4.7 Article

Sex differences in phenotypic plasticity of a mechanism that controls body size: implications for sexual size dimorphism

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2010.0895

关键词

sexual dimorphism; body size; physiology; development; plasticity; Manduca sexta

资金

  1. NSF [IBN 9975168, IBN 0212621]
  2. NIH [1 K12 GM00708]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The degree and/or direction of sexual size dimorphism (SSD) varies considerably among species and among populations within species. Although this variation is in part genetically based, much of it is probably due to the sexes exhibiting differences in body size plasticity. Here, we use the hawkmoth, Manduca sexta, to test the hypothesis that moths reared on different diet qualities and at different temperatures will exhibit sex-specific body size plasticity. In addition, we explore the proximate mechanisms that potentially create sex-specific plasticity by examining three physiological variables known to regulate body size in this insect: the growth rate, the critical weight (which measures the cessation of juvenile hormone secretion from the corpora allata) and the interval to cessation of growth (ICG; which measures the time interval between the critical weight and the secretion of the ecdysteroids that regulate pupation and metamorphosis). We found that peak larval mass of males and females did not exhibit sex-specific plasticity in response to diet or temperature. However, the sexes did exhibit sex-specific plasticity in the mechanism that controls size; males and females exhibited sex-specific plasticity in the growth rate and the critical weight in response to both diet and temperature, whereas the ICG only exhibited sex-specific plasticity in response to diet. Our results suggest it is important for the sexes to maintain the same degree of SSD across environments and that this is accomplished by the sexes exhibiting differential sensitivity of the physiological factors that determine body size to environmental variation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据