Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Ecology and Evolution logoLink to Ecology and Evolution
. 2021 Nov 24;11(23):17527–17536. doi: 10.1002/ece3.8387

Morphological variability in Lophyra flexuosa (Fabricius, 1787) (Coleoptera, Cicindelidae) in desert countries is affected by sexual dimorphism and geographic aspect

Radomir Jaskuła 1,✉, Axel Schwerk 2, Mateusz Płóciennik 1
PMCID: PMC8668792  PMID: 34938527

Abstract

Lophyra flexuosa, a eurytopic tiger beetle characterized by long phenological activity, wide geographic and altitudinal distribution, and occurring in the highest number of habitats among all Cicindelidae known from North Africa, was chosen to study its geographic variation in morphology and sexual dimorphism. Here, we found significant sexual dimorphism exhibited in larger body size of females and longer mandibles in males, which can be explained by different roles of particular sexes in courtship. Moreover, we recorded significant differences in body sizes between western and eastern Maghreb populations which could suggest genetic isolation between these populations. As the species is related to habitats placed close to the water reservoirs, which in the desert countries are under significant human pressure (including climate change), we expect a reduction of habitat occupied by this taxon. Therefore, the geographic morphological variability that we observe today in the tiger beetle Lophyra flexuosa in the future could lead to speciation.

Keywords: geographic variation in morphology, Maghreb region, Morocco, tiger beetles, Tunisia

Our study is focused on Lophyra flexuosa, a tiger beetle species known as one of the most opportunistic species occurring in the southern part of the Mediterranean Region, which clearly suggests its high plasticity (including body parameters) according to climatic and habitat factors. In result, we evidence that populations of L. flexuosa from the western and eastern regions of Maghreb differ significantly what can confirm high plasticity of the species and/or can suggest genetic isolation between studied populations. Moreover, we note significant sexual dimorphism in this species and explain the size of particular sexes by their roles during courtship, the study is also one of the first attempts to statistically examine morphological variation in this beetle family in general.

graphic file with name ECE3-11-17527-g001.jpg

1. INTRODUCTION

Sexual dimorphism is a common phenomenon in insects, and it may be expressed in coloration (Thornhill & Alcock, 1983), defensive secretion (Attygale et al., 1991), or morphological features as dorsal punctures (Schwerk & Jaskuła, 2018), and/or body size and body shape (Thornhill & Alcock, 1983). Sexual selection is the main factor shaping differences in the body size and body shape between males and females in insects, even if such differences depend also on food availability during larval stages (Thornhill & Alcock, 1983). On the other hand, body size can differ geographically between particular populations of one animal species, both with latitude and altitude (e.g., Bergmann, 1847; Blanckenhorn et al., 2006; Partridge & Coyne, 1997; Stillwell et al., 2007) and/or as a result of separation by some geographic barriers (e.g., Stillwell & Fox, 2009; Wieczorek et al., 2017).

In the case of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae), a family of predatory insects (Duran & Gough, 2020; López‐López & Vogler, 2017) with more than 2800 species distributed worldwide except polar regions and some oceanic islands (Cassola & Pearson, 2000; Wiesner, 2020), little is known about morphometric variability within particular species, except some data concerning sexual dimorphism. Generally, it is known that females are larger and wider than males (Espinoza‐Donoso et al., 2020; Jaskuła, 2005; Pearson & Vogler, 2001); in some genera different size and shape of labrum and mandibles between sexes was found too (Cassola & Bouyer, 2007; Jones & Conner, 2018; Kritsky & Simon, 1995). Doğan Sarikaya et al. (2020) noted differences in shape and size of head and pronotum between males and females of tiger beetles. Rarely, sexual differences can be observed also in the coloration of the body (Kippenhan, 1997; Pearson & Vogler, 2001) or only some parts of body are differently colored, for example, prothoracic tarsal pads (Palmer, 1981) or mandibles (Cassola & Bouyer, 2007; Pearson, 1988), which in the case of males are usually white, while in females they are darkly colored. Moreover, like all other Adephaga beetles, males of almost all tiger beetle species have ventral surfaces of the three to four tarsal segments of the first pair of legs, thickly covered with pads of setae, which is an adaptation to grasp and hold females during copulation (Stork, 1980)

The tiger beetle, Lophyra flexuosa (Fabricius, 1787), is widely distributed in western Palearctic, occurring from the Iberian Peninsula and Morocco in the west to Middle Asia in the east, with most of the localities known from the south Mediterranean region (Assmann et al., 2018; Jaskuła, 2015; Jaskuła & Rewicz, 2015; Jaskuła et al., 2015; Lisa, 2002; Matalin & Chikatunov, 2016; Putchkov & Matalin, 2003; Serrano, 2013; Wiesner, 2020). In Maghreb, the species is widespread and recognized as euryoecious, inhabiting the highest number of habitats among all known Cicindelidae species recorded from this area (Jaskuła, 2015; Jaskuła & Płóciennik, 2020). Moreover, it can be characterized both as species with the widest altitudinal distribution and the longest phenological activity among all tiger beetles known from this region (Jaskuła & Rewicz, 2015; Jaskuła et al., 2015).

Based on the wide distribution of Lophyra flexuosa and its large habitat spectrum, we hypothesized that the species should possibly show morphological variability observed not only in the sexual dimorphism in body size (which is regularly observed in tiger beetles) but also in the geographic variability (particular populations are often divided by geographic barriers, especially in mountain massifs and desert areas), which is commonly found in taxa characterized by large geographic ranges. Therefore, the aim of the following research was to test the following hypotheses:

  1. Sexual dimorphism in Lophyra flexuosa is present in bigger body size of females and is observed in (most) morphological parameters. When standardizing the morphological parameters on total body length, some of the morphological parameters (e.g., mandibles because of their function in males during courtship) show higher values (i.e., are relatively bigger) in males than in females.

  2. The average body size (values of the morphological parameters) of the individuals differs between the study sites located in different geographic regions and bioclimatic ecozones.

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS

2.1. Field sampling

Adult tiger beetles were collected by entomological hand nets during two TB‐Quest Expeditions organized to Morocco (March 2009) and Tunisia (March–April 2010). In total, 52 samples were collected including 20 in Morocco and 32 in Tunisia (Table 1). At each site the material was fixed in 96% ethanol for further morphological studies in the laboratory.

TABLE 1.

Sampling localities for Lophyra flexuosa in Morocco and Tunisia

Sample code Country GPS co‐ordinate Date Sample code Country GPS co‐ordinate Date
MO‐01 Morocco N35.46514 W5.41840 06.04.2009 TN‐11 Tunisia N32.98260 E9.63695 21.03.2010
MO‐02 Morocco N35.24829 W5.33286 06.04.2009 TN‐13 Tunisia N33.71373 E8.92086 22.03.2010
MO‐03 Morocco N35.20274 W4.68136 22.04.2009 TN‐14 Tunisia N33.91540 E8.13387 23.03.2010
MO‐05 Morocco N35.11776 W4.17240 07.04.2009 TN‐15 Tunisia N33.87572 E7.88200 23.03.2010
MO‐08 Morocco N35.11579 W2.72510 08.04.2009 TN‐17 Tunisia N34.37707 E7.91309 24.03.2010
MO‐10 Morocco N35.10631 W2.36095 08.04.2009 TN‐18 Tunisia N34.38284 E7.93288 24.03.2010
MO‐11 Morocco N34.54452 W3.02568 09.04.2009 TN‐19 Tunisia N34.39650 E8.83120 25.03.2010
MO‐13 Morocco N34.24173 W3.31964 09.04.2009 TN‐20 Tunisia N35.24704 E8.75249 26.03.2010
MO‐14 Morocco N33.09332 W3.96598 10.04.2009 TN‐21 Tunisia N35.20064 E8.87771 26.03.2010
MO‐16 Morocco N32.87912 W4.23980 10.04.2009 TN‐22 Tunisia N34.65176 E9.59818 26.03.2010
MO‐18 Morocco N32.46998 W4.49573 11.04.2009 TN‐24 Tunisia N34.4419 E10.27603 27.03.2010
MO‐19 Morocco N31.67369 W4.19086 12.04.2009 TN‐29A Tunisia N35.67969 E10.1646 29.03.2010
MO‐21 Morocco N31.13540 W6.34711 14.04.2009 TN‐30 Tunisia N36.00233 E10.0399 30.03.2010
MO‐22 Morocco N30.97698 W6.78775 14.04.2009 TN‐31 Tunisia N36.02690 E9.42404 31.03.2010
MO‐23 Morocco N30.91518 W6.90489 14.04.2009 TN‐32 Tunisia N36.04641 E9.30721 31.03.2010
MO‐25 Morocco N39.80286 W9.83609 14.04.2009 TN‐33B Tunisia N35.87081 E9.21404 31.03.2010
MO‐27 Morocco N30.36317 W9.58335 20.04.2009 TN‐34A Tunisia N35.68057 E8.93391 31.03.2010
MO‐28 Morocco N31.08910 W9.66635 21.04.2009 TN‐35 Tunisia N35.80937 E8.56637 01.04.2010
MO‐29 Morocco N31.98276 W9.32667 21.04.2009 TN‐36 Tunisia N36.11506 E8.50126 01.04.2010
MO‐31 Morocco N32.93012 W8.79314 21.04.2009 TN‐37 Tunisia N36.11627 E8.64001 01.04.2010
TN‐02 Tunisia N34.10833 E9.98197 18.03.2010 TN‐38 Tunisia N36.21573 E8.62200 01.04.2010
TN‐03 Tunisia N33.94027 E10.02673 18.03.2010 TN‐39 Tunisia N36.41175 E8.55772 01.04.2010
TN‐05 Tunisia N33.82404 E10.13745 18.03.2010 TN‐40 Tunisia N36.40776 E8.75538 02.04.2010
TN‐06 Tunisia N33.74928 E10.20916 18.03.2010 TN‐41 Tunisia N36.64191 E8.70025 02.04.2010
TN‐07 Tunisia N33.88635 E10.94381 19.03.2010 TN‐42A Tunisia N36.85951 E8.72154 02.04.2010
TN‐09 Tunisia N33.72425 E10.95342 19.03.2010 TN‐44A Tunisia N36.64673 E9.60512 04.04.2010
Open in a new tab

2.2. Statistical analysis

To test the variation of morphometric traits, measurements of eight body parameters (Figure 1) were taken from all males and females used: right mandible length (RML); length of head (LH); width of head (WH); length of pronotum (LP); width of pronotum (WP); length of elytra (LE); maximum elytra width (MEW); and total body length (TBL). In total, 383 males (including 86 specimens from Morocco and 297 from Tunisia) and 352 females (including 75 individuals from Morocco and 222 from Tunisia) were measured.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Body parameters measured in Lophyra flexuosa. 1—right mandible length (RML); 2—length of head (LH); 3—width of head (WH); 4—length of pronotum (LP); 5—pronotum width (WP); 6—length of elytra (LE); 7—maximum elytra width (MEW); 8—total body length (TBL)

In order to study sexual dimorphism, we first compared the measured values of the studied body parameters between males and females separately for each country. Next, right mandible length, length of head, width of head, pronotum length, maximum pronotum width, elytra length, and maximum elytra width were standardized on total body length by dividing the measured values by the total body length for each individual. These standardized values were also compared between males and females for both countries separately. In many cases Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests rejected normal distribution of the data. Therefore, the measured and standardized values were tested for statistically significant differences by applying non‐parametric Mann–Whitney U tests using TIBCO Statistica v. 13.3.

Non‐metric MultiDimensional Scaling (NMDS) was conducted to recognize variation in the morphology of North African Lophyra flexuosa populations. The analysis was conducted separately for males and females using Euclidean Distance similarity on normalized morphometric data. NMDS is a multi‐variate ordination technique that reflects a similarity between samples arranging them in multiple variables simplified to a two‐dimensional or three‐dimensional space. Additionally, SIMilarity PERcentage (SIMPER) analysis was conducted with normalized morphometric data and Euclidean Distance to recognize main body metrics that respond to the differentiation of Tunisian and Moroccan populations. Analysis Of SIMilarities (ANOSIM) with normalized morphometric data and Euclidean Distance was conducted to test the significance of differences between males and females from Moroccan and Tunisian populations separately. The NMDS, SIMPER, and ANOSIM were calculated with PRIMER 6 software (Clarke & Gorley, 2001).

To check if there is any relation between L. flexuosa body size and altitude, Spearman correlation was done.

3. RESULTS

Comparison of the measured values of the body parameters of the individuals collected in Morocco (Figure 2a) revealed significantly higher median values of right mandible length (RML) in males. With the exception of length of head (LH), all other body parameters showed significantly higher median values in females. However, with respect to the measured values of individuals collected in Tunisia for all body parameters the median values were significantly higher in females (Figure 2b). When standardizing the body parameters on total body length the Moroccan individuals showed significantly higher median values in males for RML, LH, and length of pronotum (LP) (Figure 2c). With the exception of width of head (WH), all other body parameters had significantly higher median values in females. The standardized values for individuals from Tunisia revealed significantly higher median values in males for LH and LP (Figure 2d). RML had also higher median values in males, but the result was not significant. All other body parameters showed significantly higher median values in females.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Box‐whisker plots for the measured values of selected body parameters for male and female individuals of Lophyra flexuosa in Morocco (a) and Tunisia (b) and for selected body parameters standardized on total body length (Size/TBL) for male and female individuals of L. flexuosa in Morocco (c) and Tunisia (d). The boxes represent the interquartile distances with median values drawn in. Whiskers indicate range of data with exception of outliers (distance from the edge of the box between 1.5 and 3 times of the box length, shown as circles) and extreme values (distance from the edge of the box more than three times the box length, shown as asterisks). Blue—males, red—females. Abbreviations of body parameters as in Figure 1 (Mann–Whitney U tests: significant p‐values are printed bold)

NMDS analysis (Figure 3) clearly separated the western and eastern Maghreb populations (from Morocco and from Tunisia respectively) for males and females. In both sexes, morphology is more unified in Tunisian populations (more in males then females) and more variable in Moroccan populations. Lophyra flexuosa's morphological variability did not reveal any clear pattern according to environmental factors like macrohabitats (Figure 3) and climate zonation (not illustrated). On the other hand, weak negative correlation between total body length (TBL) and altitude was observed for both sexes when the material from both countries was analyzed (Figure 5a,b; rsmale=‐0.2470, rsfemale=‐0.2110) as well as only for the Moroccan population (in case of Tunisian beetles almost constant values were noted) (Figure 5c,d). The SIMPER analysis (Appendix S1) indicated that width of head (WH), right mandible length (RML), length of elytra (LE), and width of pronotum (WP) contributed the most for the Moroccan male population's distinctness, whereas width of pronotum (WP), length of elytra (LE), and maximum elytra length (MWE) contributed the most for the Tunisian male population's distinctness. The length of head (LH), total body length (TBL), and length of pronotum (LP) contributed the most to the Euclidean distance between the Moroccan and Tunisian male populations. In female populations, RML, WH, and LH contributed the most for the Moroccan population's distinctness, whereas WP, LE, and MWE contributed the most for the Tunisian population's distinctness. LH, LP, and TBL contributed the most to the Euclidean distance between the Moroccan and Tunisian male populations.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Results of NMDS analysis. a—males, b—females. Each symbol remarks singular specimen and its position depends on morphometric variables. The investigated male and female populations are divided according to countries and macrohabitats: TN, Tunisia; MO, Morocco; R, river banks; S, saltmarshes; O, oases

FIGURE 5.

FIGURE 5

Open in a new tab

Plot of body size and altitude in the population of Lophyra flexuosa from Maghreb: all males versus altitude (a), all females versus altitude (b), separately males from Tunisia (orange dots) and Morocco (blue dots) versus altitude (c), separately females from Tunisia (orange dots) and Morocco (blue dots) versus altitude (d)

The ANOSIM analysis conducted with 999 permutations for males as well females indicated that male populations from Morocco and Tunisia were significantly different (p = .000) and clearly distinct (R = 0.753) (Figure 4). The female populations from Morocco and Tunisia were also significantly different (p = .000), but the difference was less distinct than for males (R = 0.577). The number of permuted statistics greater than or equal to Global R was 0 both for males and females.

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

Results of ANOSIM analysis for the studied populations of Lophyra flexuosa from Tunisia and Morocco with distribution of R statistics

Both males and females were characterized by negative correlation between total body length and altitude when populations from Morocco as well as from the entire Maghreb region were analyzed. In contrast, the Tunisian population of L. flexuosa was characterized by constant (females) or almost constant values (males) (Figure 5).

4. DISCUSSION

As suggested by Losos and Miles (1994), morphology is determined by both genotype and phenotype, so it can provide insights into the phylogeny and ecology of a studied taxon and the selective pressures driving its evolution. Prior to our study, interspecific and intersexual body shape variations were observed only in a single tiger beetle species but not yet quantified for any Lophyra species nor for any North African Cicindelidae. Moreover, this study is the first attempt to statistically examine morphological variation in North African desert tiger beetles and one of the only few in this beetle family in general (e.g., Doğan Sarikaya et al., 2020; Espinoza‐Donoso et al., 2020; Franzen, 2007; Jaskuła, 2005; Pearson & Vogler, 2001).

In the studied populations of Lophyra flexuosa from the Maghreb region, females are bigger and wider than males (Figure 2), both in the case of the entire population and in each investigated country. This clearly suggests that such sexual dimorphism is characteristic for the entire species and does not depend on geographic region. Our findings confirm earlier studies on other Cicindelidae species (e.g., Jaskuła, 2005; Pearson & Vogler, 2001), with the exception of species classified in the Manticorini tribe in which males are characterized by bigger body size (Mareš, 2002). Although in tiger beetles differences in body size are also dependent on food availability during the larval stages (Pearson & Knisley, 1985), generally it is known as strongly connected with sex of the beetle and known as sexual dimorphism (Pearson & Vogler, 2001). The bigger body size found in females is usually explained by the role of this sex in mating behavior. As it was found in many different taxonomical insect groups, females invest much more energy in reproduction process than males, as a result a bigger size is much more beneficial for this sex (Thornhill & Alcock, 1983). First, females have to produce eggs, which need to be supplied in substances used in larval development, and second, they also need to find a good place to deposit them. These are among the most crucial conditions in females' post‐copulatory reproductive behavior as they determine developmental success of their embryos and as a consequence have significant impact on overall reproductive success. In contrast, males usually invest only their sperm, as a result their energetic costs during courtship are much smaller. All these elements of mating behavior can be easily found in tiger beetle species (Pearson & Vogler, 2001).

The bigger body size of females is often explained also by male choice during courtship. Although we know only a little about such behavior in Cicindelidae (even if some general casual observations are known for many species), including no detailed data about the mating behavior of the African population of Lophyra flexuosa, results of studies on many other insect groups clearly show that bigger females are preferred by males (e.g., Crespi, 1989; Gwynne, 1981; Harari et al., 1999; Johnson, 1992; Sota et al., 2000; Thornhill & Alcock, 1983). Such males' strategy can be easily explained if we note that bigger females can potentially produce and lay a higher number of eggs and/or they can supply the eggs in much more substances for better development of embryos. As a consequence, a male which will copulate with such kind of females may potentially increase his reproductive success (Thornhill & Alcock, 1983).

Although we noted that most of the measured body parameters had higher values in females, we also found that values of some parameters were higher in males of Lophyra flexuosa, especially when standardized on total body length (Figure 2), namely length of pronotum, length of head, and right mandible length. On the other hand, differences in shape, size, and even in colors of mouthparts in tiger beetles were noted earlier in some other Cicindelidae species as an example of significant sexual dimorphism. For example, Kritsky and Simon (1995) found smaller central teeth of mandibles and shorter labrum in some North American taxa. A shorter labrum was recorded also in case of, for example, the African genus Neochila by Cassola and Bouyer (2007), who noted also different coloration of mandibles and labrum between sexes, as well as in South American Oxycheila (Wiesner, 1999) and Pseudochycheila (Cassola, 1998). Much longer mandibles are characteristic also for males of all known members of the African tribe Manticorini (Mareš, 2002) and were found in a very common central European species Cicindela hybrida (Jaskuła, 2005). All these differences in size and shape of mandibles and labrum between males and females of tiger beetles can be explained by the role of these parts of mouthparts during courtship as smaller teeth of mandibles and shorter labrum allow males to better maintain and grasp the female's thorax during copulation (Pearson & Vogler, 2001). Moreover, as it was suggested in an earlier study (Jaskuła, 2005), longer mandibles and wider distance between their bases means greater length between the end parts of these organs, when mandibles are fully opened, what probably allows catching and grasping bigger females during mating, and as a consequence, help males with longer mandibles to increase their reproductive success. Mandible length has a special meaning, because, as in case of other Cicindelidae species (e.g., Gilbert, 1997; Rewicz & Jaskuła, 2018), also in L. flexuosa, mandibles are used by both sexes to catch and kill prey, as a consequence their size is sometimes mentioned as a very important factor determining types (and size) of prey during hunting behavior (Pearson & Mury, 1979). Different sizes and shapes of mandibles were also noted between tiger beetle species which co‐occur in one type of habitat as a possible way to reduce food competition between such species (e.g., Pearson & Juliano, 1991; Pearson & Mury, 1979; Satoh et al., 2003).

The analysis of body parameters allowed to recognize two morphological groups in Lophyra flexuosa which are separated geographically (Figures 3 and 4). Individuals occurring in eastern Maghreb (Tunisia) were noted as significantly larger in comparison with those from the western region (Morocco). Such a significant difference is rather unexpected as the population from entire North Africa (including both studied countries) is classified as one subspecies—Lophyra flexuosa flexuosa (Putchkov & Matalin, 2003; Wiesner, 2020). Although we had no opportunity to study specimens from Algeria, which is placed in central Maghreb just between Morocco and Tunisia and definitely they would be necessary to provide a full overview for the studied problem, we were able to note that the body size of Lophyra flexuosa shows a negative correlation with altitude, both in the case when the entire population was analyzed and the Moroccan population (Figure 5). Such results can be compared with some other studies as the body size of many animals, including insects, frequently varies also with altitude (e.g., Blanckenhorn et al., 2006; Partridge & Coyne, 1997; Stillwell et al., 2007). Moreover, as it was shown by Stillwell and Fox (2009) variation in body size, growth, and life‐history traits of ectotherms along altitudinal gradients is generally assumed to represent adaptation to local environmental conditions, especially to temperature. However, the degree to which the variation along such clines due to adaptation versus plasticity is still poorly studied and understood. On the other hand, we also found that altitude was not a factor which morphologically separated populations from Tunisia and Morocco. The significant differences observed in body size both in males and females suggest high plasticity of this species and/or a long‐term geographic isolation of both populations. This probably can be explained not only by the large geographic distance between them but also by the large number of natural barriers (especially particular mountain ranges of the Atlas Mts. as well as desert areas) (Blondel et al., 2010; Houérou, 2009). As noted above, an opportunity to study additional material from the area of Algeria probably would help to understand patterns of geographic variability in the population of Lophyra flexuosa in the entire Maghreb region. Especially future molecular analysis could help to understand if the observed morphological differences between Tunisian and Moroccan populations result from their genetic diversity like in the case of Dromochorus tiger beetle species noted by Duran et al. (2019) in North America. Individuals from the western population had relatively longer mandibles than individuals from Tunisia. Future research may also focus on studying what physical or biological factors, associated with body part size differences, change over the range. Trade‐offs between basic functions of mandible length (prey size selection and in case of males—grasping the female during copulation) might be impacted by such factors. On the other hand, our results are the first step to detect and quantify changes in the studied taxon even at the interspecific level. Although additional studies are needed (with molecular analysis and behavioral experiments if possible) earlier studies by, for example, Bookstein (1997), Alibert et al. (2001), Adams et al. (2004), Adams et al. (2013), or Espinoza‐Donoso et al. (2020) clearly suggest than modern morphometrics provide a fast, cheap, and accurate method for visualization of subtle shape changes between organisms and can be very useful for modern taxonomy.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

All authors declare no conflict of interest including any financial, personal, or other relationships with other people or organizations within 3 years from the beginning of the submitted work that could inappropriately influence, or be perceived to influence, their work. All authors declare that species studied in the text is not threatened or protected by law in any of the studied countries. Moreover, material was collected outside of any protected area as a result no special permissions were necessary during field work.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Radomir Jaskuła: Conceptualization (lead); data curation (lead); formal analysis (lead); investigation (lead); methodology (lead); supervision (lead); writing–original draft (lead); writing–review and editing (lead). Axel Schwerk: Formal analysis (equal); writing–original draft (equal); writing–review and editing (equal). Mateusz Płóciennik: Formal analysis (equal); writing–original draft (equal); writing–review and editing (equal).

Supporting information

Supplementary Material

Click here for additional data file. (20.1KB, docx)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The first author thanks Tomasz Rewicz, Anna Kleszcz, and Jacek Hikisz for their kind help in material collecting and nice company during the TB‐Quest Expedition to Morocco and Tunisia. We thank four anonymous reviewers for their comments on the first version of manuscript. The study was partly funded by the statutory fundings of the University of Lodz. Article Publication Charge (APC) was funded by the statutory funds of the University of Lodz. This paper is communication No. 514 in the tradition of the Laboratory of Evaluation and Assessment of Natural Resources, Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW.

Jaskuła, R. , Schwerk, A. , & Płóciennik, M. (2021). Morphological variability in Lophyra flexuosa (Fabricius, 1787) (Coleoptera, Cicindelidae) in desert countries is affected by sexual dimorphism and geographic aspect. Ecology and Evolution, 11, 17527–17536. 10.1002/ece3.8387

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The file with raw data is available in the Dryad database under the following link: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.w0vt4b8pm.

REFERENCES

  1. Adams, D. C. , Rohlf, F. J. , & Slice, D. E. (2004). Geometric morphometrics: Ten years of progress following the “revolution”. Italian Journal of Zoology, 71(1), 5–16. 10.1080/11250000409356545 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Adams, D. C. , Rohlf, F. J. , & Slice, D. E. (2013). A field comes of age: geometric morphometrics in the 21st century. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy, 24(1), 7–14. 10.4404/hystrix-24.1-6283 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Alibert, P. , Moureau, B. , Dommergues, J. , & David, B. (2001). Differentiation at a microgeographical scale within two species of ground beetle, Carabus auronitens and C. nemoralis (Coleoptera, Carabidae): A geometrical morphometric approach. Zoologica Scripta, 30(4), 299–311. 10.1046/j.1463-6409.2001.00068.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Assmann, T. , Boutaud, E. , Buse, J. , Gebert, J. , Drees, C. , Friedman, A.‐L.‐L. , Khoury, F. , Marcus, T. , Orbach, E. , Renan, I. , Schmidt, C. , & Zumstein, P. (2018). The tiger beetles (Coleoptera, Cicindelidae) of the southern Levant and adjacent territories: From cybertaxonomy to conservation biology. ZooKeys, 734, 43–103. 10.3897/zookeys.734.21989 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Attygale, A. B. , Meinwald, J. , Liebherr, J. K. , & Eisner, T. (1991). Sexual dimorphism in the defensive secretion of a carabid beetle. Experientia, 47, 296–299. 10.1007/BF01958165 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergmann, C. (1847). Über die Verhältnisse der Wärmeökonomie der Thiere zu ihrer Grösse. Gööttinger Studien, 3, 595–708. [Google Scholar]
  7. Blanckenhorn, W. U. , Stillwell, R. C. , Young, K. A. , Fox, C. W. , & Ashton, K. G. (2006). When Rensch meets Bergmann: Does sexual size dimorphism change systematically with latitude? Evolution, 60, 2004–2011. 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2006.tb01838.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Blondel, J. , Aronson, J. , Bodiou, J.‐Y. , & Boeuf, G. (2010). The Mediterranean region. Biological diversity in space and time, (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bookstein, F. L. (1997). Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cassola, F. (1998). Studies on tiger beetles. LXXXV. Revision of the Neotropical genus Pseudoxycheila Guérin, 1839 (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Fragmenta Entomologica, 29, 1–121. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cassola, F. , & Bouyer, T. (2007). Revision of the African tiger beetle genus Neochila Basilewsky, 1953 (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Tijdschrift Voor Entomologie, 150, 401–420. 10.1163/22119434-900000240 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cassola, F. , & Pearson, D. L. (2000). Global patterns of tiger beetle species richness (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae): Their use in conservation planning. Biological Conservation, 95, 197–208. 10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00034-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Clarke, K. R. , & Gorley, R. N. (2001). PRIMERv6: User manual/tutorial. PRIMER‐E. [Google Scholar]
  14. Crespi, B. J. (1989). Causes of assortative mating in arthropods. Animal Behavaviour, 38, 980–1000. 10.1016/S0003-3472(89)80138-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Doğan Sarikaya, A. , Koçak, Y. , & Sarikaya, Ö. (2020). 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, 44(3), 425–436. 10.16970/entoted.680696 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Duran, D. P. , & Gough, H. M. (2020). Validation of tiger beetles as distinct family (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae), review and reclassification of tribal relationships. Systematic Entomolgy, 45, 723–729. 10.1111/syen.12440 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Duran, D. P. , Herrmann, D. P. , Roman, S. J. , Gwiazdowski, R. A. , Drummond, J. A. , Hood, G. R. , & Egan, S. P. (2019). Cryptic diversity in the North American Dromochorus tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Cicindelinae): A congruence‐based method for species discovery. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society London, 186, 250–285. 10.1093/zoolinnean/zly035 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Espinoza‐Donoso, S. , Angulo‐Bedoya, M. , Lemic, D. , & Benítez, H. A. (2020). Assessing the influence of allometry on sexual and non‐sexual traits: An exiample in Cicindelidia trifasciata (Coleoptera: Cicindelinae) using geometric morphometrics. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 287, 61e66. 10.1016/j.jcz.2020.05.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Franzen, M. (2007). A new species of tiger beetle of the Cicindela campestris group from southern Turkey, with remarks on the identity of C. herbacea Klug, 1832 and other taxa related to C. desertorum Dejean, 1825. Spixiana, 30(1), 13–24. [Google Scholar]
  20. Gilbert, C. (1997). Visual control of cursorial prey pursuit by tiger beetles (Cicindelidae). Journal of Comparative Physiology a, 181(3), 217–230. 10.1007/s003590050108 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gwynne, D. T. (1981). Sexual difference theory: Mormon crickets show role reversal in matechoice. Science, 213, 779–780. 10.1126/science.213.4509.779 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Harari, A. R. , Handler, A. M. , & Landolt, P. J. (1999). Size‐assortative mating, male choice and female choice in the curculionid beetle Diaprepes abbreviatus . Animal Behaviour, 58, 1191–1200. 10.1006/anbe.1999.1257 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Houérou, H. N. (2009). Bioclimatology and biogeography of Africa (252 pp). Springer‐Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  24. Jaskuła, R. (2005). Mandible sexual dimorphism in Cicindela hybrida (Cicindelidae). In Skłodowski J., Huruk S., Barševskis A., & Tarasiuk S. (Eds.), Protection of Coleoptera in the Baltic sea region (pp. 233–239). Warsaw Agricultural University Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Jaskuła, R. (2015). The Maghreb – one more important biodiversity hot spot for tiger beetle fauna (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Cicindelinae) in the Mediterranean region. ZooKeys, 482, 35–53. 10.3897/zookeys.482.8831 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Jaskuła, R. , & Płóciennik, M. (2020). Water is needed to exist: Habitat preferences of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) in a desert country. Insects, 11(809), 1–12. 10.3390/insects11110809 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Jaskuła, R. , & Rewicz, T. (2015). Tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Cicindelinae) of Tunisia: Distribution, phenology, taxa list and new records. African Entomology, 23(2), 467–485. 10.4001/003.023.0217 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Jaskuła, R. , Rewicz, T. , & Kwiatkowski, K. (2015). Tiger beetle fauna (Coleoptera: Carabidae, Cicindelinae) of Morocco: Distribution, phenology and list of taxa. Entomologica Fennica, 26, 132–155. 10.33338/ef.52825 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Johnson, L. K. (1992). Sexual selection in brentid weevil. Evolution, 36, 251–262. 10.2307/2408043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Jones, T. K. , & Conner, W. E. (2018). Pre‐mating reproductive isolation in tiger beetles (Carabidae: Cicindelinae): An examination of the role of visual and morphological feedback. Journal of Insect Behavior, 31(6), 672–688. 10.1007/s10905-018-9704-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kippenhan, M. G. (1997). The tiger beetles genus Oxygonia Mannerheim (Coleoptera, Cicindelidae). Contribution on Entomology, International, 2, 301–353. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kritsky, G. , & Simon, S. (1995). Mandibular sexual dimorphism in Cicindela (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). The Coleopterologists Bulletin, 49, 143–148. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lisa, T. (2002). Le Cicindela d’Italia. Revue De L’association Roussillonnaise D’entomologie, 1, 1–55. [Google Scholar]
  34. López‐López, A. , & Vogler, A. P. (2017). The mitogenome phylogeny of Adephaga (Coleoptera). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 114, 166–174. 10.1016/j.ympev.2017.06.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Losos, J. B. , & Miles, D. B. (1994). Adaptation, constraint, and the comparative method: Phylogenetic issues and methods. In Wainwright P. C., & Reilly S. M. (Eds.), Ecological Morphology: Integrative organismal biology (pp. 60–98). University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  36. Mareš, J. (2002). Manticora – A monograph of the genus. Taita Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  37. Matalin, A. V. , & Chikatunov, V. I. (2016). The tiger beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Cicindelinae) of Israel and adjacent lands. ZooKeys, 578, 115–160. 10.3897/zookeys.578.7383 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Palmer, M. K. (1981). Notes on the biology and behavior of Odontochila mexicana . Cicindela, 13, 29–36. [Google Scholar]
  39. Partridge, L. , & Coyne, J. A. (1997). Bergmann’s rule in ectotherms: Is it adaptive? Evolution, 51, 632–635. 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb02454.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Pearson, D. L. (1988). Biology of tiger beetles. Annual Review of Entomology, 33, 123–147. 10.1146/annurev.en.33.010188.001011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Pearson, D. L. , & Juliano, S. A. (1991). Mandible length ratios as a mechanism for co‐occurrence: Evidence from world‐wide comparison of tiger beetle assemblages (Cicindelidae). Oikos, 61, 223–233. 10.2307/3545340 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Pearson, D. L. , & Knisley, C. B. (1985). Evidence for food as a limiting resource in the life cycle of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Oikos, 45, 161–168. 10.2307/3565701 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Pearson, D. L. , & Mury, E. J. (1979). Character divergence and convergence among tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Ecology, 60(3), 557–566. 10.2307/1936076 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Pearson, D. L. , & Vogler, A. P. (2001). Tiger beetles: The evolution, ecology and diversity of the cicindelids (pp. 333). Cornell University Press. [Google Scholar]
  45. Putchkov, A. V. , & Matalin, A. V. (2003). Subfamily Cicindelinae. In Löbl I. & Smetana A. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera, Archostemata ‐ Myxophaga ‐ Adephaga (Vol. 1, pp. 99–118). Apollo Books. [Google Scholar]
  46. Rewicz, T. , & Jaskuła, R. (2018). Catch fast and kill quickly: Do tiger beetles use the same strategies when hunting different types of prey? PeerJ, 6, e5971. 10.7717/peerj.5971 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Satoh, A. , Ueda, T. , Enokido, Y. , & Hori, M. (2003). Patterns of species assemblages and geographical distributions associated with mandible size differences in coastal tiger beetles in Japan. Population Ecology, 45, 67–74. 10.1007/s10144-003-0141-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Schwerk, A. , & Jaskuła, R. (2018). Rare patterns of dorsal puncture in Pterostichus oblongopunctatus (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Peerj, 6, e4657. 10.7717/peerj.4657 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Serrano, J. (2013). New catalogue of the family Carabidae of the Iberian Peninsula (Coleoptera). Editum Ediciones de la Universidad de Murcia. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sota, T. , Takami, Y. , Kubota, K. , Ujiie, M. , & Ishikawa, R. (2000). Iterspecific body size differentiation in species assemblages of the carabid subgenus Ophomopterus in Japan. Population Ecology, 42, 237–291. 10.1007/PL00012006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Stillwell, R. C. , & Fox, C. W. (2009). Geographic variation in body size, sexual size dimorphism and fitness components of a seed beetle: Local adaptation versus phenotypic plasticity. Oikos, 118, 703–712. 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2008.17327.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Stillwell, R. C. , Morse, G. E. , & Fox, C. W. (2007). Geographic variation in body size and sexual size dimorphism of a seed‐feeding beetle. The American Naturalist, 170, 358–369. 10.1086/520118 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Stork, N. E. (1980). A scanning electron microscope study of tarsal adhesive setae in the Coleoptera. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 68, 173–306. 10.1111/j.1096-3642.1980.tb01121.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Thornhill, R. , & Alcock, J. (1983). The evolution of insect mating systems. University Press. [Google Scholar]
  55. Wieczorek, K. , Bugaj‐Nawrocka, A. , Kanturski, M. , & Miller, G. L. (2017). Geographical variation in morphology of Chaetosiphella stipae stipae Hille Ris Lambers, 1947 (Hemiptera: Aphididae: Chaitophorinae). Scientific Reports, 7, 43988. 10.1038/srep43988 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Wiesner, J. (1999). The tiger beetles genus Oxycheila (Cicindelidae, Coleoptera, Insecta), 50th contribution towards the knowledge of Cicindelidae. Schwanfelder Coleopterologische Mitteilungen, 3, 1–81. [Google Scholar]
  57. Wiesner, J. (2020). Checklist of the tiger beetles of the world (2nd ed., pp. 540). Winterwork. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Material

Click here for additional data file. (20.1KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The file with raw data is available in the Dryad database under the following link: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.w0vt4b8pm.

Articles from Ecology and Evolution are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES