Figure S1; Tables S1 - S4 from Muscle mass drives cost in sexually selected arthropod weapons.

  • Douglas J. Emlen (Contributor)
  • Gregory I. Holwell (Contributor)
  • Devin M. O'Brien (Contributor)
  • Romain P. Boisseau (Contributor)
  • Sarah Solie (Contributor)
  • Meghan E. Duell (Contributor)
  • Erin McCullough (Contributor)
  • Christina J. Painting (Contributor)
  • Erin C. Powell (Contributor)
  • Anthony J. Hickey (Contributor)
  • Ummat Somjee (Contributor)



Figure S1: Scaling relationship between log RMR and log relative weapon muscle mass A (muscle mass/body size; top) and log relative muscle mass B (muscle mass/body mass; bottom) for stick insects, frog-legged beetles, and stag beetles. Red lines represent OLS regression. Shaded areas represent 95% confidence intervals around OLS regressions.; Table S1: Source and rearing data for study species. All animals were fed ad libidum. *New Zealand long-legged harvestmen measured shortly after capture and immediately returned to the wild.; Table S2: Measurements of weapon and body size included as variables in principal components analyses (rounded to the nearest hundredth), % variation explained by PC1 in weapon size or body size PCAs, and section of weapon dissected for muscle digestion for each species. Bold measures of weapon/body size were used for scaling analyses.; Table S3: Summary of multiple regression models (resting metabolic rate (RMR) regressed on overall weapon size and body size (RMR~body size *weapon size) within the same model).; Table S4: Summary of relative muscle mass A (RMM-A) and B (RMM-B) for each species. *measured as wet muscle mass. Relative muscle mass A = muscle mass/linear measurements of body size. Relative muscle mass B = muscle mass/body mass.
Date made availableJan 1 2019
Publisherfigshare Academic Research System

Cite this