Phylogenetic Patterns of Sexual Size Dimorphism in Turtles and Their Implications for Rensch’s Rule
- 726 Downloads
Sexual size dimorphism (SSD) is widespread in nature and may result from selection operating differentially on males and females. Rensch’s rule, the increase of SSD with body size in male-biased-SSD species (or decrease in female-biased-SSD species), is documented in invertebrates and vertebrates. In turtles, evidence for Rensch’s rule is inconclusive and thus the forces underlying body size evolution remain obscure. Using a phylogenetic approach on 138 turtle species from 9 families, we found that turtles overall and three families follow Rensch’s rule, five families display isometry of SSD with body size, while Podocnemididae potentially follows a pattern opposite to Rensch’s rule. Furthermore, male size evolves at faster rates than female size. Female-biased-SSD appears ancestral in turtles while male-biased-SSD evolved in every polytypic family at least once. Body size follows an Ornstein–Uhlenbeck evolutionary model in both sexes and SSD types, ruling out drift as a driving process. We explored whether habitat type or sex determination might be general drivers of turtle body size evolution using a phylogenetic context. We found that males are proportionally larger in terrestrial habitats and smaller in more aquatic habitats, while the sex-determining mechanism had no influence on body size evolution. Together, our data indicate that Rensch’s rule is not ubiquitous across vertebrates, but rather is prevalent in some lineages and not driven by a single force. Instead, our findings are consistent with the hypotheses that fecundity-selection might operate on females and ecological-selection on males; and that SSD and sex-determining mechanism evolve independently in these long-lived vertebrates.
KeywordsSexual selection Sexual size dimorphism Evolution Fecundity selection Ecological selection Adaptation Comparative method Reptiles Turtles
We thank the undergraduate students from the Iowa Turtle Army at N.V. lab who helped during the literature review and data compilation. Funding was provided from grants: P.E.O. International Peace Scholarship to C.C., National Science Foundation (NSF) Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant DEB-0808047 to N.V. and C.C., NSF IOS 0743284 and associated RET and REU supplements to N.V., and support to C.C. from the Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology Department at Iowa State University. The Joseph Moore Museum of Natural History supported the research of JBI. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual selection. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Bickham, J. W., Iverson, J. B., Parham, J. F., Philippen, H. D., Rhodin, A. G. J., Shaffer, H. B., et al. (2007). An annotated list of modern turtle terminal taxa with comments on areas of taxonomic instability and recent change. Chelonian Research Monographs, 4, 173–199.Google Scholar
- Bonner, J. T. (2006). Why size matters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Cox, R. M., Butler, M. A., & John-Alder, H. B. (2007). Chapter 4: The evolution of sexual size dimorphism in reptiles. In D. J. Fairbairn, W. U. Blanckenhorn, & T. Szekely (Eds.), Sex, size and gender roles: Evolutionary studies of sexual size dimorphism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Dale, J., Dunn, P. O., Figuerola, J., Lislevand, T., Szekely, T., & Whittingham, L. A. (2007). Sexual selection explains Rensch’s rule of allometry for sexual size dimorphism. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 274(1628), 2971–2979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Deeming D. C, & Ferguson M. W. J. (1988). Environmental regulation of sex determination in reptiles. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 322(1208),19.Google Scholar
- Ernst, C. H., Altenburg, R. G. M., & Barbour, R. W. (2007). Turtles of the world. Available at http://wbd.etibioinformatics.nl/bis/turtles.php?menuentry=inleiding.
- Garland, T., Dickerman, A. W., Janis, C. M., & Jones, J. A. (1993). Phylogenetic analysis of covariance by computer simulation. Systematic Biology, 42(3), 265–292.Google Scholar
- Harvey, P. H., & Pagel, M. D. (1991). The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford, England; New York, USA: Oxford University Press, Inc.Google Scholar
- Iverson, J. B., Brown, R. M., Akre, T. S., Near, T. J., Le, M., Thomson, R. C., et al. (2007). In search of the tree of life for turtles. Chelonian Research Monographs, 4, 85–106.Google Scholar
- Lindenfors, P., Gittleman, J. L., & Jones, K. E. (2007). Sexual size dimorphism in mammals. In: D. J. Fairbairn, W. U. Blanckenhorn & T. Szekely (Eds.), Sex, size and gender roles: Evolutionary studies of sexual size dimorphism (pp. 16–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Maddison, W. P., & Maddison, D. R. (2011). Mesquite: A modular system for evolutionary analysis. Available at http://mesquiteproject.org.
- Paradis, E. (2006). Analysis of phylogenetics and evolution with R. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Pritchard, P. C. H., & Trebbau, P. (1984). The turtles of Venezuela: Society for the study of amphibians and reptiles. Athens, OH.Google Scholar
- Rensch, B. (1950). Die abhangigkeit der relativen Sexualdifferenz von der Korpergrosse. Bonner Zoologische Beitraege, 1, 58–69.Google Scholar
- Rensch, B. (1960). Evolution above the species level. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Valenzuela, N., & Lance, V. A. (2004). Temperature dependent sex determination in vertebrates. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books.Google Scholar
- van Dijk, P. P., Iverson, J. B., Shaffer, H. B., Bour, R., Rhodin, A. G. J., & Turtle Taxonomy Working Group. (2011). Turtles of the world, 2011 update: Annotated checklist of taxonomy, synonymy, distribution, and conservation status. En: Chelonian research monographs. In A. G. J. Rhodin, P. C. H. Pritchard, P. P. van Dijk, R. A. Saumure, K. A. Buhlmann, J. B. Iverson, & R. A. Mittermeier (Eds.), Conservation biology of freshwater turtles and tortoises: A compilation project of the IUCN/SSC tortoise and freshwater turtle specialist group (pp. 000.165–000.241). Lunenburg, MA: Chelonian Research Foundation.Google Scholar
- Webb, G. J. W., Beal, A. M., Manolis, S. C., & Dempsey, K. E. (1987). The effects of incubation temperature on sex determination and embryonic development rate in Crocodylus johnstoni and C. porosus. In G. J. M. Webb, S. C. Manolis, & P. J. Whitehead (Eds.), Wildlife management: Crocodiles and alligators (pp. 507–531). Chipping Norton, NSW: Surrey Beatty & Sons.Google Scholar
- Webb, T. J., & Freckleton, R. P. (2007). Only half right: Species with female-biased sexual size dimorphism consistently break Rensch’s rule. PLoS ONE, 2(9).Google Scholar