Sexual size dimorphism and selection in the wild in the waterstrider Aquarius remigis: Body size, components of body size and male mating success

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Sexual size dimorphism is assumed to be adaptive and is expected to evolve in response to a difference in the net selection pressures on the sexes. Although a demonstration of sexual selection is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain the evolution of sexual size dimorphism, sexual selection is generally assumed to be a major evolutionary force. If contemporary sexual selection is important in the evolution and maintenance of sexual size dimorphism then we expect to see concordance between patterns of sexual selection and patterns of sexual dimorphism. We examined sexual selection in the wild, acting on male body size, and components of body size, in the waterstrider <jats:italic>Aquarius remigis</jats:italic>, as part of a long term study examining net selection pressures on the two sexes in this species. Selection was estimated on both a daily and annual basis. Since our measure of fitness (mating success) was behavioral, we estimated reliabilities to determine if males perform consistently. Reliabilities were measured as ϰ statistics and range from fair to perfect agreement with substantial agreement overall. We found significant univariate sexual selection favoring larger total length in the first year of our study but not in the second. Multivariate analysis of components of body size revealed that sexual selection for larger males was not acting directly on total length but on genital length. Sexual selection for larger male body size was opposed by direct selection favoring smaller midfemoral lengths. While males of this species are smaller than females, they have longer genital segments and wider forefemora. Patterns of contemporary sexual selection and sexual size dimorphism agree only for genital length. For total length, and all other components of body size examined, contemporary sexual selection was either nonsignificant or opposed the pattern of size dimporhism. Thus, while the net pressures of contemporary selection for the species may still act to maintain sexual size dimorphism, sexual selection alone does not.</jats:p>