Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T06:10:31.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sexual dimorphism in Ephedrus persicae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Aphidiinae): intraspecific variation in size and shape

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2012

Ana Mitrovski Bogdanović ,
Ana Ivanović ,
Željko Tomanović ,
Vladimir Žikić ,
Petr Starý  and
Nickolas G. Kavallieratos
Ana Mitrovski Bogdanović
Affiliation:
Institute of Biology and Ecology, Faculty of Science, Radoja Domanovića 12, 34000 Kragujevac, Serbia
Ana Ivanović
Affiliation:
Institute of Zoology, Faculty of Biology, University of Belgrade, Studentski trg 16, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
Željko Tomanović*
Affiliation:
Institute of Zoology, Faculty of Biology, University of Belgrade, Studentski trg 16, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
Vladimir Žikić
Affiliation:
Department of Biology and Ecology, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, University of Niš, Višegradska 33, 18000 Niš, Serbia
Petr Starý
Affiliation:
Institute of Entomology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Branišovská 31, 37005 České Budějovice, Czech Republic
Nickolas G. Kavallieratos
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Agricultural Entomology, Department of Entomology and Agricultural Zoology, Benaki Phytopathological Institute, 8 Stefanou Delta Street, 145 61 Kifissia, Attica, Greece
*
1Corresponding author (e-mail: ztoman@bio.bg.ac.rs).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sexual dimorphism in size and shape has been studied in a wide range of organisms, but intraspecific variation in sexual dimorphism remains largely unexplored. In many parasitoid species the diversity of morphological-variation patterns within species is complicated by host effects. It is not known whether the magnitude and direction of sexual size dimorphism can be affected by the developmental environment (i.e., different host species). In this study we explored patterns of sexual dimorphism in size and shape in the aphid parasitoid Ephedrus persicae Froggatt. The analyzed sample consisted of 83 females and 54 males reared from five species of host aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae) from various areas of the Palaearctic region. The most notable result of the study is that E. persicae displays divergent patterns of sexual dimorphism in body size and wing size: females have larger bodies than males, but males have larger wings. Our analysis of wing size and wing shape also showed significant within species variation in the degree and pattern of sexual dimorphism. Variation in wing shape between the sexes seems to be more conserved than variation in wing size. Variation in wing shape is influenced predominantly by host (biotype) and to a lesser extent by sexual dimorphism within a biotype.

Résumé

On a étudié le dimorphisme sexuel de la taille et de la forme chez une variété d’organismes, mais on a peu exploré la variation intraspécifique du dimorphisme sexuel. Chez plusieurs espèces de parasitoïdes, la diversité des patrons de variation morphologique au sein des espèces est compliquée par les effets de l’hôte. On ne sait pas si l’importance et la direction du dimorphisme sexuel de la taille peuvent être affectées par le milieu de développement (c’est-à-dire les différentes espèces d’hôtes). Nous explorons, dans notre étude, les patrons de taille et de forme du dimorphisme sexuel chez le parasitoïde des pucerons Ephedrus persicae Froggatt (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Aphidiinae). Notre échantillon d’analyse comprend 83 spécimens femelles et 54 mâles élevés sur cinq pucerons (Hemiptera: Aphididae) hôtes de diverses régions de la zone paléarctique. Le résultat le plus intéressant de notre étude est qu’E. persicae possède des patrons divergents du dimorphisme sexuel de la taille de la taille corporelle et de la grandeur de l’aile: les femelles ont un corps plus grand que les mâles, mais les mâles ont des ailes plus étendues. Notre analyse de la taille de l’aile et de la forme de l’aile montre aussi des variations intraspécifiques significatives de l’importance et du patron du dimorphisme sexuel. La variation de la forme de l’aile entre les sexes semble est plus préservée que la variation de la taille de l’aile. La variation de la forme de l’aile est influencée principalement par les hôtes (biotypes) et, de façon moins importante, par le dimorphisme sexuel au sein du biotype.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 141 , Issue 6 , December 2009 , pp. 550 - 560
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2009

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

Andersson, M.B. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Badyaev, A.V. 2002. Growing apart: an ontogenetic perspective on the evolution of sexual size dimorphism. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 17(8): 369–378 doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02569-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanckenhorn, W.U. 2005. Behavioral causes and consequences of sexual size dimorphism. Ethology, 111(11): 977–1016 doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2005.01147.x.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F.L. 1991. Morphometric tools for land-marks data: geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F.L. 1996. Combining the tools of geometric morphometrics. In Advances in morphometrics. Edited by Marcus, L.F., Corti, M., Loy, A., Nayulor, G.J.P., and Slice, D.E.. Plenum Press, New York. pp. 131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, M.A., and Losos, J.B. 2002. Mutivariate sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in Greater Antillean Anolis lizards. Ecological Monographs, 72: 541–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardini, A., and Elton, S. 2007. Sample size and sampling error in geometric morphometric studies of size and shape. Zoomorphology, 126(2): 121–134 doi:10.1007/s00435-007-0036-2.Google Scholar
Charnov, E.L. 1982. The theory of sex allocation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google ScholarPubMed
Cloutier, C., Duperron, J., Tertuliano, M., and McNeil, J.N. 2000. Host instar, body size and fitness in the koinobiotic parasitoid Aphidius nigripes. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 97(1): 29–40 doi:10.1046/j.1570-7458.2000.00713.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryden, I.L., and Mardia, K.V. 1998. Statistical shape analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Efron, B., and Tibshirani, R.J. 1993. An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Mali, M.U., Starý, P., Sahbaz, A., and Ezsemercl, F. 2004. A review of aphid parasitoid (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Aphidiinae) of Turkey. Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control, 14: 355–370.Google Scholar
Emlen, D.J., Hunt, J., and Simmons, L.W. 2005. Evolution of sexual dimorphism and male dimorphism in the expression of beetle horns: phylogenetic evidence for modularity, evolutionary lability, and constraint. The American Naturalist, 166(Suppl. 4): S42–S68 PMID: 16224711 doi:10.1086/444599.Google Scholar
Fairbairn, D.J. 1990. Factors influencing sexual size dimorphism in temperate Gerrinae. The American Naturalist, 136(1): 61–86 doi:10.1086/285082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairbairn, D.J. 1997. Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 28(1): 659–687 doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.659.Google Scholar
Fairbairn, D.J., Blanckenhorn, U.W., and Szekely, T. 2007. Sex, size, and gender roles: evolutionary studies of sexual size dimorphism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, U. 1986. Taxonomic and biological revision of Palearctic Ephedrus Haliday (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Aphidiinae). Entomologica Scandinavica, 27(Suppl.): 1–95.Google Scholar
Godfray, H.C.J. 1993. Parasitoids: behavioral and evolutionary ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Heimpel, G.E., and de Boer, J.G. 2008. Sex determination in the Hymenoptera. Annual Review of Entomology, 53(1): 209–230 PMID:17803453doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.53.103106.093441.Google Scholar
Jarošík, V.V., Holý, I., Lapchin, L., and Havelka, J. 2003. Sex ratio in the aphid parasitoid Aphidius colemani (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in relation to host size. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 93(3): 255–258 PMID:12762867 doi:10.1079/BER2003229.Google Scholar
Kavallieratos, N.G., Tomanović, Ž., Starý, P., Athanassiou, C.G., Sarlis, G.P., Petrović, O., et al. 2004. A survey of aphid parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Aphidiinae) of southeastern Europe and their aphid—plant associations. Applied Entomology and Zoology, 39: 527–563 doi:10.1303/aez.2004.527.Google Scholar
Klingenberg, C.P. 1996. Multivariate allometry. In Advances in morphometrics. Edited by Marcus, L.F., Corti, M., Loy, A., Naylor, G.J.P., and Slice, D.E.. Plenum Press, New York. pp. 23–49.Google Scholar
Lande, R. 1987. Genetic correlations between the sexes in the evolution of sexual dimorphism and mating preference. In Sexual selection: testing the alternatives. Edited by Bradbury, J.W. and Andersson, M.B.. Dahlem Konferenzen, Berlin, and Wiley Press, Chichester, United Kingdom. pp. 83–94.Google Scholar
Lovich, J.E., and Gibbons, J.W. 1992. A review of techniques for quantifying sexual size dimorphism. Growth Development and Aging, 56(4): 269–281 PMID:1487365.Google Scholar
Mackauer, M. 1996. Sexual size dimorphism in solitary parasitoid wasps: influence of host quality. Oikos, 76(2): 265–272 doi:10.2307/3546199.Google Scholar
Mackauer, M., and Völkl, W. 2002. Brood-size and sex-ratio variation in field populations of three species of solitary aphid parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Aphidiinae). Oecologia, 131: 296–305 doi:10.1007/s00442-002-0878-8.Google Scholar
Pike, K.S., Starý, P., Miller, T., Graf, G., Allison, D., Boydston, L., and Miller, R. 2000. Aphid parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Aphidiinae) of northwest USA. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 102: 688–740.Google Scholar
Quicke, D.L.J. 1997. Parasitic wasps. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Rohlf, F.J. 2004. tpsRegr program. Version 1.30 [online]. Available from http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph/ [accessed 22 July 2009].Google Scholar
Rohlf, F.J. 2005. tpsDig program. Version 2.04 [online]. Available from http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph/ [accessed 22 July 2009].Google Scholar
Rohlf, F.J., and Slice, D. 1990. Extension of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Systematic Zoology, 39(1): 40–59 doi:10.2307/2992207.Google Scholar
Sheets, H.D. 2000. Integrated morphometric package (IMP) [online]. Available from http://www2.canisius.edu/~sheets/ [accessed 22 July 2009].Google Scholar
Shine, R. 1990. Proximate determinants of sexual differences in adult body size. The American Naturalist, 135(2): 278–283 doi:10.1086/285043.Google Scholar
Starý, P. 1962. Bionomics and ecology of Ephedrus pulchellus Stelfox, an important parasite of leaf-curling aphids in Czechoslovakia, with notes on the diapause (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Entomophaga, 7(2): 91–100 doi:10.1007/BF02374627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starý, P. 1966. A review of the parasites of aphids associated with Prunus trees in Czechoslovakia (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae, Homoptera: Aphidoidea). Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca, 63: 67–75.Google Scholar
Takada, H. 2002. Parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Aphidiinae; Aphelinidae) of four principal pest aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) on greenhouse vegetable crops in Japan. Applied Entomology and Zoology, 37(2): 237–249 doi:10.1303/aez.2002.237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teder, T. 2005. Male-biased size dimorphism in ichneumonine wasps (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) — the role of sexual selection for large male size. Ecological Entomology, 30(3): 342–349 doi:10.1111/j.0307-6946.2005.00693.x.Google Scholar
Teder, T., and Tammaru, T. 2005. Sexual size dimorphism within species increases with body size in insects. Oikos, 108(2): 321–334 doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13609.x.Google Scholar
Zelditch, M.L., Swiderski, D.L., Sheets, D.H., and Fink, W.L. 2004. Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. Elsevier Academic, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
Žikić, V., Tomanović, Ž., Ivanović, A., Kavallieratos, N.G., Starý, P., Stanisavljević, L.Z., and Rakhshani, E. 2009. Morphological characterization of Ephedrus persicae biotypes (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Aphidiinae) in the Palaearctic. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 102(1): 1–11 doi:10.1603/008.102.0101.Google Scholar