Female-biased sexual size dimorphism in the yellow-pine chipmunk (Tamias amoenus): Sex-specific patterns of annual reproductive success and survival

Evolution

Volumn 56, Issue 12, 2002, Pages 2519-2529

  Schulte Hostedde, Albrecht I ^a,b   Millar, John S ^a   Gibbs, H Lisle ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Body size; Microsatellites; Reproductive success; Sexual size dimorphism; Survival; Yellow pine chipmunks

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; NATURAL SELECTION; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; RODENT; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SURVIVAL;

ALBERTA; CANADA; KANANASKIS VALLEY;

ANIMALIA; MAMMALIA; RODENTIA; SCIURIDAE; TAMIAS; TAMIAS AMOENUS; UNDETERMINED SCIURIDAE 'CHIPMUNKS';

EID: 0036958888     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb00176.x     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
2. Badyaev, A. V., and T. E. Martin. 2000. Sexual dimorphism in relation to current selection in the house finch. Evolution 54:987-997.
3. Berteaux, D., F. Massebeouf, F.-B. Bonzom, J.-M. Bergeron, D. W. Thomas, and H. Lapierre. 1996. Effect of carrying a radio collar on expenditure of energy by meadow voles. J. Mammal 77:359-363.
4. Blanckenhorn, W. U. 2000. The evolution of body size: What keeps orgamsms small? Q. Rev. Biol. 75:385-407.
5. Bondrup-Nielsen, S., and R. A. Ims. 1990. Reversed sexual size dimorphism in microtines: Are females larger than males or are males smaller than females? Evol. Ecol. 4:261-272.
6. Boutin, S., and K. W. Larsen. 1993. Does food availability affect growth and survival of males and females differently in promiscuous small mammal, Tamiasciurus hudsonicus? J. Anim. Ecol. 62:364-370.
7. Burnham, K. P., G. C. White, and D. R. Anderson. 1995a. Model selection strategy in the analysis of capture-recapture data. Biometrics 51:888-898.
8. Burnham, K. P., D. R. Anderson, and G. C. White. 1995b. Selection among open population capture-recapture models when capture probabilities are heterogeneous. J. Appl. Stat. 22:611-624.
9. Callahan, J. R. 1981. Vocal solicitation and parental investment in female Eutamias. Am. Nat. 118:872-875.
10. Clutton-Brock, T. H. 1988. Reproductive success. Pp. 472-485 in T. H. Clutton-Brock, ed. Reproductive success. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
11. _. 1989. Mammalian mating systems. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 236:339-372.
12. Clutton-Brock, T. H., S. D. Albon, and F. E. Guinness. 1988. Reproductive success in male and female red deer. Pp. 325-343 in T. H. Clutton-Brock, ed. Reproductive success. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
13. Dobson, F. S. 1992. Body mass, structural size, and life-history patterns of the Columbian ground squirrel. Am. Nat. 140:109-125.
14. Dobson, F. S., and J. D. Wigginton. 1996. Environmental influences on the sexual dimorphism in body size of western bobcats. Oecologia 108:610-616.
15. Elliott, L. 1978. Social behaviour and foraging ecology of the eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) in the Adirondack Mountains. Smithson. Contrib. Zool. 265:1-107.
16. Fairbairn, D. J., and R. E. Preziosi. 1996. Sexual selection and the evolution of sexual size dimorphism in the water strider, Aquarius remigis. Evolution 50:1549-1559.
17. Falconer, D. S. 1981. Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman, London.
18. Ferguson, I. M., and D. J. Fairbairn. 2000. Sex-specific selection and sexual size dimorphism in the water strider Aquarius remigis. J. Evol. Biol. 13:160-170.
19. Gaillard, J. M., M. Festa-Bianchet, D. Delorme, and J. Jorgenson. 2000. Body mass and individual fitness in female ungulates: bigger is not always better. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267:471-477.
20. Gomendio, M., A. H. Harcourt, and E. R. S. Roldán. 1998. Sperm competition in mammals. Pp. 667-754 in T. R. Birkhead and A. P. Møller, eds. Sperm competition and sexual selection, eds. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
21. Greenwood, P. J., and J. Adams. 1987. Sexual selection, size dimorphism and a fallacy. Oikos 48:106-108.
22. Hedrick, A. V., and E. J. Temeles. 1989. The evolution of sexual dimorphism in animals: hypotheses and tests. Trends Ecol. Evol. 4:136-138.
23. Huntingford, F. A., and A. K. Turner. 1987. Animal conflict. Chapman and Hall, London.
24. Karubian, J., and J. P. Swaddle. 2001. Selection on females can create 'larger males'. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268:725-728.
25. King, W. J., M. Festa-Bianchet, and S. E. Hatfield. 1991. Determinants of reproductive success in female Columbian ground squirrels. Oecologia 86:528-534.
26. Koprowski, J. L. 1993. Alternative reproductive tactics in male eastern gray squirrels: "making the best of a bad job." Behav. Ecol. 4:165-171.
27. _. 1998. Conflict between the sexes: a review of social and mating systems of the tree squirrels. Pp. 33-41 in M. A. Steele, J. F. Merritt, and D. A. Zegers, eds. Ecology and evolutionary biology of tree squirrels. Special publication. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, VA.
28. Lande, R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34:292-305.
29. Lande, R., and S. J. Arnold. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37:1210-1226.
30. Le Beouf, B. J., and J. Reiter. 1988. Lifetime reproductive success in northern elephant seals. Pp. 344-362 in T. H. Clutton-Brock, ed. Reproductive success. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
31. Lebreton, J.-D., K. P. Burnham, J. Clobert, and D. R. Anderson. 1992. Modeling survival and testing biological hypotheses using marked animals: a unified approach with case studies. Ecol. Monogr. 62:67-118.
32. Levenson, H. 1990. Sexual size dimorphism in chipmunks. J. Mammal. 71:161-170.
33. Loison, A., J.-M. Gaillard, C. Pelabon, and N. G. Yoccoz. 1999. What factors shape sexual size dimorphism in ungulates? Evol. Ecol. Res. 1:611-633.
34. Marshall, T. C., J. Slate, L. E. B. Kruuk, and J. M. Pemberton. 1998. Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Mol. Ecol. 7:639-655.
35. Maynard-Smith, J., and R. L. Brown. 1986. Competition and body size. Theor. Popul. Biol. 30:166-179.
36. McElligott, A. G., M. P. Gammell, H. C. Harty, D. R. Paini, D. T. Murphy, J. T. Walsh, and T. J. Hayden. 2001. Sexual size dimorphism in fallow deer (Dama dama): do larger, heavier males gain greater mating success? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 49:266-272.
37. Merilä, J., B. C. Sheldon, and H. Ellegren. 1998. Quantitative genetics of sexual size dimorphism in the collared flycatcher, Ficedula albicollis. Evolution 52:870-876.
38. Millar, J. S. 1987. Energy reserves in breeding small rodents. Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond. 57:231-240.
39. Neuhaus, P., R. Bennet, and A. Hubbs. 1999. Effect of a late snowstorm and rain on survival and reproductive success in Columbian ground squirrels. Can. J. Zool. 77:879-884.
40. Packer, C., L. Herbst., A. E. Pusey, J. D. Bygott, J. P. Hanby, S. J. Cairns, and M. Borgerhoff Mulder. 1988. Reproductive success of lions. Pp. 363-383 in T. H. Clutton-Brock, ed. Reproductive success. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
41. Pimentel, R. A. 1979. Morphometrics: the multivariate analysis of biological data. Kendell/Hunt, Dubuque, IA.
42. Preziosi, R. F., and D. J. Fairbairn. 2000. Lifetime selection on adult body size and components of body size in a waterstrider: opposing selection and maintenance of sexual size dimorphism. Evolution 54:558-566.
43. Price, T. D. 1984a. The evolution of sexual size dimorphism in Darwin's finches. Am. Nat. 123:500-518.
44. _. 1984b. Sexual selection on body size, territory and plumage variables in a population of Darwin's finches. Evolution 38:327-341.
45. Przybylo, R., B. C. Sheldon, and J. Merilä. 2000. Patterns of natural selection on morphology of male and female collared flycatchers (Ficedula albicollis). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 69:213-232.
46. Ralls, K. 1976. Mammals in which females are larger than males. Q. Rev. Biol. 51:245-276.
47. Roff, D. A. 1992. The evolution of life-histories. Chapman and Hall, New York.
48. Schluter, D., and J. N. M. Smith. 1986. Natural selection on beak and body size in the song sparrow. Evolution 40:221-231.
49. Schluter, D., T. D. Price, and L. Rowe. 1991. Conflicting selection pressures and life-history trade-offs. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 246:11-17.
50. Schulte-Hostedde, A. I., and J. S. Millar. 2000. Measuring sexual size dimorphism in the yellow-pine chipmunk (Tamias amoenus). Can. J. Zool. 78:728-733.
51. _. 2002a. "Little chipmunk" syndrome? Male body size and dominance in captive yellow-pine chipmunks (Tamias amoenus). Ethology 108:127-137.
52. _. 2002b Effects of body size and mass on running speed of male yellow-pine chipmunks (Tamias amoenus). Can. J. Zool. 80:1584-1587.
53. Schulte-Hostedde, A. I., H. L. Gibbs, and J. S. Millar. 2000. Microsatellite DNA loci suitable for parentage analysis in the yellow-pine chipmunk (Tamias amoenus). Mol. Ecol. 9:2180-2181.
54. _. 2001. Microgeographic genetic structure in the yellow-pine chipmunk (Tamias amoenus). Mol. Ecol. 10:1625-1632.
55. Sharpe, S. T., and J. S. Millar. 1990. Relocation of nest sites by female deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus borealis). Can. J. Zool. 68:2364-2367.
56. Sheppard, D. H. 1969. A comparison of reproduction in two chipmunk species (Eutamias). Can. J. Zool. 47:603-608.
57. Shine, R. S. 1988. The evolution of large body size in females: a critique of Darwin's "fecundity advantage" model. Am. Nat. 131:124-131.
58. _. 1989. Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual size dimorphism: a review of the evidence. Q. Rev. Biol. 64:419-441.
59. Slatkin, M. 1984. Ecological causes of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38:622-630.
60. Teferi, T., and J. S. Millar. 1993. Early maturation by northern Peromyscus maniculatus. Can. J. Zool. 71:1743-1747.
61. Topping, M. G., and J. S. Millar. 1999. Mating success of male bushy-tailed woodrats: when bigger is not always better. Behav. Ecol. 10:161-168.
62. Wauters, L. A., and A. A. Dhondt. 1989. Body weight, longevity and reproductive success in red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris). J. Anim. Ecol. 58:637-665.
63. _. 1995. Lifetime reproductive success and its correlates in female Eurasian red squirrels. Oikos 72:402-410.
64. Wauters, L. A., A. A. Dhondt, and R. De Vos. 1990. Factors affecting male mating success in red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris). Ethol. Ecol. E vol. 2:195-204.
65. Weatherhead, P. J., and R. G. Clark. 1994. Natural selection and sexual size dimorphism in red-winged blackbirds. Evolution 48:1071-1079.
66. Weatherhead, P. J., F. E. Barry, G. P. Brown, and M. R. L. Forbes. 1995. Sex ratios, mating behaviour, and sexual size dimorphism of the northern water snake, Nerodia sipedon. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 36:301-311.
67. Weckerly, F. W. 1998. Sexual-size dimorphism: influence of mass and mating systems in the most dimorphic mammals. J. Mammal. 79:33-52.
68. White, G. C., and K. P. Burnham. 1999. Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46(Supp.):120-138.
69. Wikelski, M., and F. Trillmich. 1997. Body size and sexual size dimorphism in marine iguanas fluctuate as a result of opposing natural and sexual selection: an island comparison. Evolution 51:922-936.
70. Yahner, R. H. 1978. The adaptive nature of the social system and behaviour in the eastern chipmunk, Tamias striatus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 3:397-427.
71. Yoccoz, N. G., and S. Mesnager. 1998. Are alpine bank voles larger and more sexually dimorphic because adults survive better? Oikos 82:85-98.