Do reproductive characteristics of the species explain differences in the investment in weapon size present in males?

Sexually selected traits, such as male weapons, are highly variable in shape and size across species. However, little is known about the mechanisms that may govern this variation. Because males with greater investment in weapon size tend to win more fights, but also pay higher costs related to weapon development and maintenance, larger weapons should be expected only in species in which victory in male–male fights generate reproductive benefits that outweigh investment costs. Here, we hypothesized that the reproductive characteristics that increase the chances of winners to access females or to fertilize eggs will favor the evolution of larger weapons. To evaluate this hypothesis, we conducted a meta‐analysis using arthropods as model organisms. To measure investment in weapon size, we gathered both Pearson correlation coefficient and the standardized (but non centralized) slope values for the relationship between weapon size and body size. We found that none of the reproductive characteristics we investigated was related to male weapon size. Thus, it seems that greater certainty of accessing a female or fertilizing female eggs with a victory does not modulate the investment in male weapon size. Perhaps the cost–benefit ratio between weapon size investment and reproductive success is not the main factor driving the variation in weapon size. Little is known about the mechanisms driving variation in male weapon size across species. We hypothesized that reproductive characteristics that increase the chances of male winners to copulate/fertilize females would favor a greater investment in weapons size. Using a meta‐analytical approach, we found that the variation in weapon size was unrelated to the investigated reproductive characteristics. We argue that the way weapons are used during contests may be more important than the species’ reproductive characteristics to explain weapon size variation.