Skip to main content
PeerJ logoLink to PeerJ
. 2024 Mar 13;12:e16956. doi: 10.7717/peerj.16956

Filling the gaps in ecology of tropical tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae): first quantitative data of sexual dimorphism in semi-arboreal Therates from the Philippine biodiversity hotspot

Dale Ann Acal 1,, Anna Sulikowska-Drozd 1, Radomir Jaskuła 1
Editor: Daniel Silva
PMCID: PMC10944163  PMID: 38495761

Abstract

Background

Sexual dimorphism, driven by sexual selection, leads to varied morphological distinctions in male and female insects, providing insights into selection pressures across species. However, research on the morphometric variability within specific taxa of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae), particularly arboreal and semi-arboreal species, remains very limited.

Methods

We investigate sexual dimorphism in six semi-arboreal Therates tiger beetle taxa from the Philippines, focusing on morphological traits. We employed morphometric measurements and multivariate analyses to reveal patterns of sexual dimorphism between sexes within the taxa.

Results

Our results indicate significant sexual dimorphism in elytra width, with females consistently displaying broader elytra, potentially enhancing fecundity. Notable sexual size dimorphism was observed in Therates fulvipennis bidentatus and T. coracinus coracinus, suggesting heightened sexual selection pressures on male body size. Ecological factors, mating behavior, and female mate choice might contribute to the observed morphological variation. These findings emphasize the need for further studies to comprehend mating dynamics, mate choice, and ecological influences on morphological variations in semi-arboreal and arboreal tiger beetles.

Keywords: Adephaga, Insects, Sexual dimorphism, Body size variation, Philippines

Introduction

Sexual dimorphism, widely observed in animals, involves morphological differences shaped by both sexual selection (Darwin, 1871; Andersson, 1994) and natural selection, as evidenced in adaptations such as feeding niche, predator avoidance, parental care roles, and environmental factors (e.g. Shine, 1989; Blanckenhorn, 2000, 2005; Cooper, Brown & Getty, 2015; Henshaw, Fromhage & Jones, 2019; Bauld et al., 2022). Insects often exhibit sexual size dimorphism (SSD), with females typically larger in body sizes due to fecundity selection (e.g. Blanckenhorn, 2005; Blanckenhorn, Meier & Teder, 2007; Stillwell et al., 2010; Rudoy & Ribera, 2017). Male-biased SSD is associated with mating success through male-male competition and female mate choice (Fairbairn & Preziosi, 1994; Blanckenhorn, 2005; Simmons & García-González, 2008; Benítez et al., 2013; Baur et al., 2020). These differences in sexual size and morphology have drawn significant interest in understanding the evolutionary implications of sexual dimorphism that influence the reproductive strategies and morphological characteristics of insects.

Tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae), a family of predatory insects (López-López & Vogler, 2017; Duran & Gough, 2020), are widely utilized as a model organism in biodiversity, ecology, and evolution, due to their adaptability to diverse environments, and their role as bioindicators of regional and global biodiversity patterns (e.g. Schultz, 1989; Knisley & Hill, 1992; Pearson & Cassola, 1992; Kitching, 1996; Carroll & Pearson, 1998a, 1998b; Andriamampianina et al., 2000; Cassola & Pearson, 2000; Pearson & Vogler, 2001; Pearson & Cassola, 2007; Jaskuła, 2011; Dangalle, Pallewatta & Vogler, 2014; Jaskuła, 2015; Jaskuła, Płóciennik & Schwerk, 2019; Pearson & Wiesner, 2023). However, most of these studies have been focused on epigeic ground-dwelling species. In the tropical regions, where tiger beetle species richness is the highest (Pearson & Wiesner, 2023), limited research has been conducted on their morphometric variability within specific species. Generally, it is observed that females are larger than males (Pearson & Vogler, 2001; Jaskuła, 2005; Espinoza-Donoso et al., 2020; Jaskuła, Schwerk & Płóciennik, 2021), with male-biased sexual size dimorphism distinctively observed among tiger beetles belonging to the Manticorini tribe (Mareš, 2002). Another sexual difference observed in almost all Cicindelidae (except genus Manticora) is the presence of tarsal adhesive setae on the ventral surfaces of the first three segments of the prothoracic tarsus in males, enabling them to better grip and secure females during copulation (Stork, 1980; Kritsky & Simon, 1995). Previous studies provided evidence of sexual dimorphism in tiger beetles, focusing on various morphological traits, such as the size and tooth arrangement of mandibles (Kritsky & Simon, 1995), mandible size and length (Matalin, 1999a, 1999b, 2002a, 2002b; Satoh et al., 2003; Satoh & Hori, 2004; Jaskuła, 2005; Ball, Acorn & Shpeley, 2011), elytral length (Franzen & Heinz, 2005), labrum (Cassola & Bouyer, 2007), and other body parameters (Jaskuła, 2005; Jaskuła, Schwerk & Płóciennik, 2021). Additionally, in certain genera, distinct sexual dimorphism has been observed in the shape of mandibles (Mareš, 2002; Jones & Conner, 2018), head and pronotum (Doğan Sarikaya, Koçak & Sarikaya, 2020), or abdomen and mandible (Espinoza-Donoso et al., 2020). Moreover, Jaskuła et al. (2016) combined phylogeographical analysis and morphological assessments to investigate sexual dimorphism and geographical variations in Calomera littoralis.

The genus Therates Latreille, 1817, comprised of almost 130 species distributed throughout Southeast Asia (Wiesner, 2020; Anichtchenko & Wiesner, 2022; Lin & Wiesner, 2022; Medina, Donato & Cabras, 2022; Matalin & Wiesner, 2023) are relatively small sized semi-arboreal tiger beetles with an unusual ecological niche for the adults that includes terrestrial and arboreal habitats. During the daytime, adults occur regularly on leaf surfaces of undergrowth forest vegetation, and occasionally on forest substrate, such as wooded paths and rocks along forest streams (Acal et al., 2021; Lin & Wiesner, 2022). Despite their prominence in southeast Asian forest, research on the morphometric variability of Therates has been limited.

The current understanding of sexual dimorphism in Cicindelidae from different regions of the world strongly indicates that females tend to be larger, primarily attributed to enhanced reproductive investment. For instance, a larger and wider abdomen in females potentially results in a higher egg production, signifying not only their reproductive role but also the need for additional energy and resources for finding suitable locations to lay eggs. In contrast, males typically invest only in sperm, leading to significantly lower energetic costs during courtship (Thornhill & Alcock, 1983). These aspects of mating behavior are commonly observed in Cicindelidae species. Moreover, tiger beetle males with larger mandibles may enhance copulation by facilitating better maintenance and grasping of the female’s thorax, as shown in previous studies (Pearson & Vogler, 2001).

Given the existing knowledge of sexual dimorphism in Cicindelidae from various regions worldwide, this study, the first part of a bigger project focused on the ecology of Philippine Therates, aims to investigate sexual dimorphism within particular taxa of this semi-arboreal tiger beetle genus. We hypothesize that akin to observations in other tiger beetles, females typically exhibit larger size compared to males, with the exception of single morphological parameters displaying higher values in males.

Materials and Methods

Sampling area

Mindanao is the second largest and southernmost major island in the Philippines with mean annual temperature of 80°F (27 °C), 77% relative humidity and an annual average rainfall of between 1,800–3,000 mm (Giles et al., 2019). Adult tiger beetles were collected from 49 sites on Mindanao and associated islands from November 2019 to January 2023 (Fig. 1, Table 1). The geographical position and altitude of each site were recorded using a Garmin eTrex 10 GPS. Prior informed consent and a Gratuitous Permit from Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) were obtained for the collection. Wildlife Gratuitous Permits (WGP) numbered 319, R10 2019-81, R10 2019-48, R10 2019-89, R10 2021-38, along with Wildlife Export Permits (WEP) numbered R10-2021-04 and 2023-01, were secured. All samples were collected along riparian vegetation using an entomological hand net, immediately preserved in a 96% alcohol solution, and subsequently identified through taxonomic keys (Wiesner, 1988; Acal et al., 2021).

Figure 1. Geographical distribution and typical habitats of Philippine Therates tiger beetles.

Figure 1

(A) Philippine archipelago, (B) Geographical distribution of sampling sites in southern Philippines (blue dots on the map indicate precise sampling site locations; refer to Table 1 for site numbers and details, while colored contours represent varying elevations), (C) Selected habitats of Therates, (D) One of the studied arboreal tiger beetle species. Map & Photo credit: Dale Ann Acal.

Table 1. Sampling locations of Therates taxa in southern Philippines.

Sites Region Province Species GPS coordinates Elevation (m a.s.l.)
Latitude Longitude
1 Northern Mindanao Lanao del Norte i (64 ♂♂, 47 ♀♀) 8.22011 124.26780 72
2 Northern Mindanao Lanao del Norte i (33 ♂♂, 13 ♀♀) 8.24896 124.42524 352
3 Northern Mindanao Lanao del Norte i (10 ♂♂) 8.22625 124.29222 118
4 Northern Mindanao Lanao del Norte i (45 ♂♂, 20 ♀♀) 8.27137 124.33088 119
5 Northern Mindanao Lanao del Norte i (1 ♂, 1 ♀) 8.24251 124.46037 784
6 Northern Mindanao Lanao del Norte i (6 ♂♂, 5 ♀♀) 8.27146 124.31414 116
iv (10 ♂♂, 5 ♀♀)
7 Northern Mindanao Misamis Oriental i (1 ♂, 1 ♀) 8.39697 124.39840 433
iv (3 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀)
8 Northern Mindanao Lanao del Norte i (20 ♂♂, 7♀♀) 8.20788 124.28481 163
iv (3 ♂♂, 7 ♀♀)
9 Northern Mindanao Lanao del Norte i (16 ♂♂, 6 ♀♀) 8.24944 124.37917 322
iv (21 ♂♂, 13 ♀♀)
10 Northern Mindanao Lanao del Norte i (26 ♂♂, 9 ♀♀) 8.27938 124.33738 212
iv (26 ♂♂, 9 ♀♀)
11 Northern Mindanao Bukidnon i (5 ♂♂) 7.91148 124.81047 1,546
v (4 ♂♂, 1 ♀)
12 Zamboanga Peninsula Zamboanga del Sur i (3 ♂♂) 7.05121 121.98278 354
v (5 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀)
13 Zamboanga Peninsula Zamboanga del Sur i (5 ♂♂, 1 ♀) 7.14045 121.92201 93
v (2 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀)
14 Zamboanga Peninsula Zamboanga del Sur i (17 ♂♂, 6 ♀♀) 7.08457 121.91796 185
v (25 ♂♂, 4 ♀♀)
15 Northern Mindanao Misamis Oriental ii (2 ♂♂) 8.94884 124.86517 501
16 Northern Mindanao Misamis Oriental ii (4 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀) 8.68667 125.00500 1,170
17 Northern Mindanao Misamis Oriental ii (15 ♂♂, 4 ♀♀) 8.69333 125.00944 1,190
18 Davao Davao del Sur ii (37 ♂♂, 32 ♀♀) 7.11229 125.31761 1,218
19 Davao Davao del Sur ii (5 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀) 7.23326 125.39823 290
v (6 ♂♂, 1 ♀)
20 CARAGA Surigao del Sur ii (17 ♂♂, 18 ♀♀) 8.14263 126.25162 21
iii (4 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀)
vi (3 ♂♂)
21 Northern Mindanao Bukidnon ii (2 ♂♂) 8.25632 125.17292 1,142
iii (1 ♂, 2 ♀♀)
v (31 ♂♂, 19 ♀♀)
22 Northern Mindanao Bukidnon ii (2 ♂♂) 8.22175 125.33145 721
iii (1 ♂)
v (2 ♀♀)
23 CARAGA Agusan del Sur ii (17 ♂♂, 14 ♀♀) 8.55795 125.98071 104
vi (18 ♂♂, 13 ♀♀)
24 CARAGA Agusan del Sur ii (15 ♂♂, 28 ♀♀) 8.66492 126.01571 115
vi (9 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀)
25 CARAGA Surigao del Sur ii (2 ♂♂, 7 ♀♀) 8.56033 126.03343 108
vi (1 ♂)
26 Northern Mindanao Bukidnon ii (1 ♂,) 7.90445 124.81776 1,342
v (3 ♂♂)
27 CARAGA Surigao del Sur iii (15 ♂♂, 9 ♀♀) 8.13729 126.30099 48
vi (36 ♂♂, 20 ♀♀)
28 CARAGA Agusan del Sur iii (6 ♂♂, 5 ♀♀) 8.48556 125.99369 153
vi (5 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀)
29 CARAGA Surigao del Sur iii (2 ♂♂) 8.17222 126.22861 70
vi (9 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀)
30 CARAGA Surigao del Sur iii (7 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀) 8.14339 126.26574 60
vi (6 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀)
31 CARAGA Surigao del Sur iii (5 ♂♂) 9.28161 125.88619 80
vi (1 ♂, 1 ♀)
32 Northern Mindanao Misamis Oriental iv (15 ♂♂, 10 ♀♀) 8.38761 124.38864 357
33 Northern Mindanao Bukidnon iv (2 ♂♂) 7.91140 124.81145 1,342
34 Zamboanga Peninsula Zamboanga del Sur iv (11 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀) 7.88446 123.42919 175
35 Zamboanga Peninsula Zamboanga del Sur iv (11 ♂♂, 8 ♀♀) 7.75187 123.29394 130
36 Northern Mindanao Misamis Oriental iv (4 ♂♂, 8 ♀♀) 8.94884 124.86517 501
37 Zamboanga Peninsula Zamboanga del Sur v (6 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀) 8.26250 123.53703 728
38 Northern Mindanao Lanao del Norte v (1 ♂, 1 ♀) 8.24546 124.45381 914
39 Northern Mindanao Lanao del Norte v (6 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀) 8.23577 124.44924 885
40 Northern Mindanao Lanao del Norte v (3 ♂♂, 1 ♀) 8.24546 124.45381 914
41 Northern Mindanao Bukidnon v (3 ♂♂, 1 ♀) 8.22175 125.33145 721
42 Northern Mindanao Camiguin island v (2 ♂♂) 9.19274 124.68340 693
43 CARAGA Dinagat Island vi (3 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀) 10.3166 125.58540 22
44 CARAGA Agusan del Sur vi (10 ♂♂, 5 ♀♀) 8.69922 125.97482 170
45 CARAGA Surigao del Sur vi (8 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀) 8.16111 126.29319 53
46 CARAGA Surigao del Sur vi (2 ♂♂, 1 ♀) 8.16111 126.29319 625
47 CARAGA Surigao del Sur vi (5 ♂♂) 8.16111 126.29319 52
48 CARAGA Surigao del Sur vi (17 ♂♂, 9 ♀♀) 9.20268 126.00482 180
49 CARAGA Surigao del Sur vi (2 ♂♂) 9.26596 125.89413 126

Note:

(i) T. fulvipennis bidentatus, (ii) T. coracinus coracinus, (iii) T. fulvipennis everetti, (iv) T. fasciatus fasciatus, (v) T. fasciatus pseudolatreillei, and (vi) T. fasciatus quadrimaculatus.

Morphometric measurements

To determine morphological variations of Therates taxa, we measured relevant morphological characteristics of all individuals. In total, 1,176 specimens were studied (762♂♂ 418♀♀) from the following species: T. fulvipennis bidentatus Chaudoir, 1861 (253♂♂ 116♀♀), T. coracinus coracinus Erichson, 1834 (118♂♂ 108♀♀), T. fulvipennis everetti Bates, 1878 (40♂♂ 21♀♀), T. fasciatus fasciatus Fabricius, 1801 (113♂♂ 69♀♀), T. fasciatus pseudolatreillei Horn, 1928 (100♂♂ 37♀♀), and T. fasciatus quadrimaculatus Horn, 1895 (135♂♂ 66♀♀). Quantitative measurements, adapted from Jaskuła (2005) were as follows (Fig. 2): right mandible length (RML), length of head (LH), width of head (WH), width of pronotum (WP), length of pronotum (LP), length of elytra (EL), width of elytra (WE), and total body length (TBL). Additionally, the analysis included labrum length (LL), and specimen weight (WT) in grams. The sex was determined by examining the abdominal apex and forelegs, the latter with presence of the tarsal adhesive setae located on the first three tarsi of the prothoracic leg of males (Pearson, 1988; Stork, 1980). A Nikon SMZ800 stereoscope with micrometric ocular measurement (Delta optical DLTA12000CM0SSEU3) was used to measure the morphological features in millimeters and KERN PCB precision balance was used to measure beetle’s weight.

Figure 2. Graphical representation of Therates with morphometric parameters.

Figure 2

(1) Right mandible length (RML), (2) labrum length (LL), (3) length of head (LH), (4) width of head (WH), (5) length of pronotum (LP), (6) width of pronotum (WP), (7) length of elytra (EL), (8) width of elytra (WE), and (9) total body length (TBL). Credit: Dale Ann Acal.

Data analysis

All body parameters were standardized against total body length by dividing the measured values by the total body length for each individual. These standardized values were compared for males and females of all six taxa. In many instances, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test rejected normal distribution of the data. Therefore, we assessed the statistically significant differences between the sexes within each population using non-parametric Mann–Whitney U tests. Box plots were constructed with confidence intervals for total body length, elytral width and beetle’s weight using R packages: ggplot2 (Wickham, 2016) and dplyr (Wickham et al., 2020). Subsequently, principal component analysis (PCA) was used to determine morphological parameters responsible for the variation between sexes of each Therates taxa. Additionally, a one-way permutation multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) was conducted to examine the differences on the observed variations in morphological traits within each taxa. All statistical analyses were performed using RStudio software (v. 5.2.4; RStudio Team, 2024).

Results

The results of the one-way PERMANOVA revealed a highly significant differences in morphological parameters between sex of T. fulvipennis bidentatus (F = 39.46, df = 1, p < 0.001), T. coracinus coracinus (F = 24.54, df = 1, p < 0.001), T. fulvipennis everetti (F = 3.42, df = 1, p < 0.009), T. fasciatus fasciatus (F = 19.91, df = 1, p < 0.001), T. fasciatus pseudolatreillei (F = 17.61, df = 1, p < 0.001), and T. fasciatus quadrimaculatus (F = 19.22, df = 1, p < 0.001) (Table 2). The PCA results revealed that the first two principal components collectively explained 68.9% of the total morphological variation. In T. fulvipennis bidentatus, PC1 was mainly influenced by right mandible length (RML = 0.47), labrum length (LL = 0.51), and elytral length (EL = −0.5) while PC2 was influenced by head length (LH = −0.59), pronotum length (LP = 0.59) and width (WP = 0.41). Subsequently, for T. coracinus coracinus, right mandible length (RML = −0.41), elytral width (WE = 0.44) and length (EL = 0.5) contributed significantly to the observed variations in PC1 and pronotum length (LP = 0.59) and width (WP = 0.64) in PC2. In the case of T. fulvipennis everetti, width of head (WH = −0.53), pronotum length (LP = 0.52) and width (WP = 0.48) contributed to the variation observed in PC1, while elytral length (EL = 0.53), right mandible length (RML = −0.54), and labrum length (LL = −0.59) contributed mostly in PC2. For T. fasciatus fasciatus, labrum length (LL = −0.42), elytral width (WE = 0.46) and length (EL = 0.52) were the main factors to the variations in PC1, whereas pronotum length (LP = 0.58) and width (WP = 0.53) contributed significantly in PC2. In T. fasciatus pseudolatreillei, elytral width (WE = 0.44) and length (EL = 0.49) were the main factors to the variations observed in PC1 while pronotum length (LP = 0.58) and width (WP = 0.64) in PC2. Lastly, in T. fasciatus quadrimaculatus, pronotum width (WP = 0.4), head length (LH = 0.44) and width (WH = −0.44) were the primary factors in the observed variation in PC1, while PC2 was mainly delimited by elytral length (EL = 0.7) (Fig. 3).

Table 2. One-way PERMANOVA results obtained by examining the morphological differences between sexes in each taxon (9,999 permutation, Euclidean distance).

Species df Sum of Sqs. R2 F P
T. fulvipennis bidentatus 1 0.009109 0.097086 39.46165 0.001
Residual 367 0.084717 0.902914
Total 368 0.093826 1
T. coracinus coracinus 1 0.005809 0.098719 24.53524 0.001
Residual 224 0.05303 0.901281
Total 225 0.05884 1
T. fulvipennis everetti 1 0.000824 0.054723 3.415538 0.009
Residual 59 0.014234 0.945277
Total 60 0.015058 1
T. fasciatus fasciatus 1 0.005994 0.099579 19.9065 0.001
Residual 180 0.054199 0.900421
Total 181 0.060193 1
T. fasciatus pseudolatreillei 1 0.004864 0.115395 17.6104 0.001
Residual 135 0.037286 0.884605
Total 136 0.04215 1
T. fasciatus quadrimaculatus 1 0.00616 0.08809 19.2237 0.001
Residual 199 0.06375 0.91190
Total 200 0.06991 1

Figure 3. Principal component analysis biplot for morphometric parameters between sexes for each taxon.

Figure 3

(i) T. fulvipennis bidentatus, (ii) T. coracinus coracinus, (iii) T. fulvipennis everetti, (iv) T. fasciatus fasciatus, (v) T. fasciatus pseudolatreillei, and (vi) T. fasciatus quadrimaculatus. Arrows represent the measured variables (See Fig. 2 for trait abbreviations): blue—males, red—females.

Significant size differences were observed between males and females in Therates fulvipennis bidentatus and T. coracinus coracinus, with males being larger. Although males in all three T. fasciatus subspecies exhibited higher median values than females, these differences were not statistically significant. In T. fulvipennis everetti, the median value for females was higher than that of males, but the sample size was inadequate for conclusive results. Analysis of standardized values for all six taxa revealed significant differences in elytral width (WE). Median values indicated that females are wider than males across all studied Therates taxa. Right mandible length (RML) showed higher median values in males for all taxa, with significant sexual differences in three taxa (T. fulvipennis bidentatus, T. coracinus coracinus and T. fasciatus quadrimaculatus). Additionally, weight comparison between sexes revealed no statistically significant differences, except for T. fulvipennis bidentatus and T. fasciatus quadrimaculatus, where males had significantly higher median values (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. Total body length, elytral width, weight, and right mandible length between males and females of the studied Therates.

Figure 4

(i) T. fulvipennis bidentatus, (ii) T. coracinus coracinus, (iii) T. fulvipennis everetti, (iv) T. fasciatus fasciatus, (v) T. fasciatus pseudolatreillei, and (vi) T. fasciatus quadrimaculatus. The boxes represent the interquartile range, with the median shown as the horizontal line within the box. See Fig. 2 for trait abbreviations. Mann–Whitney U tests between sexes in each taxon (*p < 0.001).

Discussion

The influence of sexual selection on morphological traits is widely recognized, but the direction and degree of sexual size dimorphism vary greatly across species and populations (e.g. Andersson, 1994; Blanckenhorn, Meier & Teder, 2007; Stillwell et al., 2010). This study provides an essential contribution to our understanding of sexual dimorphism in semi-arboreal tiger beetles as well as for tropical Cicindelidae. In contrast to the prevailing pattern observed in most insects and ground-dwelling tiger beetles, where females generally exhibit larger body size than males (Pearson & Vogler, 2001; Jaskuła, 2005; Jaskuła, Schwerk & Płóciennik, 2021), our results reveal significant sexual dimorphism in Therates taxa, but with males larger than females in two species and about the same size in other taxa. A comparison of total body length between sexes showed clear differences in T. fulvipennis bidentatus and T. coracinus coracinus, while the patterns are less evident among all studied subspecies of T. fasciatus. Although females were approximately the same size as males in most studied taxa, T. fulvipennis bidentatus and T. coracinus coracinus exhibited clear sexual size dimorphism with males larger. Such male-biased SSD is relatively uncommon in beetles, with only 9% of reported species exhibiting this pattern, compared to 72% with females larger (Stillwell et al., 2010). Among tiger beetles, male-biased sexual size dimorphism was only observed in species belonging to the Manticorini tribe (Mareš, 2002). The larger size of males in Therates may be a derived trait resulting from an increase in the intensity of sexual selection on male body size. It is widely documented that larger males have a competitive advantage in intrasexual competition, where they engaged in competitive behavior with other males to gain access to females (Thornhill & Alcock, 1983; Andersson, 1994; Emlen, 1997; Fincke, Waage & Koenig, 1997; Benítez et al., 2013). In such situations, larger size provided males with increased strength and fighting ability to outcompete smaller rivals and secure mating opportunities (Andersson, 1994; Emlen, 1997; Blanckenhorn, 2005; Stillwell et al., 2010). Mate-guarding behavior, observed in various tiger beetle species, involves males staying attached to females after mating (Pearson & Vogler, 2001). This behavior prevents other males from mating with the female, increasing the male’s chances of fertilizing her eggs. As mating occurs in the vicinity where females deposit their eggs, and females typically remain in this area for an extended period, there is an increasing potential for male-male competition (Alcock, 1994; Tigreros & Kattan, 2008). In previous study of the mating behavior of tropical Cicindela s.l. species, Shivashankar & Pearson (1994) reported prolonged copulations, where males tend to remain mounted on females for extended durations in the presence of competitors. Additionally, they observed a higher proportion of males compared to females in the mating area, suggesting a potential male-male competition for access to females. Our present study also found a higher proportion of males, consistent with the earlier findings, which provides additional support for the possible existence of male-male competition during mating encounters in this taxonomic group. Moreover, female mate choice may influence male tiger beetles body size, as larger males are often preferred by females in various insect groups (e.g. Emlen, 1997), indicating good health, genetic quality, or superior fitness. This provides an indirect benefit for females’ offspring, such as enhanced survival or improved genetic traits (Darwin, 1871; Neff & Pitcher, 2005; Fedina & Lewis, 2007). Tiger beetles exhibit pre-mating struggles, and females may assess males’ abilities during these encounters, suggesting a potential mate choice mechanism (Pearson, 1988; Tigreros & Kattan, 2008).

While our study identified clear sexual size dimorphism in two Therates species, T. fulvipennis bidentatus and T. coracinus coracinus, where males were larger than females, we also found that in three studied subspecies of T. fasciatus, males were approximately the same size as females. This may suggest potential variations in factors like mating behaviour, ecological pressures, or selective pressures on male body size among studied taxa. While our understanding of the life history, ecology, and particularly the behavior of Therates species is limited, it is plausible that some males employ different strategies during courtship. Alternative mating strategies, observed in other tiger beetle genera like Pseudoxycheila (Tigreros & Kattan, 2008), might similarly contribute to phenotypic variation in semi-arboreal Therates. Mating with females ready to oviposit could be advantageous for smaller males if last-male sperm precedence occurs, enabling them to exploit these opportunities and contribute to the observed phenotypic variation in male body size (Thornhill & Alcock, 1983; Alcock, 1994; Shivashankar & Pearson, 1994).

Although the evolution in male body size variance in tiger beetles is poorly known, in some other beetle groups the evolution of sexual size dimorphism is mainly influenced by changes in males. The higher evolutionary variance in male body size may be due to a lack of constraints associated with egg development and reproduction in females. This absence of constraints could drive the evolution of male body size, leading to minimized males in some species (e.g. Rudoy & Ribera, 2017). Moreover, the occurrence of similar-sized males and females may be driven by ecological factors such as specialized feeding behaviors or foraging strategies, potentially as a mechanism to avoid intraspecific resource competition. However, evidence supporting sexual size dimorphism primarily originating from ecological divergence is limited across different groups (e.g. Slatkin, 1984; Shine, 1989; Fairbairn, 1997; Mysterud, 2000; Vincent & Herrel, 2007). Furthermore, underlying ecological factors may also influence sexual size dimorphism in tiger beetles. Prey availability during the larval stages is a critical determinant of adult body size in insects, including tiger beetles (Pearson & Knisley, 1985). Larval competition for prey could result in smaller adult body sizes, particularly when food resources are limited (Stillwell et al., 2010).

Consistent with previous research on tiger beetles (Pearson & Vogler, 2001; Franzen & Heinz, 2005; Jaskuła, 2005; Jaskuła, Płóciennik & Schwerk, 2019; Espinoza-Donoso et al., 2020; Jaskuła, Schwerk & Płóciennik, 2021) and other insects (e.g. Thornhill & Alcock, 1983; Fairbairn, 1997; Stillwell et al., 2010), our study found a prominent sexual dimorphism in elytral width, with females consistently exhibiting broader elytra than males across all six studied taxa. This disparity in elytra is likely related to the greater parental investment by females (Thornhill & Alcock, 1983; Pearson & Vogler, 2001), as broader elytra usually mean a wider abdomen shape, providing additional space for developing and carrying a larger number of eggs, potentially enhancing their fecundity. Recent findings of a wider abdomen shape in females of Cicindelidia trifasciata by Espinoza-Donoso et al. (2020) strongly support this hypothesis. This suggested a potential protective role for developing eggs, possibly for better insulation and protection against external threats, such as predators or adverse environmental conditions (Goczał & Beutel, 2023). In addition to the notable sexual dimorphism in elytra width, variations in size and shape of mandibles and labrum between males and females are also important morphological traits due to their potential role in courtship and copulation dynamics (Pearson & Vogler, 2001). Our findings showed that males have longer mandibles than females in three taxa: Therates fulvipennis bidentatus, T. coracinus coracinus, and T. fasciatus quadrimaculatus. These findings confirm those of earlier studies, on European (Matalin, 1999a, 1999b, 2002a, 2002b; Jaskuła, 2005), South American (Espinoza-Donoso et al., 2020), and African taxa (Mareš, 2002; Ball, Acorn & Shpeley, 2011; Jaskuła, Schwerk & Płóciennik, 2021). Larger mandibles in males of these species are likely associated with increased mating success, providing better grip during copulation (Pearson & Vogler, 2001; Jaskuła, 2005). The investigation of mandibular length’s role in structuring tiger beetle communities, particularly through resource partitioning, further emphasizes its significance in this taxon (Pearson & Mury, 1979; Pearson & Vogler, 2001; Satoh et al., 2003; Satoh & Hori, 2004). Additionally, mandible size may also influence prey selection during hunting behavior, as observed in other Cicindelidae species (Gilbert, 1997; Rewicz & Jaskuła, 2018). However, contrary to what has been reported by Kritsky & Simon (1995) and Cassola & Bouyer (2007), labra from four Therates taxa were observed to be longer in males than females, except T. fulvipennis everetti, and T. fasciatus pseudolatreillei. Furthermore, in all the studied taxa, except for T. fulvipennis everetti, females exhibited a shorter and narrower pronotum compared to males. Similar results were observed in Cephalota circumdata cappadocica, where females had shorter pronotum, which, although wider than in males, showed a slightly narrower posterior part (Doğan Sarikaya, Koçak & Sarikaya, 2020). This sexual dimorphism in pronotal morphology can be associated with reproductive functions. During mating in tiger beetles, males engaged in a distinct behaviour, gripping the female’s thorax with their mandibles. This behaviour was facilitated by specific grooves (coupling sulci), located on the rear part of the female’s thorax, providing a secure hold for the male’s mandibles. The species-specific morphology of these grooves affected mandible compatibility, influencing the likelihood of successful mating, as documented in previous studies (Freitag, 1974; Shivashankar & Pearson, 1994).

Conclusions

This study highlights the general patterns of sexual dimorphism observed in semi-arboreal Therates. Our results reveal significant sexual dimorphism in elytra width in all studied taxa. Females consistently exhibit broader elytra than males, potentially enhancing fecundity through increased egg-carrying capacity. Males, particularly in Therates fulvipennis bidentatus and T. coracinus coracinus, exhibit male-biased sexual size dimorphism, indicating potential increased sexual selection pressures. Further research is needed to examine the functional roles of these morphological traits in semi-arboreal and arboreal tiger beetles particularly in relation to mating behavior, mate choice patterns, and the ecological factors influencing morphological variations. In addition, future studies should aim to expand the sample size and incorporate genetic analyses from different geographic regions to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the adaptive significance of sexual dimorphism in semi-arboreal tiger beetles.

Supplemental Information

Supplemental Information 1. Raw measurements, including all morphological traits for the studied Therates taxa.
peerj-12-16956-s001.xlsx (132.8KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.16956/supp-1

Acknowledgments

The first author thanks the following persons for their help in the field: Angel Luz Lisondra, James Lucas, Sam Anthony Acal, Gypsie Claudine Café, Obed Bagona, Rogie Madula, Chrystel Mae Correos, Lito Mancao, Jose Chan, Wilson Cacho, Kem Leovie Ruste and Darell Mecca. We thank Olga Nuñeza for her kind help in organizing the 2019 Philippine expedition and Andrea Desiderato for invaluable statistical guidance. We acknowledge the contribution made by Noville Jay Ebina, Marco Luis Lumontod, Princess Johara Malawani, and Johanna Aseniero for enabling the study of select Therates materials collected under their efforts. Finally, we thank Barry Knisley, Alexandre Palaoro, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments that significantly improved the manuscript.

Funding Statement

This research is supported by the Department of Science and Technology-Science Education Institute (DOST-SEI), Philippines. Dale Ann Acal received financial support from the DOST- Foreign Graduate Program during the collection of materials. The funding for the Article Publication Charge (APC) has been provided by the University of Lodz statutory funds. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Additional Information and Declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Dale Ann Acal conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

Anna Sulikowska-Drozd analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

Radomir Jaskuła conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

Field Study Permissions

The following information was supplied relating to field study approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

Permissions to conduct field collections were obtained from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Biodiversity Management Bureau (DENR-BMB) through a Wildlife Gratuitous Permits (WGP) no. 319, DENR- Region 10, WGP no. R10 2019-81, WGP no. R10 2019-48 (Mt. Kalatungan Range Natural Park), WGP no. R10 2019-89 (Camiguin Island), WGP no. R10 2021-38 (Renewal) (Northern Mindanao) and Wildlife Export Permit (WEP) no. R10-2021-04, WEP no. 2023-01.

Data Availability

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The raw measurements, including all morphological traits for the studied taxa, are available in the Supplemental File.

References

  • Acal et al. (2021).Acal DAP, Wiesner J, Nuñeza OM, Jaskuła R. Tiger beetles (Coleoptera, Cicindelidae) of Northern Mindanao region (Philippines): checklist, distributional maps, and habitats. ZooKeys. 2021;1017(1):37–75. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.1017.34500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Alcock (1994).Alcock J. Postinsemination associations between males and females in insects: the mate-guarding hypothesis. Annual Review of Entomology. 1994;39:1–21. doi: 10.1146/annurev.en.39.010194.000245. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Andersson (1994).Andersson M. Sexual selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • Andriamampianina et al. (2000).Andriamampianina L, Kremen C, Vane-Wright D, Lees D, Razafimahatratra V. Taxic richness patterns and conservation of Madagascar tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) Journal of Insect Conservation. 2000;4(2):109–128. doi: 10.1023/A:1009667712512. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Anichtchenko & Wiesner (2022).Anichtchenko A, Wiesner J. Description of two new Therates Latreille, 1816 species from Philippines (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) Baltic Journal Coleopterology. 2022;22(1):75–80. [Google Scholar]
  • Ball, Acorn & Shpeley (2011).Ball GE, Acorn JH, Shpeley D. Mandibles and labrum–epipharynx of tiger beetles: basic structure and evolution (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Cicindelitae) ZooKeys. 2011;147(2):39–83. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.147.2052. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Bauld et al. (2022).Bauld JT, Abernethy KA, Newton J, Lehmann D, Jones IL, Bussière LF. Can diet niche partitioning enhance sexual dimorphism? Ecology and Evolution. 2022;12(12):9599. doi: 10.1002/ece3.9599. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Baur et al. (2020).Baur J, Roy J, Schäfer MA, Puniamoorthy N, Blanckenhorn WU, Rohner PT. Intraspecific mating system evolution and its effect on complex male secondary sexual traits: does male-male competition increase selection on size or shape? Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2020;33(3):297–308. doi: 10.1111/jeb.13565. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Benítez et al. (2013).Benítez HA, Avaria-Llautureo J, Canales-Aguirre CB, Jerez V, Parra LE, Hernández CE. Evolution of sexual size dimorphism and its relationship with sex ratio in carabid beetles of genus Ceroglossus Solier. Current Zoology. 2013;59(6):769–777. doi: 10.1093/czoolo/59.6.769. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Blanckenhorn (2000).Blanckenhorn WU. The evolution of body size: what keeps organisms small? The Quarterly Review of Biology. 2000;75(4):385–407. doi: 10.1086/393620. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Blanckenhorn (2005).Blanckenhorn WU. Behavioral causes and consequences of sexual size dimorphism. Ethology. 2005;111(11):977–1016. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2005.01147.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Blanckenhorn, Meier & Teder (2007).Blanckenhorn WU, Meier R, Teder T. Rensch’s rule in insects: patterns among and within species. In: Fairbairn DJ, Blanckenhorn WU, Szekely T, editors. Sex Size And Gender Roles: Evolutionary Studies of Sexual Size Dimorphism. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. pp. 60–70. [Google Scholar]
  • Carroll & Pearson (1998a).Carroll SS, Pearson DL. Spatial modelling of butterfly species richness using tiger beetles (Cicindelidae) as bioindicator taxon. Ecological Applications. 1998a;8:531–543. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(1998)008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Carroll & Pearson (1998b).Carroll SS, Pearson DL. The effect of scale and sample size on the accuracy of spatial predictions of tiger beetle (Cicindelidae) species richness. Ecography. 1998b;21(4):401–414. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.1998.tb00405.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Cassola & Bouyer (2007).Cassola F, Bouyer T. Revision of the African tiger beetle genus Neochila Basilewsky, 1953 (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) Tijdschrift Voor Entomologie. 2007;150:401–420. doi: 10.1163/22119. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Cassola & Pearson (2000).Cassola F, Pearson DL. Global patterns of tiger beetle species richness (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae): their use in conservation planning. Biological Conservation. 2000;95:197–208. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Cooper, Brown & Getty (2015).Cooper IA, Brown JM, Getty T. A role for ecology in the evolution of colour variation and sexual dimorphism in Hawaiian damselflies. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2015;29(2):418–427. doi: 10.1111/jeb.12796. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Dangalle, Pallewatta & Vogler (2014).Dangalle CD, Pallewatta N, Vogler AP. Distribution and habitat preferences of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) of the riverine ecosystems of Sri Lanka. Journal of Threatened Taxa. 2014;6(9):6195–6203. doi: 10.11609/jott.o3674.6195-203. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Darwin (1871).Darwin C. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray; 1871. [Google Scholar]
  • Doğan Sarikaya, Koçak & Sarikaya (2020).Doğan Sarikaya A, Koçak Y, Sarikaya Ö. Sexual dimorphism in the Anatolian endemic tiger beetle, Cephalota circumdata ssp. cappadocica Franzen, 1996 (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Cicindelinae): a study showing the effectiveness of geometric morphometrics. Turkish Journal of Enromology. 2020;44(3):425–436. doi: 10.16970/entoted.680696. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Duran & Gough (2020).Duran DP, Gough HM. Validation of tiger beetles as distinct family (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae), review and reclassification of tribal relationships. Systematic Entomology. 2020;45(4):723–729. doi: 10.1111/syen.12440. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Emlen (1997).Emlen DJ. Alternative reproductive tactics and male-dimorphism in the horned beetle Onthophagus acuminatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 1997;41:335–341. doi: 10.1007/s002650050393. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Espinoza-Donoso et al. (2020).Espinoza-Donoso S, Angulo-Bedoya M, Lemic D, Benítez HA. Assessing the influence of allometry on sexual and non-sexual traits: an example in Cicindelidia trifasciata (Coleoptera: Cicindelinae) using geometric morphometrics. Zoologischer Anzeiger. 2020;287(143):61–66. doi: 10.1016/j.jcz.2020.05.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Fairbairn (1997).Fairbairn DJ. Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 1997;28(1):659–687. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.659. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Fairbairn & Preziosi (1994).Fairbairn DJ, Preziosi RF. Sexual selection and the evolution of allometry for sexual size dimorphism in the water strider, Aquarius remigis. The American Naturalist. 1994;144(1):101–118. doi: 10.1086/285663. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Fedina & Lewis (2007).Fedina TY, Lewis SM. Female mate choice across mating stages and between sequential mates in flour beetles. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2007;20(6):2138–2143. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01432.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Fincke, Waage & Koenig (1997).Fincke OM, Waage JK, Koenig WD. Natural and sexual selection components of odonate mating patterns. In: Choe JC, Crespi BJ, editors. The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997. pp. 58–74. [Google Scholar]
  • Franzen & Heinz (2005).Franzen M, Heinz W. Morphology, genitalia, and natural history notes on the enigmatic tiger beetle, Mantica horni Kolbe, 1896 (Coleoptera, Cicindelidae) Bonner Zoologische Beitrage. 2005;53:297–301. [Google Scholar]
  • Freitag (1974).Freitag R. Selection for a non-genitalic mating structure in female tiger beetles of the genus Cicindela (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) The Canadian Entomolologist. 1974;10(6):561–568. doi: 10.4039/Ent106561-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Gilbert (1997).Gilbert C. Visual control of cursorial prey pursuit by tiger beetles (Cicindelidae) Journal of Comparative Physiology A. 1997;181(3):217–230. doi: 10.1007/s003590050108. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Giles et al. (2019).Giles J, Macandog PB, Sova C, Digal L, Balgos C, Loquias M, Orbeta ML, Astronomo IJT, Palao LK, Balanza JG, Hildebrand J, Grosjean G. Climate-Resilient Agriculture in The Philippines: Climate Risk Profile, Mindanao. Manila: International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT); Department of Agriculture-Adaptation and Mitigation Initiative in Agriculture, Government of the Philippines; The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2019. https://alliancebioversityciat.org/publications-data/climate-resilient-agriculture-philippines-climate-risk-profile-mindanao p. 32.https://alliancebioversityciat.org/publications-data/climate-resilient-agriculture-philippines-climate-risk-profile-mindanao
  • Goczał & Beutel (2023).Goczał J, Beutel RG. Beetle elytra: evolution, modifications and biological functions. Biology Letters. 2023;19(3):20220559. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2022.0559. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Henshaw, Fromhage & Jones (2019).Henshaw JM, Fromhage L, Jones AG. Sex roles and the evolution of parental care specialization. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2019;286(1909):20191312. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2019.1312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Jaskuła (2005).Jaskuła R. Mandible sexual dimorphism in Cicindela hybrida hybrida (Cicindelidae) In: Skłodowski J, Huruk S, Barševskis A, Tarasiuk S, editors. Protection of Coleoptera in the Baltic Sea Region. Warsaw: Warsaw Agricultural University Press; 2005. pp. 233–239. [Google Scholar]
  • Jaskuła (2011).Jaskuła R. How unique is the tiger beetle fauna (Coleoptera Cicindelidae) of the Balkan Peninsula? ZooKeys. 2011;100(1):487–502. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.100.1542. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Jaskuła (2015).Jaskuła R. The Maghreb–one more important biodiversity hot spot for tiger beetle fauna in the Mediterranean region. ZooKeys. 2015;482(4):35–53. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.482.8831. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Jaskuła, Płóciennik & Schwerk (2019).Jaskuła R, Płóciennik M, Schwerk A. From climate zone to microhabitat–environmental factors affecting the coastal distribution of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) in the south-eastern European biodiversity hotspot. PeerJ. 2019;7(4):e6676. doi: 10.7717/peerj.6676. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Jaskuła et al. (2016).Jaskuła R, Rewicz T, Płóciennik M, Grabowski M. Pleistocene phylogeography and cryptic diversity of a tiger beetle, Calomera littoralis, in North-Eastern Mediterranean and Pontic regions inferred from mitochondrial COI gene sequences. PeerJ. 2016;4:e2128. doi: 10.7717/peerj.2128s. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Jaskuła, Schwerk & Płóciennik (2021).Jaskuła R, Schwerk A, Płóciennik M. Morphological variability in Lophyra flexuosa (Fabricius, 1787) (Coleoptera, Cicindelidae) in desert countries is affected by sexual dimorphism and geographic aspect. Ecology and Evolution. 2021;11(23):17527–17536. doi: 10.1002/ece3.8387. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Jones & Conner (2018).Jones TK, Conner WE. Pre-mating reproductive isolation in tiger beetles (Carabidae: Cicindelinae): An examination of the role of visual and morphological feedback. Journal of Insect Behavior. 2018;31(6):672–688. doi: 10.1007/s1090. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Kitching (1996).Kitching IJ. Identifying complementary areas for conservation in Thailand: an example using owls, hawkmoths and tiger beetles. Biodiversity Conservation. 1996;5(7):841–858. doi: 10.1007/BF00054738. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Knisley & Hill (1992).Knisley CB, Hill JM. Effects of habitat change from ecological succession and human impact on tiger beetles. Virginia Journal of Science. 1992;43(1B):134–142. [Google Scholar]
  • Kritsky & Simon (1995).Kritsky G, Simon S. Mandibular sexual dimorphism in Cicindela (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) The Coleopterists Bulletin. 1995;49:143–148. [Google Scholar]
  • Lin & Wiesner (2022).Lin TJ, Wiesner J. Notes on Therates alboobliquatus (Horn, 1909) (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) from Taiwan and description of two new subspecies. Journal of Tropical Coleopterology. 2022;3(1):55–73. doi: 10.53716/jtc.3.1.8.2022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • López-López & Vogler (2017).López-López A, Vogler AP. The mitogenome phylogeny of Adephaga (Coleoptera) Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2017;114(Suppl 1):166–174. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2017.06.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Mareš (2002).Mareš J. Manticora–A monograph of the genus. Hradec Králové: Taita Publishers; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • Matalin (1999a).Matalin AV. The tiger-beetles of the ‘hybrida’ species-group. II. A taxonomic review of subspecies in Cicindela sahlbergii Fischer von Waldheim, 1824 (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Cicindelinae) In: Zamotailov A, Sciaki R, editors. Advanced in Carabidology: Papers Dedicated to the Memory of Professor Oleg L. Kryzhanovskij. Krasnodar: MUISO Publisher; 1999a. pp. 13–35. [Google Scholar]
  • Matalin (2002a).Matalin AV. The taxonomic status of Cicindela (Cicindela) reitteri Horn, 1897, with some remarks about the subspecies and forms of Cicindela (Cicindela) maritima Dejean, 1822 (Coleoptera: Carabidae, Cicindelinae) Entomologische Zeitschrift. 2002a;112(3):89–94. [Google Scholar]
  • Matalin (1999b).Matalin AV. Taxonomic status and subspecies structure of Cicindela altaica (Coleoptera, Carabidae) Entomological Review. 1999b;79:809–820. [Google Scholar]
  • Matalin (2002b).Matalin AV. The taxonomic status of Cicindela (Cicindela) reitteri Horn, 1897, with some remarks about the subspecies and forms of Cicindela (Cicindela) maritima Dejean, 1822 (Coleoptera: Carabidae, Cicindelinae) – Teil 2. Entomologische Zeitschrift. 2002b;112(4):98–107. [Google Scholar]
  • Matalin & Wiesner (2023).Matalin AV, Wiesner J. Revision of the Therates fruhstorferi complex (Coleoptera, Cicindelidae) Zootaxa. 2023;5256(5):401–433. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.5256.5.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Medina, Donato & Cabras (2022).Medina MND, Donato J, Cabras AA. Therates hubertusi sp. nov. a new species of tiger beetle (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) in Davao City, Philippines. Baltic Journal Coleopterology. 2022;22(1):127–131. [Google Scholar]
  • Mysterud (2000).Mysterud A. The relationship between ecological segregation and sexual body size dimorphism in large herbivores. Oecologia. 2000;124(1):40–54. doi: 10.1007/s004420050023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Neff & Pitcher (2005).Neff BD, Pitcher TE. Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Molecular Ecology. 2005;14(1):19–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02395.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Pearson (1988).Pearson DL. Biology of tiger beetles. Annual Review of Entomology. 1988;33:123–147. doi: 10.1146/annurev.en.33.010188.001011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Pearson & Cassola (1992).Pearson DL, Cassola F. World-wide species richness patterns of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae): indicator taxon for biodiversity and conservation studies. Conservation Biology. 1992;6(3):376–391. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1992.06030376.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Pearson & Cassola (2007).Pearson DL, Cassola F. Are we doomed to repeat history? A model of the past using tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) and conservation biology to anticipate the future. Journal of Insect Conservation. 2007;11(1):47–59. doi: 10.1007/s10841-006-9018-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Pearson & Knisley (1985).Pearson DL, Knisley CB. Evidence for food as a limiting resource in the life cycle of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) Oikos. 1985;45(2):161–168. doi: 10.2307/3565701. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Pearson & Mury (1979).Pearson DL, Mury EJ. Character divergence and convergence among tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) Ecology. 1979;60(3):557–566. doi: 10.2307/1936076. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Pearson & Vogler (2001).Pearson DL, Vogler AP. Tiger beetles: the evolution, ecology and diversity of the cicindelids. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • Pearson & Wiesner (2023).Pearson DL, Wiesner J. The use of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) in adapting hotspot conservation to global, regional, and local scales. Journal of Insect Conservation. 2023;27(1):19–48. doi: 10.1007/s10841-022-00411-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Rewicz & Jaskuła (2018).Rewicz T, Jaskuła R. Catch fast and kill quickly: do tiger beetles use the same strategies when hunting different types of prey? PeerJ. 2018;6(8):e5971. doi: 10.7717/peerj.5971. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • RStudio Team (2024).RStudio Team . RStudio: integrated development for R. Boston: RStudio, Inc; 2024. Version 5.2.4. [Google Scholar]
  • Rudoy & Ribera (2017).Rudoy A, Ribera I. Evolution of sexual dimorphism and Rensch’s rule in the beetle genus Limnebius (Hydraenidae): is sexual selection opportunistic? PeerJ. 2017;5(3):e3060. doi: 10.7717/peerj.3060. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Satoh & Hori (2004).Satoh A, Hori M. Interpopulation differences in the mandible size of the coastal tiger beetle Lophyridia angulata associated with different sympatric species. Entomological Science. 2004;7(3):211–217. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-8298.2004.00065.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Satoh et al. (2003).Satoh A, Ueda T, Enokido Y, Hori M. Patterns of species assemblages and geographical distributions associated with mandible size differences in coastal tiger beetles in Japan. Population Ecology. 2003;45:67–74. doi: 10.1007/s1014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Schultz (1989).Schultz TD. Habitat preferences and seasonal abundances of eight sympatric species of tiger beetle, genus Cicindela (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae), in Bastrop State Park. Texas Southwestern Naturalist. 1989;34(4):468–477. doi: 10.2307/3671504. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Shine (1989).Shine R. Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual dimorphism: a review of the evidence. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 1989;64(4):419–461. doi: 10.1086/416458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Shivashankar & Pearson (1994).Shivashankar T, Pearson DL. A comparison of mate guarding among five syntopic tiger beetle species from Peninsular India (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) Biotropica. 1994;26(4):436–442. doi: 10.2307/2389238. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Simmons & García-González (2008).Simmons LW, García-González F. Evolutionary reduction in testes size and competitive fertilization success in response to the experimental removal of sexual selection in dung beetles. Evolution. 2008;62(10):2580–2591. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00479.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Slatkin (1984).Slatkin M. Ecological causes of sexual dimorphism. Evolution. 1984;38(3):622–630. doi: 10.2307/2408711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Stillwell et al. (2010).Stillwell RC, Blanckenhorn WU, Teder T, Davidowitz G, Fox CW. Sex differences in phenotypic plasticity affect variation in sexual size dimorphism in insects: from physiology to evolution. Annual Review of Entomology. 2010;55(1):227–245. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-112408-085500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Stork (1980).Stork NE. A scanning electron microscope study of tarsal adhesive setae in the Coleoptera. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 1980;68:173–306. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.1980.tb01121.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Thornhill & Alcock (1983).Thornhill R, Alcock J. The Evolution of insect mating systems. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1983. [Google Scholar]
  • Tigreros & Kattan (2008).Tigreros N, Kattan GH. Mating behavior in two sympatric species of Andean tiger beetles (Cicindelidae) Boletín del Museo de Entomología de la Universidad del Valle. 2008;9(1):22–28. [Google Scholar]
  • Vincent & Herrel (2007).Vincent SE, Herrel A. Functional and ecological correlates of ecologically-based dimorphisms in squamate reptiles. Integrative and Comparative Biology. 2007;47(2):172–188. doi: 10.1093/icb/icm019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Wickham (2016).Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • Wickham et al. (2020).Wickham H, François R, Henry L, Müller K. Dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. 2020. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr R Package Version 0.8.4.
  • Wiesner (1988).Wiesner J. Die Gattung Therates Latr. und ihre Arten, 15. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Cicindelidae (Coleoptera) Mitteilungen der Münchner Entomologischen Gesellschaft. 1988;78:5–107. [Google Scholar]
  • Wiesner (2020).Wiesner J. Checklist of the tiger beetles of the world. Second Edition. Borsdorf: Winterwork; 2020. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Information 1. Raw measurements, including all morphological traits for the studied Therates taxa.
peerj-12-16956-s001.xlsx (132.8KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.16956/supp-1

Data Availability Statement

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The raw measurements, including all morphological traits for the studied taxa, are available in the Supplemental File.


Articles from PeerJ are provided here courtesy of PeerJ, Inc

RESOURCES