil
  2. 2.Instituto Federal de EducaçãoCiência e Tecnologia Farroupilha-Campus São Vicente do SulSão Vicente do SulBrazil
  3. 3.Departamento de ZoologiaUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil
  4. 4.LAGE do Departamento de EcologiaUniversidade de São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations