Can developmental plasticity shape sexual competition and promote reproductive isolation?
Data files
May 29, 2024 version files 26.12 KB
Abstract
Environmental factors such as dietary nutrients can shape the expression of developmentally plastic sexual traits in many species. However, while there has been extensive research into the developmental plasticity of sexual traits at the individual level, the broader consequences of this variation at the population scale remain poorly understood. Here, we asked whether plastic responses to the developmental environment can shape sexual competition and initiate reproductive isolation between populations. We reared neriid flies, Telostylinus angusticollis, on nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor larval diets, generating adult flies that differed in body size and secondary sexual trait expression. We then investigated sexual competition in experimental populations from each developmental environment, and tested for reproductive isolation between flies from mismatched environments. We found that, compared with poor-diet populations, rich-diet populations exhibited more frequent and escalated male-male combat and more frequent mating and mate-guarding. However, we found no evidence that sexual selection was affected by the developmental environment. Mismatched female-male pairs tended to take longer to mate and rich-diet females often rejected poor-diet males, but mismatched pairs were not less likely to mate within 1 hour or produce viable offspring. Our findings suggest that developmental plasticity could generate dramatic differences in sexual competition between populations, and could contribute to reproductive isolation.
README: Can developmental plasticity shape sexual competition and promote reproductive isolation?
https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.xksn02vq2
Data files:
(1) BodySize: Individual body size (wing length) measurements for the focal males and females used in the study.
(2) SexCompData: Individual behavioural data for males and females in the Sexual Competition Experiment, grouped by replicate population, day (block), and larval diet treatment.
(3) SexCompSummary: Summary statistics (means or counts) of behavioural data from the Sexual Competition Experiment, grouped by day and larval diet treatment. Most analyses for this experiment were carried out on means or counts for replicate populations using this data file.
(4) Rejections_Paired: Rejection behaviours by females (from the Sexual Competition Experiment) in wide form for a Wilcoxon matched-pairs test, with day as the grouping factor.
(5) RIData: Data from the Reproductive Isolation Experiment, grouped by day, male larval diet and female larval diet.
Description of the data and file structure
(1) BodySize: Individual body size (wing length) measurements for the focal males and females used in the study.
Variables:
DIET: Larval diet treatment (RICH or POOR)
SEX: Female or Male
WL: Wing length (mm), used as an index of body size
(2) SexCompData: Individual behavioural data for males and females in the Sexual Competition Experiment, grouped by replicate population, day (block), and larval diet treatment.
Variables:
Day: Temporal block, with one Rich and one Poor trial (= "replicate population") assayed each day.
Trial: An assay (1 hour of behavioural observations) conducted on a replicate population
Diet: Larval diet treatment (Rich or Poor)
Male: The colour of paint used to mark each individual male
Matings: The number of matings achieved by each individual male
Matinglength: The duration of each mating in seconds
Matingattempt: The number of mating attempts observed for each individual male
Guardings: The number of guarding bouts observed for each individual male; note that there are empty cells for males that did not mate, and therefore did not guard
Guardinglengthtotal: The total duration (in seconds) of guarding observed for each individual male; note that there are empty cells for males that did not mate, and therefore did not guard
GuardingsperMating: Number of guarding bouts divided by the number of matings observed for individual males; note that there are empty cells for males that did not mate, and therefore did not guard
Wingflicking: The number of wing flicks observed for each individual male
Femalesresisting: Number of times that each male encountered resistance from a female
Shortfight: Number of short (~ 1 s) combat bouts for each individual male
Longfight: Number of prolonged (> 1 s) combat bouts for each individual male
Fightlength: Duration (s) of each combat bout for each individual male
WL: Wing length (mm) of each individual male
STDWL: Individual male wing length standardized (converted to z-scores) within replicate populations
STDMatings: Individual male mating success (number of matings) standardized (converted to z-scores) within replicate populations
Individual: Unique code for each individual male
(3) SexCompSummary: Summary statistics (means or counts) of behavioural data from the Sexual Competition Experiment, grouped by day and larval diet treatment. Most analyses for this experiment were carried out on means or counts for replicate populations using this data file.
Variables:
Trial: An assay (1 hour of behavioural observations) conducted on a replicate population
Day: Temporal block, with one Rich and one Poor trial (= "replicate population") assayed each day
LarvalDiet: Larval diet treatment (Rich or Poor)
MatingsPerMale: Total number of matings observed in the trial divided by 5
MatingsTotal: Total number of matings obsreved in the trial
CVMatings: Coefficient of variation of individual male mating success within trial; note that there are empty cells for trials where no matings occurred and the CV therefore couldn't be calculated
MatingLengthMean: Mean mating duration (s) for each trial; note that there are empty cells for trials where no matings occurred and the mean duration of mating therefore couldn't be calculated
MatingAttemptsTotal: Total number of mating attempts observed in the trial
GuardingsTotal: Total number of guarding bouts observed in the trial; note that there are empty cells for trials where no matings occurred and the number of guarding bouts therefore wasn't relevant (since guarding occurs after mating)
GuardingLengthMean: Mean duration of guarding bouts in the trial; note that there are empty cells for trials where no matings occurred and the mean duration of guarding bouts therefore couldn't be calculated (since guarding occurs after mating)
GuardingsPerMating: Number of guarding bouts divided by number of matings observed; ; note that there are empty cells for trials where no matings occurred and the number of guarding bouts per mating therefore couldn't be caulculated
WingFlicksTotal: Total number of wing flicks observed in the trial
FemaleresistancesTotal: Total number of resistance behaviours by females observed in the trial
ShortFightsTotal: Total number of short combat bouts (~ 1 s) observed in the trial
LongFightsTotal: Total number of long combat bouts (> 1 s) observed in the trial
Fightlength: Total duration (s) of all combat bouts observed in the trial
(4) Rejections_Paired: Rejection behaviours by females (from the Sexual Competition Experiment) in wide form for a Wilcoxon matched-pairs test, with day as the grouping factor.
Variables:
RejectRICH: Number of rejection behaviours by females observed in the Rich-diet replicate population assayed on a specific day (row)
RejectPOOR: Number of rejection behaviours by females observed in the Poor-diet replicate population assayed on a specific day (row)
(5) RIData: Data from the Reproductive Isolation Experiment, grouped by day, male larval diet and female larval diet.
Variables:
Day: Temporal block, with one replicate of each treatment combination assayed each day
Individual: Unique code for each replicate
Malediet: Larval diet treatment of the male in the replicate
Femalediet: Larval diet treatment of the female in the replicate
Mated: Binomial variable indicating whether mating occurred during the assay (1 = yes, 0 = no)
MatingLatency: Time (s) from the start of the assay until the start of mating; if no mating occurred, a value of 3600 was assigned
Resistingbinomial: Binomial variable indicating whether resistance by the female occurred during the assay (1 = yes, 0 = no)
EggsCollected: Number of eggs collected from the female for the egg-to-adult viability assay
Hatched: Number of eggs that resulted in adult flies; note that there are empty cells for replicate pairs that produced no eggs and for which the number of eggs hatched was therefore not meaningful
Unhatched: Number of eggs that did not result in adult flies; note that there are empty cells for replicate pairs that produced no eggs and for which the number of eggs unhatched was therefore not meaningful
Code/Software
An R script is provided with code to carry out the analyses reported in the paper.
Methods
Rearing and Culturing of Flies
The individuals used in the experiments described below were second-generation individuals reared from T. angusticollis collected from Fred Hollows Reserve in Randwick, New South Wales, Australia (33˚54’44.04”S, 151˚14’52.14”E). The flies were housed in population cages with moist cocopeat and were given three separate petri dishes containing brown sugar, yeast, and oviposition medium. The oviposition medium consisted of a nutrient-rich diet (as described below) which had been left to mould for approximately 4 days and then mixed to encourage oviposition. The cages were sprayed with reverse osmosis (RO) water every second day. To generate focal flies for experiments, eggs were collected from oviposition medium in stock cages and transferred to 500 mL jars containing 200 mL of either a nutrient-rich diet (“rich diet”) or a nutrient-poor diet (“poor diet”) to represent developmental environments differing in availability of macronutrients. Approximately 20 eggs were transferred to each container, with 19 containers for each diet treatment (N = 760 eggs in total). The rich diet consisted of 32.9 g soy protein (Nature’s Way Instant Natural Protein) and 41.3 g of brown sugar (Coles Brown Sugar), whereas the poor diet consisted of 5.5 g soy protein and 6.9 g brown sugar, mixed with 1 L dry cocopeat (coconut husk shavings), and approximately 800 mL RO water (Sentinella et al., 2013). Virgin adults were separated within 24 hours after emergence into 12 L plastic tanks by sex and diet, with approximately 20 males or 25 females per tank (N = 18 tanks in total). Tanks contained adult flies of similar age, with flies from multiple larval containers combined randomly in adult tanks. Each tank contained a layer of moist cocopeat for humidity, and petri dishes containing an excess of brown sugar, yeast, and oviposition medium that were replaced approximately every 7 days. The tanks were sprayed with RO water every second day. Flies, larval medium containers, and experiments were all kept and conducted in a controlled lab environment with a temperature of 25 °C (± 2 °C). The focal flies were used in two separate experiments, as described below.
Sexual Competition Experiment
We observed a total of 13 experimental replicate populations (i.e., unique groups of 5 males and 5 females combined and observed inside an experimental arena) from each larval diet (N = 26 replicate populations in total). Each replicate population was created by combining five virgin females and five virgin males (all of similar age and reared on the same larval diet, and each male marked with a different colour as described below) together in a transparent plexiglass arena (26 x 36 x 20 cm) with a mesh sleeve (Fig. 2). Replicate populations were comprised of focal individuals drawn randomly from the same adult tank (when possible), and focal individuals were not re-used in this experiment. Focal flies were between 14 and 45 days old when used in experiments. Flies reared on the poor larval diet emerged ~ 3 days later on average than flies reared on the rich larval diet, as typically observed in this species (Bonduriansky, 2007; Hooper et al., 2017). However, since T. angusticollis can live for >130 days in the laboratory (Hooper et al., 2017), all focal flies were relatively young when used in experiments and the small average difference in adult age between rich- and poor-diet focal flies is unlikely to have substantially influenced our results. The arena was designed to simulate natural mating aggregations on rotting tree bark, where females oviposit and feed and males compete for matings (Bonduriansky, 2006, 2007). The bottom of the arena contained a layer of moist cocopeat, and a petri dish (5cm diameter) filled with oviposition medium was placed in the centre. The arena was illuminated with a broad-spectrum light source placed above the oviposition medium to encourage interaction.
In order to identify individual males in replicate populations, the focal males were anaesthetised with CO2 using a Flystuff Benchtop Flow Buddy System (59-122BCU, Genesee Scientific, USA) with Ultimate Fly Pad and Gun, and a spot of enamel paint (Tamiya Color Enamel Paint, Japan) was applied to the thorax, with each of the five males in each replicate population marked with a different colour. The males were placed in individual vials to allow the paint to dry and for recovery from the anaesthesia, and then kept in tanks with other males (as described above) for at least 24 hours before being allocated to replicate populations for the experiment.
During each day of the experiment, we collected data on one rich-diet replicate population and one poor-diet replicate population using the same dish of oviposition medium. Each replicate population was left in the arena for 30 minutes to acclimatise, and was then observed for one hour. For each individual male, we recorded the duration and number of matings and mating attempts, number and duration of guarding bouts after mating, number of male wing flicking bouts, number and duration of combat interactions, and number of times the male was rejected by a female. Mating was recorded when a male positioned himself above or behind a female and mounted the female for at least 20 s (Bath et al., 2012; Wylde et al., 2019b). Mating duration was quantified as the time in seconds between a male mounting a female and removing his genitalia from the female’s oviscape (Wylde et al., 2019b) (Fig. 1a). A mounting interaction that lasted less than 20 s was counted as a mating attempt. Female rejection was recorded when a female kicked a male or flew and/or ran away when a male attempted to mate with her (Bath et al., 2012). Guarding was identified as a male standing above a female after mating and using the span of his legs to enclose the female (Bonduriansky, 2006) (Fig. 1b). Male-male combat interactions were recorded when two males used their forelegs and/or body to strike each other (Bath et al., 2012) (Fig. 1c). Wing flicking involved males flicking their wings at another individual (Wylde et al., 2019b).
Reproductive Isolation Experiment
To determine whether individuals reared on different larval diets can mate and produce offspring, males and females were paired in all possible combinations (poor male with rich female, poor male with poor female, rich male with poor female, and rich male with rich female), with 23 replicates of each combination (Fig. 3). To ensure that the males were sexually experienced, males from the sexual competition experiment were re-used in the reproductive isolation experiment. However, all females were virgins. Each pair was placed in a 500 mL container with moist cocopeat on the bottom and a small petri dish of oviposition medium. After the female and male flies were combined, they were left to adjust for 10 s, and then observed for one hour. We recorded latency to mate, duration and number of matings, number of mating attempts, and female rejection behaviours. Here, female rejection was evidenced by a female wing-flicking or kicking a male as he tried to mate, or when a female ran/flew away from a male during a mating attempt. On each day of the experiment, we set up one replicate of each of the four larval diet combinations. A broad-spectrum light source was positioned above the containers throughout the experiment.
After one hour, the male was removed from the container and the female was left to lay eggs. Each oviposition dish was checked for eggs every day for a maximum of six days after the pairing was conducted. After six days, the female was removed and frozen for body size measurement. For each pair, 20 eggs (where possible) were transferred to a container with 200 mL of standard larval diet consisting of 11 g soy protein and 13.8 g brown sugar per 1 L of dry cocopeat and 800mL of water (Sentinella et al., 2013). After the first adult emergence in each container, the container was left for 10 days and then the emerged flies were counted. The larval containers with eggs but with no emerging flies were left for 40 days before they were discarded.
Body Size Measurement
The focal males used in the sexual competition experiment and reproductive isolation experiment, and females used in the reproductive isolation experiment, were frozen at -20°C and then used to quantify body size. One wing from each individual was removed, mounted on a microscope slide using double-sided tape, and then covered with cling-wrap. The wings were then photographed at a magnification of 6.3 x using a Leica MC170 HD camera mounted on a Leica MS5 stereo-microscope (Wetzlar, Germany). The linear distance from the intersection of the R2+3 wing vein with the wing margin to its intersection with the Rs wing vein was measured using ImageJ software (Schneider et al., 2012).
Statistical Analysis
All statistical tests were carried out using R 4.0.3 (R_Core_Team, 2020). To verify that our larval diet manipulation resulted in the expected effects on adult phenotype, we modelled wing length using a linear model with larval diet, sex and their interaction as fixed effects. Although we did not keep track of family identity or larval container, the flies were derived from eggs laid in stock tanks containing numerous flies and eggs were distributed among 38 larval containers. Effects of genotype and shared (container-specific) environments are therefore unlikely to have biased the results of this analysis.
In the sexual competition experiment, some males did not fight or interact with females, such that the individual data set was zero-inflated. Thus, analysis was carried out on means (for duration of mating, combat interactions, guarding) or total counts (number of matings, guarding bouts, female rejections, combat interactions, and wing flicks) for replicate populations. General and generalised linear mixed models (GLMMs) were fitted to the replicate population means or sums using the R package lme4 (Bates et al., 2015), with each response variable modelled separately. Models included larval diet as a fixed effect, and day as a random block effect (but the random effect of day yielded extremely small variance components and was removed from two models to facilitate model fit: see Table 1). Combat duration was log-transformed to improve model diagnostics. For over-dispersed count data, an observation-level random effect (unique code for each replicate population) was included. For Gaussian models, effects were tested using t-tests with Satterthwaite’s degrees of freedom using the package LmerTest (Kuznetsova et al., 2017). For Poisson models, effects were tested using z-tests. For rejection behaviours by females, the model failed to converge and a Wilcoxon matched-pairs test was used instead to compare data from rich- vs. poor-diet replicate populations within days.
Mating success skew represents the opportunity for sexual selection (Cattelan et al., 2020; Jones, 2009). To estimate mating success skew, we calculated coefficients of variation of the number of matings by individual males within replicate populations. The coefficients of variation were then compared using a Gaussian mixed-effects model with larval diet as the fixed effect and day as a random block effect. To test for and compare sexual selection on male body size in rich-diet vs. poor-diet replicate populations, we used a Poisson model of individual male mating success (number of matings) as a function of male body size, with larval diet and body size as fixed effects and day as a random block effect. For this analysis, individual male mating success and body size (wing length) were both standardized (z-transformed) within replicate populations. In this model, a main effect of male body size would indicate overall sexual selection on male body size, whereas a larval diet × body size interaction would indicate a difference between larval diet treatment groups in sexual selection on male body size. Note that the main effect of larval diet is not meaningful in this model because standardization within replicate populations brings the effect estimate to ~ 0.
To test for reproductive isolation, models were fitted with male larval diet, female larval diet, and their interaction as fixed effects and day as a random block effect. An environmentally induced reproductive barrier would be indicated by reduced propensity to mate or produce viable offspring by flies reared on mismatched diets, detectable statistically as a male larval diet x female larval diet cross-over interaction. Mating outcome and female rejection behaviour were modelled as binomial (0 or 1) response variables. A binomial model was also used to investigate treatment effects on egg-to-adult viability, represented for each replicate pair as a matrix of successes (number of eggs that resulted in adult flies) and failures (number of eggs that did not result in adult flies). For over-dispersed binomial data, an observation-level random effect (unique code for each pair) was included in the model. Latency to mate was modelled with Gaussian error.