Codivergence but Limited Covariance of Wing Shape and Calling Song Structure in Field Crickets (Gryllus)
- 174 Downloads
Morphological traits are often used in performing ecological tasks or in sexual display behaviour. Variation in morphology is thus expected to be coupled to variation in idiosyncratic behaviours across ecologically or sexually diverged lineages. However, it is poorly understood whether this prediction holds and how functional constraints, shared ancestry, or selection contribute to morphology-behaviour co-evolution. Here, we test this prediction in four cricket species, which differ strikingly in their sexually selected mate calling songs, produced by engaging their specialized forewings. Using geometric morphometrics we provide the first evidence that wing shape and size varies consistently across species. We then test whether wing shape and song co-evolve and whether co-evolution is best explained by individual-level functional/genetic covariance or by population-level evolutionary covariance. Song structure and wing shape are coupled, even after accounting for phylogeny. However, there is limited covariance within species. Thus, wing morphology and sexual signalling behaviour in crickets are likely linked due to shared (ancestral) effects from neutral and selective processes. We show that morphology and behaviour can be linked across but not within species and discuss how evolutionary stasis, genetic linkage, and evolutionary covariance help explain this pattern.
KeywordsCo-evolution Functional morphology Sexual communication Geometric morphometrics
We thank D. A. Gray for providing preliminary results of the phylogenetic relationships among the species included in this study. We also thank one anonymous reviewer and Benedikt Hallgrimsson as well as three other anonymous reviewers for comments that improved earlier versions of this manuscript. The performed experiments comply with the Principles of Animal Care (1985) of the National Institute of Health and with the current laws of Germany. This study is part of the GENART project funded by the Leibniz Association (SAW-2012-MfN-3).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Armbruster, W. S., Pélabon, C., Bolstad, G. H., & Hansen, T. F. (2014). Integrated phenotypes: Understanding trait covariation in plants and animals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1649), 20130245. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bennet-Clark, H. (1989). Songs and the physics of sound production. In F. Huber, T. Moore & W. Loher (Eds.), Cricket behavior and neurobiology (pp. 227–261). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- Bennet-Clark, H. C., & Ewing, A. W. (1968). The wing mechanism involved in the courtship of Drosophila. Journal of Experimental Biology, 49(1), 117–128.Google Scholar
- Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection: Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: Murray.Google Scholar
- Gavrilets, S. (2003). Perspective: Models of speciation: What have we learned in 40 years? Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution, 57(10), 2197–2215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00233.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gerhardt, H. C., & Huber, F. (2002). Acoustic communication in insects and anurans. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Klingenberg, C. P. (2014). Studying morphological integration and modularity at multiple levels: Concepts and analysis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 369(1649), 20130249. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0249.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Legendre, P., & Legendre, L. F. J. (2012). Numerical ecology (Vol. 24). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Mayr, E. (1942). Systematics and the origin of species, from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Mhatre, N., Montealegre-z, F., Balakrishnan, R., & Robert, D. (2012). Changing resonator geometry to boost sound power decouples size and song frequency in a small insect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(22), E1444–E1452. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1200192109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Montealegre-Z, F., Windmill, J. F. C., Morris, G. K., & Robert, D. (2009). Mechanical phase shifters for coherent acoustic radiation in the stridulating wings of crickets: The plectrum mechanism. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 212(Pt 2), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.022731.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F. G., Friendly, M., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., McGlinn, D., et al. (2016). vegan: Community Ecology Package.Google Scholar
- R Development Core Team, R. (2016). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. In R. D. C. Team (Ed.) R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74686-7.
- Rohlf, F. J. (2006). TpsDig Ver. 2.10, digitalized landmarks and outlines. Stony Brook: Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook.Google Scholar
- Walker, T. J. (2017). Singing Insects of North America. http://entnemdept.ifas.ufl.edu/walker/Buzz/crickets.htm. Accessed Jan 2017.
- Zuk, M., & Simmons, L. W. (1997). Reproductive strategies of the crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar