Territoriality and male-biased sexual size dimorphism in reclusa (: Zygoptera)

Rhainer Guillermo-Ferreira & Kleber Del-Claro

acta ethologica

ISSN 0873-9749 Volume 15 Number 1 acta ethol (2012) 15:101-105 DOI 10.1007/s10211-011-0114-9

1 23 Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer- Verlag and ISPA. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self-archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self- archive your work, please use the accepted author’s version for posting to your own website or your institution’s repository. You may further deposit the accepted author’s version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s request, provided it is not made publicly available until 12 months after publication.

1 23 Author's personal copy acta ethol (2012) 15:101–105 DOI 10.1007/s10211-011-0114-9

Territoriality and male-biased sexual size dimorphism in Argia reclusa (Odonata: Zygoptera)

Rhainer Guillermo-Ferreira & Kleber Del-Claro

Received: 18 March 2011 /Revised: 27 September 2011 /Accepted: 3 October 2011 /Published online: 13 October 2011 # Springer-Verlag and ISPA 2011

Abstract In Odonata, many present sexual size Keywords Argia . Dimorphism . Territoriality. Body size . dimorphism (SSD), which can be associated with male Mating success territoriality in Zygoptera. We hypothesized that in the territorial Argia reclusa, male–male competition can favor large males, and consequently, drive selection Introduction pressures to generate male-biased SSD. The study was performed at a small stream in southeastern Brazil. Males In territorial species, males with higher resource holding were marked, and we measured body size and assessed the potential (RHP; i.e., ability in acquiring and defending quality of territories. We tested if larger territorial males (a) territories) usually occupy the best reproductive sites (e.g., defended the best territories (those with more male Bart and Earnst 1999; Candolin and Voigt 2001). This ability intrusions and visiting females), (b) won more fights, and is often associated to phenotypic traits that best represent (c) mated more. Couples were collected and measured to RHP, such as body size (Parker 1974). In many show the occurrence of sexual size dimorphism. Results species, male body size is correlated with mating success indicated that males are larger than females, and that since larger males usually win more territorial fights and gain territorial males were larger than non-territorial males. access to females (Severinghaus et al. 1981; Borgia 1982; Larger territorial males won more fights and defended the Alcock 2000; Candolin and Voigt 2001; but see also Pie and best territories. There was no difference between the mating Del-Claro 2002). In territorial Odonata, generally larger success of large territorial and small non-territorial males. males have an advantage in fights for territories and/or Although our findings suggest that male territoriality may females (Tsubaki and Ono 1987;Sokolovskaetal.2000; play a significant role on the evolution of sexual size Switzer 2002; Serrano-Meneses et al. 2007). However, there dimorphism in A. reclusa, we suggest that other factors are cases where territorial and larger males have no should also be considered to explain the evolution of SSD advantage over non-territorial ones (Corbet 1999). in , since non-territorial males are also capable It has been suggested that territorial species present of acquiring mates. sexual size dimorphism (SSD), with males larger than females, while in non-territorial species, such pattern does not occur (Serrano-Meneses et al. 2008a). This hypothesis R. Guillermo-Ferreira is supported by evidences of selection acting through male– Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Filosofia, male competition in damselflies (e.g., Serrano-Meneses et Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, al. 2007). However, there are few studies on territorial Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil e-mail: [email protected] damselflies of the large family (e.g., Argia sedula, Corbet 1999; Argia apicalis, Bick and Bick 1965; K. Del-Claro (*) Pyrrhosoma nymphula, Gribbin and Thompson 1991; and Instituto de Biologia-Campus Umuarama, L.E.C.I., Ennallagma civile, Corbet 1999). Additionally, there are Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Mail Box 593, CEP 38400-902, Uberlândia, MG, Brazil few empirical data on the relationship between male–male e-mail: [email protected] competition and SSD in territorial damselflies. Author's personal copy

102 acta ethol (2012) 15:101–105

In the present study with the territorial damselfly Argia out of the area. These contest usually lasted around 10 s. reclusa Selys 1865 (Coenagrionidae), we tested whether The male that perched several meters away from the male body size influences on male–male competition, contested territory was considered the loser and the male resulting in male-biased SSD. We hypothesized that larger that returned and perched on the contested territory, the males would win more fights, mate more, and defend winner. This method is often used to determine winners and higher-quality territories. Territory quality is usually mea- losers of territorial fights in damselflies (e.g., Contreras- sured as the attractiveness to females and to rival males in Garduno et al. 2008). odonates (Tsubaki and Ono 1987; Koenig 1990; Switzer To address if non-territorial males are smaller than 2002) and by the presence of more and/or better oviposition territorial males, before observations, we captured, mea- resources (e.g., aquatic plants, submerged substrate, and sured their body size, and marked both territorial and non- aerial stems, see Guillermo-Ferreira and Del-Claro 2011). territorial males. Territorial males were considered to be We also hypothesized that territorial males would be larger those males that remained on the stream borders defending than non-territorial males, since smaller males usually adopt and fighting for territories. Non-territorial males were those alternative mating tactics, assuming a non-territorial behavior males captured on the surrounding vegetation that were and pursuing females before they arrive at the reproductive never seen defending a territory. Non-territorial males were sites instead of defending a territory (e.g., Alcock and Houston never seen fighting and only approached the stream when 1996, Watanabe and Taguchi 1990; Raihani et al. 2008). The they were in tandem with a female. The body size of confirmation of these hypotheses could suggest that selection territorial and non-territorial males was then compared. To favors male body size and that territoriality may be an evidence sexual size dimorphism, we compared the body influencing factor of SSD. size of marked males and ten females collected at the site. From June to October 2008, we made additional 100 h of behavioral observations (all occurrence sample was done in Materials and methods 25 days between 10:00 and 14:00 hours), capturing and marking males to determine their body size and mating The study was conducted in the Laureano stream located in tactic. To answer if male body size and mating tactic (i.e., the municipality of Ribeirão Preto (21°9′58″ S, 47°51′51″ territorial or non-territorial) is correlated with mating W). We used an area of 8 m along the stream borders where success, we identified the male in every mating or preliminary observations showed that A. reclusa males ovipositing couple during the whole study period (from defended territories. Surveys along the stream showed that May to October 2008, 130 h of observation). This was males clustered in this specific area. In even days between 5 possible because mating and ovipositions lasted more than and 14 May 2008, between 10:00 and 14:00 hours (when 1 h and occurred in a limited space. sexual activities take place), each male was caught, marked Statistical analyses showed the data were normal on the right forewing, and had his body length measured distributed (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test; d=0.16; p>0.2). dorsally excluding appendages (in centimeters) with a Thus, we used Student’s t tests to compare the body size of digital caliper (0.01 mm). males and females. To compare the body size of territorial Assuming that there would be more intense competition and non-territorial males, we used analysis of variance for high-quality territories than low-quality territories and (ANOVA) with the territorial status and period of study as that females would oviposit on the territories with best independent factors. The period of study was divided in resources, we conducted 30 h of “all occurrence sample” two categories: (1) May and (2) June to October. This behavioral observations (sensu Altmman 1974) and quan- test was needed because males collected in (1) were tified the following variables to determinate the quality of larger (x=3.54±0.04 cm; N=20) than males collected in territories: (a) the number of ovipositions in each territory (2) (x=3.42±0.04 cm; N=10) (ANOVA, F=4.86; df=1; and (b) the number of male intrusions in each territory. p=0.03), showing seasonal variations on male body size, Every 15 min, an “instantaneous shot sampling” (sensu which is common in damselflies (e.g., Córdoba Aguilar Altmman 1974) was done to take note of which male was 2009). The Fisher’s exact test was used to test if territorial defending each territory. Territory quality was then corre- males mated more frequently than non-territorial males. To lated with the resident male body size, considered to be the compare the body size of winners and losers of territorial male that spent most time defending the territory during the fights, we used the paired t test. We did not consider the 30 h of observations. study period in this test because these data were collected in To answer if larger males win more fights, we identified the same period. We used the Spearman’s correlation test to winners and losers of every contest where both participants evaluate the relation between male body size and the number had their wings marked. We considered these contests to be of male intruders and ovipositing females in territories. aggressive interactions in which males chased each other Results are presented as mean±SE. Author's personal copy acta ethol (2012) 15:101–105 103

Results

It was evidenced that territorial males (x=3.55±0.04 cm; N=17) were larger than non-territorial males (x=3.44± 0.04 cm; N=13) (ANOVA; df=1; F=4.38; p=0.04; Fig. 1a). The two-way interaction of territorial status and study period was not significant (ANOVA; F=0.03; df=1; p=0.86). Field observations showed that winners of territo- rial fights were larger (x=3.64±0.06 cm) than losers (x=3.47±0.04 cm) (paired t test, t=2.2040; p=0.04; N=10, Fig. 1b) and defended the most heavily disputed territories

(Spearman’s correlation coefficient rs=0.6533; p<0.05; N= 10, Fig. 2a) and with more ovipositing females (Spearman’s correlation coefficient rs =0.4934; t22=2.537; p=0.02, Fig. 2b). Males that mated (x=3.52±0.03 cm; N=10) were not larger than males that were not seen mating (x=3.49± 0.04 cm; N=20) (t test; t=−0.298; p=0.76). Of the 30 marked territorial males, five copulated while five of 13 non-territorial males copulated. Thus, territorial males did not obtain more copulations (Fisher’sexacttest;p=0.73). The results also show that this species present sexual size dimorphism, where males (x=3.54±0.04 cm; N=20) are larger than females (x= 3.4±0.02 cm; N=10) (t test; t=2.3848; p=0.02). The number of non-territorial males may have been underestimated because we had to search for them on the vegetation, while Fig. 2 Relationship between body size (in centimeters) of a resident the territorial males are easily found at the stream boarders. territorial male and (a) number of male intruders in his territory and (b) Female ovipositions occurred only at the observed territories, the number of ovipositing females inside his territory in A. reclusa

so mated non-territorial males had to approach the stream to oviposit in tandem.

Discussion

The results showed that territorial males are larger than non- territorial ones in A. reclusa. According to Thornhill (1981), body size may determine which reproductive tactic the male adopts. Other studies with Odonata (e.g., Orthetrum chrys- ostigma, Miller 1983; Megaloprepus coerulatus, Fincke 1984; Hetaerina americana, Raihani et al. 2008) also evidenced that territorial males are usually larger than non- territorial ones. These non-territorial males do not defend a territory, but usually search for females on the vegetation (e.g., Serrano-Meneses et al. 2007). These males would be benefited by their smaller size since small males are more agile and may subdue the females more easily (De Block and Stoks 2007). In A. reclusa, this was not different as smaller males adopted a non-territorial strategy, searching for females at the vegetation along the stream, approaching the water only during tandem oviposition. The results also showed that larger males of A. reclusa Fig. 1 Body size (mean±SE, in centimeters) of (a) territorial and non- territorial males and (b) winners and losers of male–male contests in won more fights and defended the best territories, which is A. reclusa similar to other odonate species (e.g., Tsubaki and Ono Author's personal copy

104 acta ethol (2012) 15:101–105

1987; Switzer 2002; Serrano-Meneses et al. 2007). A high- emerge earlier in the season (e.g., Johansson and Rowe quality territory usually possesses resources that are usable 1999) and have the residency advantage over smaller young for females to oviposit and the presence of such resources males. Future studies should investigate other factors such may have a positive influence on female visitation (e.g., as larval phenology, as shown for Argia vivida (Conrad Guillermo-Ferreira and Del-Claro 2011). By fighting for 1992), and female fecundity which may have a relationship and holding the territories with best resources for females, with body size (Sokolovska et al. 2000) and consequently territorial males may gain access to females. Territorial influence on SSD. males may also have an advantage on mate guarding since larger males may provide protection against other males Acknowledgments We thank Frederico Lencioni for insect identifica- (Siva-Jothy 1999), while smaller non-territorial males may tion and Everton Tizo-Pedroso, Pitágoras Bispo, and two anonymous referees for valuable comments. We also thank the Universidade de São not have such ability. This is supported by the fact that Paulo–FFCLRP for logistic support. K. Del-Claro and R. Guillermo- males may lose their females to territorial males when they Ferreira thank CNPq for financial support (grant/PQ) and for a doctoral approach oviposition sites (Córdoba-Aguilar et al. 2009). fellowship, respectively. Indeed, two female takeovers were observed when the territorial male dislodged the male in tandem and stole the References female (RGF personal observation). Selection through these forces may then promote sexual size dimorphism, with the males becoming larger than Alcock J (1979) Multiple mating in Calopteryx maculata (Odonata: females (Székely et al. 2000). In Zygoptera, recent evidence Calopterygidae) and the advantage of non-contact guarding by males. J Nat His 13:439–446 shows that males are usually larger than females in Alcock J, Houston TF (1996) Mating systems and male size in territorial species (Serrano-Meneses et al. 2008a, b), as we Australian Hylaeine bees (Hymenoptera: Colletidae). Ethology evidenced here for A. reclusa. Possibly, in A. reclusa, the 102:591–610 selection through male–male competition favored the larger Alcock J (2000) Possible causes of variation in territory tenure in a lekking Pompilid wasp (Hemipepsis ustulata) (Hymenoptera). J territorial males, the same way it also occurs in other Insect Behav 13:439–453 odonates (e.g., Serrano-Meneses et al. 2007), fishes (e.g., Altmman J (1974) Observational study of behaviour: sampling Kuwamura et al. 2000), reptiles (Kratochvíl and Frynta methods. Behaviour 49:227–265 2002), and mammals (e.g., McElligott et al. 2001). Bart J, Earnst SL (1999) Relative importance of male and territory quality in pairing success of male rock ptarmigan (Lagopus However, although our findings suggest that larger males mutus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:355–359 have a clear advantage on male–male competition and Bick GH, Bick JC (1965) Demography and behaviour of the territory holding, territorial males did not have higher damselfly, Argia apicalis (Say), (Odonata: Coenagriidae). Ecology – mating success because non-territorial males were also 46:461 472 Borgia G (1982) Experimental change in resource structure and male capable of acquiring mates. density: size-related differences in mating success among males This result may be equivalent to what was found for of Scatophaga stercoraria. Evolution 36:307–315 other species which non-territorial males also mated (e.g., Candolin U, Voigt HR (2001) Correlation between male size and Alcock 1979; Watanabe and Taguchi 1990; Raihani et al. territory quality: consequence of male competition or predation risk? Oikos 95:225–230 2008). Males with reduced RHP may enhance their Conrad KF (1992) Relationships of larval phenology and imaginal reproductive success through alternative reproductive size to male pairing success in Argia vivida Hagen (Zygoptera: behaviors (e.g., Waage 1973; Forsyth and Montgomerie Coenagrionidae). Odonatologica 21:213–222 1987; Plaistow and Siva-Jothy 1996), like pursuing females Contreras-Garduño J, Buzatto B, Serrano-Meneses MA, Nájera- Cordero K, Córdoba-Aguilar A (2008) The size of the wing red before they arrive in the reproductive sites for example (e.g., spot as a heightened condition dependent trait in the American Alcock and Houston 1996). In A. reclusa, non-territorial rubyspot. Behav Ecol 19:724–732 males remained at the surrounding vegetation pursuing Corbet PS (1999) Dragonflies behaviour and ecology of Odonata. females and mating with them before they arrive at the Harley, Essex Córdoba Aguilar A (2009) Seasonal variation in genital and body size, oviposition site. Similar to H. americana, disruptive selec- sperm displacement ability, female mating rate, and male harassment tion may be acting on male body size favoring both small in two calopterygid damselflies (Odonata: Calopterygidae). Biol J and large males (Serrano-Meneses et al. 2007). Linn Soc 96:815–829 Thus, although male-biased sexual size dimorphism in Córdoba-Aguilar A, Raihani G, Serrano-Meneses MA, Contreras- Garduño J (2009) The lek mating system of Hetaerina this species may have been driven by the advantage of large damselflies. Behaviour 146:189–207 males in male–male competition, we suggest here that De Block M, Stoks R (2007) Flight-related body morphology shapes territoriality cannot be considered a trait that alone predicts mating success in a damselfly. Anim Behav 74:1093–1098 SSD in territorial damselflies since small non-territorial Fincke OM (1984) Giant damselflies in a tropical forest: reproductive biology of Megaloprepus coerulatus with notes males also have the opportunity to mate. Larger males may on Mecistogaster (Zygoptera: Pseudostigmatidae). Advances in have been more successful because large males often Odonatology 2:13–27 Author's personal copy acta ethol (2012) 15:101–105 105

Forsyth A, Montgomerie RD (1987) Alternative reproductive tactics Severinghaus L, Kurtak BH, Eickwort GC (1981) The reproductive in the territorial damselfly Calopteryx maculata: sneaking by behavior of Anthidium manicatum (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) older males. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21:73–81 and the significance of size for territorial males. Behav Ecol Gribbin SD, Thompson DJ (1991) Egg size and clutch size in females Sociobiol 9:51–58 of the damselfly Pyrrhosoma nymphula (Sulzer) (Zygoptera: Serrano-Meneses MA, Córdoba-Aguilar A, Méndez V, Layen SJ, Coenagrionidae). Odonatologica 19:347–357 Székely T (2007) Sexual size dimorphism in the American Guillermo-Ferreira R, Del-Claro K (2011) Resource defense polygyny Rubyspot: male body size predicts male competition and mating by Hetaerina rosea Selys (Odonata: Calopterygidae): influence success. Anim Behav 73:987–997 of age and wing pigmentation. Neotrop Entomol 40:78–84 Serrano-Meneses MA, Cordoba-Aguilar A, Azpilicueta-Amorin M, Johansson F, Rowe L (1999) Life history and behavioral responses to Gonzalez-Soriano E (2008a) Sexual selection, sexual size dimor- time constraints in a damselfly. Ecology 80:1242–252 phism and Rensch's rule in Odonata. J Evol Biol 21:1259–1273 Koenig W (1990) Territory size and duration in the white-tailed Serrano-Meneses MA, Cordoba-Aguilar A, Szekely T (2008b) Sexual size skimmer Plathemis Lydia (Odonata: Libellulidae). J Anim Ecol dimorphism: patterns and processes. In: Cordoba-Aguilar A (ed) 59:317–333 Dragonflies and damselflies: model organisms for ecological and Kratochvíl L, Frynta D (2002) Body size, male combat and the evolutionary research. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 231–248 evolution of in eublepharid geckos Siva-Jothy MT (1999) Male wing pigmentation may affect reproduc- (Squamata: Eublepharidae). Biol J Linn Soc 76:303–314 tive success via female choice in a calopterygid damselfly Kuwamura T, Karino K, Nakashima Y (2000) Male morphological (Zygoptera). Behaviour 136:1365–1377 characteristics and mating success in a protogynous coral reef Sokolovska N, Rowe L, Johansson F (2000) Fitness and body size in fish, Halichoeres melanurus. J Ethol 18:17–23 mature odonates. Ecological Entomology 25:239–248 Miller PL (1983) The duration of copulation correlates with other aspects Switzer PV (2002) Individual variation in the duration of territory of mating behaviour in Orthetrum chrysostigma (Burmeister) occupation by males of the dragonfly Perithemis tenera (Anisoptera: Libellulidae). Odonatologica 12:227–238 (Odonata: Libellulidae). Ann Am Entomol Soc 95:628–636 McElligott AG, Gammell MP, Harty HC, Paini DR, Murphy DT, Székely T, Reynolds JD, Figuerola J (2000) Sexual size dimorphism Walsh JT, Hayden TJ (2001) Sexual size dimorphism in fallow in shorebirds, gulls and alcids: the influence of sexual and natural deer (Dama dama): do larger, heavier males gain greater mating selection. Evolution 54:1404–1413 success? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:266–272 Thornhill R (1981) Panorpa (Mecoptera: Panorpidae) scorpionflies: Parker GA (1974) Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting systems for understanding resource-defense polygyny and alterna- behavior. J Theor Biol 47:223–243 tive male reproductive efforts. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 12:355–386 Pie M, Del-Claro K (2002) Male x male agoniostic behavior in the Tsubaki Y, Ono T (1987) Effects of age and body size on the male Ricardiidae fly Sepsisoma. Stud Neotrop Fauna Environ 37:19–22 territorial system of the dragonfly, Nannophya pygmaea Rambur Plaistow SJ, Siva-Jothy MT (1996) Energetic constraints and male (Odonata: Libellulidae). Anim Behav 35:518–525 mate-securing tactics in the damselfly Calopteryx splendens Waage JK (1973) Reproductive behaviour and its relation to territoriality xanthostoma (Charpentier). Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1233–1239 in Calopteryx maculata (Beauvois). Behaviour 47:240–256 Raihani G, Serrano-Meneses MA, Córdoba-Aguilar A (2008) Male mating Watanabe M, Taguchi M (1990) Mating tactics and male wing tactics in the American rubyspot damselfly: territoriality, nonterritor- dimorphism in the damselfly Mnais pruinosa costalis Selys iality and switching behaviour. Anim Behav 75:1851–1860 (Odonata: Calopterygidae). J Ethol 8:129–137