4.1 Article

Sex- and size-dependent variation in wing morphology of the cuckoo wasp Trichrysis cyanea (Hymenoptera: Chrysididae)

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENTOMOLOGY
卷 119, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

CZECH ACAD SCI, INST ENTOMOLOGY
DOI: 10.14411/eje.2022.043

关键词

Landmark-based geometric morphometrics; centroid size; sexual size dimorphism (SSD); wing venation; flight behaviour; flight performance

资金

  1. Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy
  2. University of Graz

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intraspecific variation and sexual dimorphism in wing shape and size is common in winged insects. In this study, we examined the intraspecific variation in wing shape and size in the cuckoo wasp Trichysis cyanea, and found clear sexual dimorphism. This dimorphism may be related to fecundity and increased manoeuvrability of females. This study contributes to our understanding of the evolution of parasitism in hymenopterans.
Intraspecific variation and sexual dimorphism in wing shape and size is common in winged insects. The exact patterns, however, differ among taxa and are related to the selection pressure acting on specific traits. Cuckoo wasps (Chrysdidae) are hymenopterans that have evolved a complex parasitoid or cleptoparasitic life-style. For the first time, we studied the intraspecific variation in wing shape and size in the model species, Trichysis cyanea, a common Palearctic cuckoo wasp. This involved geo-metric morphometrics combined with a novel, non-invasive way of obtaining images, to study the shape and size of the forewings of males and females. We found clear sexual dimorphism in both wing shape and size, possibly related to fecundity (as wing size typically correlates with body size in many insects) and increased manoeuvrability of females for searching for their host's nest-ing holes. This study increases our knowledge of the biology of T. cyanea in terms of a better understanding of the evolution of parasitism and corresponding adaptations in this hymenopteran family.

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

4.1
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