Sexual dimorphism and distorted sex ratios in spiders

Abstract

SEXUAL dimorphism in body size is widespread in the animal kingdom. Whereas male giantism has been studied and explained extensively1,2, male dwarfism has not. Yet it is neither rare3–7 nor without theoretical interest8,9. Here we provide experimental and comparative data on spiders to support the theory that dwarf males are associated with high differential adult mortality, with males at much greater risk. Species with sedentary (low-risk) females have dwarf, roving (high-risk) males. Life-history theory could readily explain dwarfing if juvenile, but not adult, male mortality were large. We present a new model in which high mortality of searching mature males reduces the adult sex ratio (males: females), relaxing male–male competition and reducing the importance of male body size to favour dwarfing by early maturation. Early maturity also reduces male juvenile mortality and thus opposes adult mortality. This provides a mechanism that buffers skews in adult sex ratio and which is quite distinct from Fisher's principle10 and allied mechanisms9,11 for the primary sex ratio.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1

    Cunningham, J. T. Sexual Dimorphism in the Animal Kingdom (Black, London, 1900).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Hendrick, A. V. & Temeles, E. J. Trends Ecol. Evol. 4, 136–139 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Gerhardt, U. Zool, Anz. 86, 80–82 (1930).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Elgar, M. A., Ghaffar, N. & Read, A. J. Zool. 222, 455–470 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Darwin, C. A. Monograph on the Cirripedia (Royal Society, London, 1851).

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Kaestner, A. Invertebrate Zoology Vol. 2 (Wiley, New York, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Regan, C. T. Proc, R. Soc. B97, 386–399 (1925).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Darwin, C. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex 2nd edn (Murray, London, 1894).

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Ghiselin, M. T. The Economy of Nature and the Evolution of Sex (University of California Press. Berkeley, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Fisher, R. A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (Oxford University Press. 1930).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Hamilton, W. D. Science 156, 477–488 (1967).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Vollrath, F. Z. Tierpsychol. 53, 61–78 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Pagel, M. D. & Harvey, P. H. Q. Rev. Biol. 63, 413–440 (1988).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Christenson, T. E. in Contemporary Issues in Comparative Psychology (ed. Dewsbury, D. A.) 149–174 (Sinaur, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Vollrath, F. in Ecophysiology of Spiders (ed. Nentwig, W.) 357–370 (Springer, Berlin, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Newman, J. A. & Elgar, M. A. Am. Nat. 138, 1372–1395 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Gertsch, W. J. American Spiders (Van Nostrad, New York, 1949).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Levi, H. W. J. New York ent. Soc. 58, 59–91 (1955).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Watson, P. J. Behavl Ecol. Sociobiol. 26, 77–90 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Gunnarson, B. J. Zool. 217, 1–7 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Clutton-Brock, T. The Evolution of Parental Care (Princeton University Press, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Emlen, S. T. & Oring, L. W. Science 197, 215–223 (1977).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Parker, G. A. J. Fish. Biol. (in the press).

  24. 24

    Maynard Smith, J. Evolution and the Theory of Games (Cambridge University Press, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Clutton-Brock, T. & Parker, G. A. Q. Rev. Biol. (in the press).

  26. 26

    Smith, G. Fauna Flora Golf. Neapel 29, 1–123 (1906).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Caullery, M. Mitt. zool. Stn Neapel 18, 583–643 (1908).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Bertelsen, E. Dana Rep. 39, 1–176 (1951).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Beebe, W. Zoologica 6, 149–241 (1934).

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Lockett, G. H. & Millidge, A. F. British Spiders Vol. 1 (Royal Society, London, 1951).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Lockett, G. H. & Millindge, A. F. British Spiders (Royal Society, London, 1953).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Shinkai, E. & Takano, S. Spiders of Japan (Tokai University Press, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33

    Koh, J. K. H. A Guide to Common Singapore Spiders (Singapore Science Centre, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    Mascord, R. Australian Spiders (Reed, Wellington, New Zealand, 1970).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vollrath, F., Parker, G. Sexual dimorphism and distorted sex ratios in spiders. Nature 360, 156–159 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1038/360156a0

Download citation

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing