Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39512849›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2024

Foraging strategy as a route for sexual size dimorphism evolution.

Pedro N Rocha, Felipe M Gawryszewski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Sex-Based Dietary Divergence in Plateau Pikas (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Pedro N RochaDepartamento de Zoologia, Evolutionary Ecology Laboratory Universidade de Brasília Brasília Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7867-4126
Felipe M GawryszewskiDepartamento de Zoologia, Evolutionary Ecology Laboratory Universidade de Brasília Brasília Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3072-5518

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Female-biased sexual size dimorphism stands as a widespread evolutionary pattern. Fecundity selection, favouring larger females with greater reproductive output, is a leading explanation. However, larger body sizes demand greater energy intake, potentially hindering the evolution of extreme female sizes. Thus, the evolution of more lucrative foraging tactics may allow for an increase in size. Hence, coupled with selection against larger males, fecundity selection should result in larger SSD in species with more lucrative foraging strategies. Crab spiders are sit-and-wait predators that hunt in several plant substrata. Species that forage on flowers or employ prey-luring strategies likely have access to higher food intake than other species. We extracted body size measurements of 614 crab spider species from 43 genera and classified them based on their foraging strategy. Our findings show that foraging strategies that provide higher energy input (EFS) result in larger SSD. Statistical estimates indicate that females have a cephalothorax width 91% larger than males in EFS species, compared to 26% larger females than males in non-EFS species. These differences possibly arise due to larger females and smaller males. The effects on male size reduction might result from scramble competition, whereas the increase in female size is likely due to fecundity selection. These results suggest that the shift towards more lucrative foraging strategies may have been a key event in body size and SSD evolution in crab spiders.

Indexed as

body sizecrab spiderfecundity selectionluringsexual selectionsexual size dimorphismSSDThomisidae

Identifiers

PMID39512849
PMCPMC11542996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.