Measuring sexual size dimorphism in the yellow-pine chipmunk (Tamias amoenus)

Canadian Journal of Zoology

Volumn 78, Issue 5, 2000, Pages 728-733

  Schulte Hostedde, Albrecht I ^a   Millar, John S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; MEASUREMENT METHOD; RODENT; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM;

TAMIAS AMOENUS;

EID: 0033907077     PISSN: 00084301     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/z00-005     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Abouheif, E., and Fairbairn, D.J. 1997. A comparative analysis of allometry for sexual size dimorphism: assessing Rensch's rule. Am. Nat. 149: 540-562.
2. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
3. Bailey, R.C., and Byrnes, J. 1990. A new, old method for assessing measurement error in both univariate and multivariate morphometric studies. Syst. Zool. 39: 124-130.
4. Blanckenhorn, W.U., Preziosi, R.F., and Fairbairn, D.J. 1995. Time and energy constraints and the evolution of sexual size dimorphism - to eat or mate? Evol. Ecol. 9: 369-381.
5. Boonstra, R., Gilbert, B.S., and Krebs, C.J. 1993. Mating systems and sexual dimorphism in mass in microtines. J. Mammal. 74: 224-229.
6. Broadbrooks, H.E. 1970. Populations of the yellow-pine chipmunk Eutamias amoenus. Am. Midl. Nat. 83: 472-488.
7. Callahan, J.R. 1981. Vocal solicitation and parental investment in female Eutamias. Am. Nat. 118: 872-875.
8. Dobson, F.S. 1992. Body mass, structural size, and life-history patterns of the Columbian ground squirrel. Am. Nat. 139: 109-125.
9. Dobson, F.S., and Michener, G.R. 1995. Maternal traits and reproduction in Richardson's ground squirrels. Ecology, 76: 851-862.
10. Eisenberg, J.F. 1981. The mammalian radiations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
11. Fairbairn, D.J. 1997. Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28: 659-687.
12. Greenwood, P.J., and Adams, J. 1987. Sexual selection, size dimorphism, and a fallacy. Oikos, 48: 106-108.
13. Hedrick, A.V., and Temeles, E.J. 1989. The evolution of sexual dimorphism in animals: hypotheses and tests. Trends Ecol. Evol. 4: 136-138.
14. Heske, E.J., and Ostfeld, R.S. 1990. Sexual dimorphism in size, relative size of testes, and mating systems in North American voles. J. Mammal. 71: 510-519.
15. Kenagy, G.J., and Barnes, B.M. 1988. Seasonal reproductive patterns in four co-existing rodent species from the Cascade Mountains, Washington. J. Mammal. 69: 274-292.
16. Kozlowski, J. 1989. Sexual size dimorphism: a life-history perspective. Oikos, 54: 253-255.
17. Lessels, C.M., and Boag, P.T. 1987. Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. Auk, 104: 116-121.
18. Levenson, H. 1990. Sexual size dimorphism in chipmunks. J. Mammal. 71: 161-170.
19. Lougheed, S.C., Arnold, T.W., and Bailey, R.C. 1991. Measurement error of external and skeletal variables in birds and its effects on principal components. Auk, 108: 432-436.
20. Lovich, J.E., and Gibbons, J.W. 1992. A review of techniques for quantifying sexual size dimorphism. Growth Dev. Aging, 56: 269-281.
21. Michener, G.R. 1983. Spring emergence schedules and vernal behavior of Richardson's ground squirrels: why do males emerge from hibernation before females? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 14: 29-38.
22. Myers, P., and Master, L.L. 1983. Reproduction by Peromyscus maniculatus: size and compromise. J. Mammal. 64: 1-18.
23. Pimentel, R.A. 1979. Morphometrics: the multivariate analysis of biological data. Kendell/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, Iowa.
24. Ralls, K. 1976. Mammals in which females are larger than males. Q. Rev. Biol. 51: 245-276.
25. Ralls, K. 1977. Sexual dimorphism in mammals: avian models and unanswered questions. Am. Nat. 111: 917-938.
26. Ranta, E., Laurila, A., and Elmberg, J. 1994. Reinventing the wheel: analysis of sexual dimorphism in body size. Oikos, 70: 313-312.
27. Sauer, J.R., and Slade, N.A. 1987. Size-based demography of vertebrates. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18: 71-90.
28. Sauer, J.R., and Slade, N.A. 1989. Body size as a demographic categorical variable: ramifications for life-history analysis of mammals. In Evolution of life histories of mammals: theory and pattern. Edited by M.S. Boyce. Yale University Press. New Haven, Conn. pp. 107-121.
29. Sheppard, D.H. 1969. A comparison of reproduction in two chipmunk species (Eutamias). Can. J. Zool. 47: 603-608.
30. Shine, R.S. 1989. Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual size dimorphism: a review of the evidence. Q. Rev. Biol. 64: 419-441.
31. Slatkin, M. 1984. Ecological causes of sexual dimorphism. Evolution, 38: 622-630.
32. Sutton, D. 1992. Tamias amoenus. Mamm. Species, 390: 1-8.
33. Svendsen, G.E., and White, M.M. 1997. Body mass and first-time reproduction in female chipmunks (Tamias striatus). Can. J. Zool. 75: 1891-1895.
34. Trombulak, S.C. 1989. Running speed and body mass in Belding's ground squirrels. J. Mammal. 70: 194-197.
35. Wauters, L.A., and Dhondt, A.A. 1989. Variation in length and body weight of the red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in two different habitats. J. Zool. (Lond.), 217: 93-106.
36. Weckerly, F.W. 1998. Sexual-size dimorphism: influence of mass and mating systems in the most dimorphic mammals. J. Mammal. 79: 33-52.
37. Willig, M.R., Owen, R.D., and Colbert, R.L. 1986. Assessment of morphometric variation in natural populations: the inadequacy of the univariate approach. Syst. Zool. 35: 195-203.
38. Yezerinac, S.M., Lougheed, S.C., and Handford, P. 1992. Measurement error and morphometric studies: statistical power and observer experience. Syst. Biol. 41: 471-482.
39. Yoccoz, N.G., and Mesnager, S. 1998. Are alpine bank voles larger and more sexually dimorphic because adults survive better? Oikos, 82: 85-98.