Limits...
Evolution of sexual dimorphism of wing shape in the Drosophila melanogaster subgroup.

Gidaszewski NA, Baylac M, Klingenberg CP - BMC Evol. Biol. (2009)

Bottom Line: We used geometric morphometrics to characterise wing shape and found significant SShD in all nine species.Finally, allometry accounted for a substantial part of SShD, but did not explain the bulk of evolutionary divergence in SShD because allometry itself was found to be evolutionarily plastic.The variable contribution of allometric and non-allometric components to the evolutionary divergence of SShD and the evolutionary plasticity of allometry suggest that SShD and allometry are influenced by a complex interaction of processes.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Michael Smith Building, Manchester, UK. n.gidaszewski@sheffield.ac.uk

ABSTRACT

Background: Sexual dimorphism of body size has been the subject of numerous studies, but few have examined sexual shape dimorphism (SShD) and its evolution. Allometry, the shape change associated with size variation, has been suggested to be a main component of SShD. Yet little is known about the relative importance of the allometric and non-allometric components for the evolution of SShD.

Results: We investigated sexual dimorphism in wing shape in the nine species of the Drosophila melanogaster subgroup. We used geometric morphometrics to characterise wing shape and found significant SShD in all nine species. The amount of shape difference and the diversity of the shape changes evolved across the group. However, mapping the divergence of SShD onto the phylogeny of the Drosophila melanogaster subgroup indicated that there is little phylogenetic signal. Finally, allometry accounted for a substantial part of SShD, but did not explain the bulk of evolutionary divergence in SShD because allometry itself was found to be evolutionarily plastic.

Conclusion: SShD in the Drosophila wing can evolve rapidly and therefore shows only weak phylogenetic structure. The variable contribution of allometric and non-allometric components to the evolutionary divergence of SShD and the evolutionary plasticity of allometry suggest that SShD and allometry are influenced by a complex interaction of processes.

Show MeSH
A Drosophila wing and the 15 landmarks used to characterize its shape. The landmarks are mostly located at intersections between longitudinal veins (L1 to L6), crossveins (a-cv: anterior crossvein, p-cv: posterior crossvein) and the wing margin.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2691407&req=5

Figure 1: A Drosophila wing and the 15 landmarks used to characterize its shape. The landmarks are mostly located at intersections between longitudinal veins (L1 to L6), crossveins (a-cv: anterior crossvein, p-cv: posterior crossvein) and the wing margin.

Mentions: Size and shape of the wings were characterized by a set of 15 landmarks (Figure 1) and analyzed with the methods of geometric morphometrics. To quantify wing size, we used centroid size, which is a measure of the spread of landmarks around their centre of gravity [35]. An analysis of variance indicates that both species and sex have significant effects on centroid size (Table 1). Moreover, the significant species × sex interaction indicates a divergence of sexual size dimorphism among species.


Evolution of sexual dimorphism of wing shape in the Drosophila melanogaster subgroup.

Gidaszewski NA, Baylac M, Klingenberg CP - BMC Evol. Biol. (2009)

A Drosophila wing and the 15 landmarks used to characterize its shape. The landmarks are mostly located at intersections between longitudinal veins (L1 to L6), crossveins (a-cv: anterior crossvein, p-cv: posterior crossvein) and the wing margin.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2691407&req=5

Figure 1: A Drosophila wing and the 15 landmarks used to characterize its shape. The landmarks are mostly located at intersections between longitudinal veins (L1 to L6), crossveins (a-cv: anterior crossvein, p-cv: posterior crossvein) and the wing margin.
Mentions: Size and shape of the wings were characterized by a set of 15 landmarks (Figure 1) and analyzed with the methods of geometric morphometrics. To quantify wing size, we used centroid size, which is a measure of the spread of landmarks around their centre of gravity [35]. An analysis of variance indicates that both species and sex have significant effects on centroid size (Table 1). Moreover, the significant species × sex interaction indicates a divergence of sexual size dimorphism among species.

Bottom Line: We used geometric morphometrics to characterise wing shape and found significant SShD in all nine species.Finally, allometry accounted for a substantial part of SShD, but did not explain the bulk of evolutionary divergence in SShD because allometry itself was found to be evolutionarily plastic.The variable contribution of allometric and non-allometric components to the evolutionary divergence of SShD and the evolutionary plasticity of allometry suggest that SShD and allometry are influenced by a complex interaction of processes.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Michael Smith Building, Manchester, UK. n.gidaszewski@sheffield.ac.uk

ABSTRACT

Background: Sexual dimorphism of body size has been the subject of numerous studies, but few have examined sexual shape dimorphism (SShD) and its evolution. Allometry, the shape change associated with size variation, has been suggested to be a main component of SShD. Yet little is known about the relative importance of the allometric and non-allometric components for the evolution of SShD.

Results: We investigated sexual dimorphism in wing shape in the nine species of the Drosophila melanogaster subgroup. We used geometric morphometrics to characterise wing shape and found significant SShD in all nine species. The amount of shape difference and the diversity of the shape changes evolved across the group. However, mapping the divergence of SShD onto the phylogeny of the Drosophila melanogaster subgroup indicated that there is little phylogenetic signal. Finally, allometry accounted for a substantial part of SShD, but did not explain the bulk of evolutionary divergence in SShD because allometry itself was found to be evolutionarily plastic.

Conclusion: SShD in the Drosophila wing can evolve rapidly and therefore shows only weak phylogenetic structure. The variable contribution of allometric and non-allometric components to the evolutionary divergence of SShD and the evolutionary plasticity of allometry suggest that SShD and allometry are influenced by a complex interaction of processes.

Show MeSH