Variation of sexual dimorphism of the wing shape in the family Dolichopodidae (Diptera)

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Although sexual dimorphism manifestations are widespread in the family Dolichopodidae, a detailed characterization of their phylogenetic significance is lacking. In order to study the distribution patterns of wing sexual dimorphism, we have analyzed 57 species from 17 genera of 9 subfamilies. A comparative analysis of the evidence, obtained by geometric morphometry and molecular data, allowed us to assess the phylogenetic signal in the sexual dimorphism of the wing. The results of the study confirm the presence of diverse patterns of sexual variability in the wings of this family. More often, females have larger wings with blunted apexes, whereas males are characterized by a more pointed apex. In some cases, the larger size of females’ wings is associated with an increase in the body size, while in other cases, differences in shape and size can be explained by differences in behavioural and life patterns. Although there exists a general pattern of sexual dimorphism, its features differ even in closely related species. The absence of a significant phylogenetic signal in seven out of nine studied wing points indicates that the sexual dimorphism in form evolved, at least partially, in each of the studied species.

About the authors

Mariya Aleksandrovna Chursina

Voronezh State Pedagogical University

Email: chursina.1988@list.ru

candidate of biological sciences, associate professor of Biology of Animals and Plants Department

Russian Federation, Voronezh

Olga Olegovna Maslova

Voronezh State Pedagogical University

Author for correspondence.
Email: oom777@yandex.ru

candidate of biological sciences, associate professor of Biology of Animals and Plants Department

Russian Federation, Voronezh

References

  1. Chursina M.A., Negrobov O.P. Phylogenetic signal in the wing shape in the subfamily Dolichopodinae (Diptera, Dolichopodidae) // Entomological Review. 2018. Vol. 98. P. 515-527. DOI: 10,1134/S0013873818050019.
  2. Richards O.W. Sexual selection and allied problems in the insects // Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 1927. Vol. 2 (4). P. 298-364. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.1927.tb01401.x.
  3. Land M.F. The visual control of courtship behaviour in the fly Poecilobothrus nobilitatus // The Journal of Comparative Physiology. 1933. Vol. 173. P. 595-603. doi: 10.1007/BF00197767.
  4. Blomberg P.B., Garland T., Ives A.R. Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile // Evolution. 2003. Vol. 57 (4). P. 717-745. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00285.x.
  5. Novakova N., Robovsky J. Behaviour of cranes (family Gruidae) mirrors their phylogenetic relationships // Avian Research. 2021. Vol. 12. P. 1-11. doi: 10.1186/s40657-021-00275-4.
  6. Gidazevski N.A., Baylac M., Klingenberg C.P. Evolution of sexual dimorphism of wing shape in the Drosophila // BMC Evolutionary Biology. 2009. Vol. 9. P. 110-121. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-9-110.
  7. Backer R.H., Wilkinson G.S. Phylogenetic analysis of sexual dimorphism and eye-span allometry in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae) // Evolution. 2001. Vol. 55 (7). P. 1373-1385. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2001.tb00659.x.
  8. Bonduriansky R. Convergent evolution of sexual shape dimorphism in Diptera // Journal of Morphology. 2006. Vol. 267. P. 602-611. doi: 10.1002/jmor.10426.
  9. Sivinski J., Pereira R. Do wing markings in fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) have sexual significance? // Florida Entomologist. 2005. Vol. 88 (3). P. 321-324. doi: 10.1653/0015-4040(2005)088[0321:DWMIFF]2.0.CO;2.
  10. Sivinski J. Ornaments in Diptera // Florida Entomologist. 1997. Vol. 80 (2). P. 142-164. doi: 10.2307/3495551.
  11. GenBank. National Center for Biotechnology Information [Internet] // https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
  12. Bernasconi M.V., Pollet M., Ward P.I. Molecular systematics of Dolichopodidae (Diptera) inferred from COI and 12S rDNA gene sequences based on European exemplars // Invertebrate Systematics. 2007. Vol. 21. P. 453-470. doi: 10.1071/IS06043.
  13. Germann C., Pollet M., Tanner S., Backeljau T., Bernasconi M.V. Legs of deception: disagreement between molecular markers and morphology of long-legged flies (Diptera, Dolichopodidae) // Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research. 2010. Vol. 48 (30). P. 238-247. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0469.2009.00549.x.
  14. Bernasconi M.V., Pollet M., Varini-Ooijen M., Ward P.I. Phylogeny of European Dolichopus and Gymnopternus (Diptera: Dolichopodidae) and the significance of morphological characters inferred from molecular data // European Journal of Entomology. 2007. Vol. 104. P. 601-617. doi: 10.14411/eje.2007.075.
  15. Pollet M., Germann C., Bernasconi M.V. Phylogenetic analyses using molecular markers reveal ecological lineages in Medetera (Diptera: Dolichopodidae) // Canadian Entomologist. 2010. Vol. 143. P. 662-673. doi: 10.4039/n11-031.
  16. Germann C., Pollet M., Wimmer C., Bernasconi M.V. Molecular data sheds light on the classification of long-legged flies (Diptera: Dolichopodidae) // Invertebrate Systematics. 2011. Vol. 25. P. 303-321. doi: 10.1071/IS11029.
  17. Hall T.A. BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Window 95/98/NT // Nucleic Acids Symposium Series. 1999. Vol. 41. P. 95-98. doi: 10.14601/Phytopathol_Mediterr-14998u1.29.
  18. Kumar S., Stecher G., Li M., Knyaz C., Tamura K. Mega X: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms // Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2018. Vol. 35 (6). P. 1547-1549. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msy096.
  19. Rohlf F.J. tpsDig, Digitize Landmarks and Outlines, Version 2.05. Stony Brook, NY: Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York [Internet] // https://www.sbmorphometrics.org/soft-dataacq.html.
  20. Zelditch M.L., Swiderski D.L. Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. London: Elsevier Academic Press, 2004. 437 p.
  21. Klingenberg C.P. MorphoJ: an integrated software package for geometric morphometrics // Molecular Ecology Resources. 2011. Vol. 11. P. 353-357. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02924.x.
  22. Pagel M. Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution // Nature. 1999. Vol. 401 (6756). P. 677-884. doi: 10.1038/44766.
  23. Freckleton R.P., Harvey P.H., Pagel M. Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence // American Naturalist. 2002. Vol. 160 (6). P. 712-726. doi: 10.1086/343873.
  24. Revell L.J. Phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things) // Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2012. Vol. 3. P. 217-223. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00169.x.
  25. Kembel S.W., Cowan P.D., Helmus M.R., Cornwell W.K., Morlon H., Ackerly D.D., Blomberg S.P., Webb C.O. Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology // Bioinformatics. 2010. Vol. 26. P. 1463-1464. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq166.
  26. McLachlan A.J. Sexual dimorphism in midges: strategies for flight in the rain-pool dweller Chironomus imicola (Diptera: Chironomidae) // Journal of Animal Ecology. 1986. Vol. 55. P. 261-267. doi: 10.1007/BF00008145.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Figure 1 – Wing and landmarks positions

Download (45KB)
Indexing metadata
3. Figure 2 – ME tree, obtained from COI sequences. Values of bootstrap support from 1000 pseudoreplicates are depicted above nodes

Download (358KB)
Indexing metadata
4. Figure 3 – Results of UPGMA cluster analysis of the canonical coefficients of sexual dimorphism of dolichopodid

Download (190KB)
Indexing metadata
5. Figure 4 – Changes in the wing shape related to sexual dimorphism mapped onto phylogeny: the first (29,2%) and second (17,8%) principal components of variation

Download (196KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2022 Chursina M.A., Maslova O.O.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies