Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T10:52:05.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Sexual size dimorphism in a natural population of Callicorixa vulnerata (Hemiptera: Corixidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

P. Nosil
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Victoria, PO Box 3020, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 3N5

Extract

Sexual size dimorphism occurs in many species. Differences between males and females, in size or other characteristics, may result from sexual selection, fecundity selection, natural selection, non-adaptive processes, or a combination of these pressures (Darwin 1874; Selander 1966; Trivers 1976; Slatkin 1984; Shine 1989). In insects, females with large body size often produce more eggs than smaller females, and femalebiased sexual size dimorphism is commonly attributed to such fecundity selection (e.g., Preziosi and Fairbairn 1997; but see Leather 1988). Water boatmen are detrivorous or zoophagous aquatic insects often inhabiting small ponds of the Northern Hemisphere (Hungerford 1948; Nosil and Reimchen 2001). Female water boatmen are generally larger than males. In this note, I quantify the nature and magnitude of a previously undescribed sexual size dimorphism in a natural population of the water boatman Callicorixa vulnerata Uhler (Hemiptera: Corixidae). I tested for differences between males and females in mean trait size (body length, body weight, mid-leg tarsal length, mid-leg tarsal spine number), and also tested for sexual dimorphism in allometric relationships between tarsal traits and body length.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Darwin, C. 1874. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murrary Abemarle St [Reprinted 1974. Chicago: Rand, McNally, and Co]Google Scholar
Hungerford, H.B. 1948. The Corixidae of the Western Hemisphere (Hemiptera). The University of Kansas Science Bulletin 32: 1827Google Scholar
Leather, S.R. 1988. Size, reproductive potential and fecundity in insects: things aren't as simple as they seem. Oikos 51: 386–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosil, P., Reimchen, T.E. 2001. Tarsal asymmetry, nutritional condition and survival in water boatmen (Callicorixa vulnerata). Evolution. In pressGoogle Scholar
Preziosi, R.F.Fairbairn, D.J. 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: 467–74Google ScholarPubMed
Selander, R.K. 1966. Sexual dimorphism and differential niche utilization in birds. Condor 68: 113–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shine, R. 1989. Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual dimorphism: a review of the evidence. Quarterly Review of Biology 64: 419–64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slatkin, M. 1984. Ecological causes of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38: 622–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storer, R.W. 1966. Sexual dimorphism and food habits in three North American accipiters. Auk 83: 423–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trivers, R.L. 1976. Sexual selection and resource-accruing abilities in Anolis garmani. Evolution 30: 253–69Google ScholarPubMed
Tseng, M., Rowe, L. 1999. Sexual dimorphism and allometry in the giant water strider Gigantometra gigas. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77: 923–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yezerinac, S.M., Lougheed, S.C., Handford, P. 1992. Measurement error and morphometric studies: statistical power and observer experience. Systematic Biology 41: 471–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar