ArticleBMC ecology and evolution2025
Sexual size and shape dimorphism are consistent with predictions that both natural and sexual selection are driving the evolution of sexual dimorphism in Mormon crickets, Anabrus simplex.
Article in BMC ecology and evolution, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSelection can be a powerful force causing morphological adaptation in populations. We tested predictions about the role of both natural and sexual selection in shaping morphology in the Mormon cricket, Anabrus simplex, a species with two population types that differ in their ecological conditions. Solitary populations are characterized by low densities, non-migratory individuals, and typical mating roles (males compete for access to choosy females), whereas gregarious populations are characterized by high densities, migratory behaviour, reversed mating roles, and widespread cannibalism. We collected individuals from both solitary and gregarious populations - characterized by their behaviour and not morphology - and measured several morphological traits. We transformed these traits to shape variables by dividing each measurement by a geometric mean of several metric dimensions representing body size. We tested for population type and sex differences in size and shape variables, and we tested for population type differences in several sex-limited shape variables. We also used discriminant function analysis to test whether a previously enigmatic population, found to be genetically like gregarious populations, but exhibiting many aspects of solitary population behaviour, was morphologically more like solitary or gregarious populations. Our analysis was used to determine the minimum number of measurements needed to assign specimens to the correct population type.
resultsWe found that gregarious populations were larger in body size than solitary populations and that females were larger than males in both population types. This sexual size dimorphism was more pronounced in solitary populations. Solitary and gregarious populations displayed several other shape differences as well as differences in the degree of sexual dimorphism in shape. The enigmatic population was unambiguously classified as morphologically more like gregarious populations, a finding which agrees with previous work showing genetic similarities with gregarious populations. Head width was consistently the best character to distinguish members of both populations.
conclusionsPatterns of sexual size and shape dimorphism are consistent with predictions that both natural and sexual selection are driving the evolution of sexual dimorphism in Mormon crickets. Future work should measure the direction and shape of selection on both males and females in solitary and gregarious populations, focusing particular attention on head shape.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.