Within-clutch variation in offspring sex determined by differences in sire body size: Cryptic mate choice in the wild

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 464-470

  Calsbeek, Ryan ^a   Sinervo, Barry ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Body size; Cryptic female choice; Lizards; Mate choice; Sex determination; Sexual selection; Sperm

Indexed keywords

MICROSATELLITE DNA;

BODY SIZE; LIZARD; MATE CHOICE; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BODY CONSTITUTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; GENDER AND SEX; GENETICS; LIZARD; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT; REPRODUCTION; SEX RATIO; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SPERMATOZOON; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMALS; BODY CONSTITUTION; FEMALE; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; LIZARDS; MALE; MICROSATELLITE REPEATS; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT, HERITABLE; REPRODUCTION; SEX DETERMINATION (GENETICS); SEX RATIO; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; SPERMATOZOA;

ANIMALIA; INVERTEBRATA; SQUAMATA; UTA; UTA STANSBURIANA;

EID: 1542349092     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00665.x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Arnold, S.J. & Wade, M.J. 1984. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: theory. Evolution 38: 709-719.
2. Aviles, L., McCormack, J., Cutter, A. & Bukowski, T. 2000. Precise, highly female-biased sex ratios in a social spider. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267: 1445-1449.
3. Birkhead, T.R. 1998. Cryptic female choice: criteria for establishing female sperm choice. Evolution 52: 1212-1218.
4. Calsbeek, R. & Sinervo, B. 2002a. Uncoupling direct and indirect benefits of mate choice in the wild. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99: 14897-14902.
5. Calsbeek, R. & Sinervo, B. 2002b. An experimental test of the ideal despotic distribution. J. Anim. Ecol. 71: 513-523.
6. Calsbeek, R., Alonzo, S.H., Zamudio, K. & Sinervo, B. 2002. Sexual selection and alternative strategies generate demographic stochasticity in small populations. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269: 157-164.
7. Chippindale, A.K., Gibson, J.R. & Rice, W.R. 2001. Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 1671-1675.
8. Clark, A.G. 2002. Sperm competition and the maintenance of polymorphism. Heredity 88: 148-153.
9. Eberhard, W.G. 1996. Monographs in Behavior and Ecology: Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice. Princeton University Press Technical Books, Princeton, NJ.
10. Eberhard, W.G. 2000. Criteria for demonstrating postcopulatory female choice. Evolution 54: 1047-1050.
11. Ellegren, H., Gustafsson, L. & Sheldon, B.C. 1996. Sex ratio adjustment in relation to paternal attractiveness in a wild bird population. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93: 11723-11728.
12. Fisher, R. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
13. Goodnight, K.F., Quellar, D.C. & Poznansky, T. 1996. Kinship v1.1.2. Goodnight Software (distributed by author).
14. Gowaty, P.A. 1997. Sexual dialectics, sexual selection, and variation in mating behavior. In: Feminism and Evolutionary Biology (P. A. Gowaty, ed.), pp. 351-384. Chapman Hall, New York.
15. Jennions, M.D. & Petrie, M. 2000. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. (Camb.) 75: 21-64.
16. Jones, A. 2002. The evolution of alternative cryptic female choice strategies in age-structured populations. Evolution 56: 2530-2536.
17. Kempenaers, B., Foerster, K., Questiau, S., Robertson, B.C. & Vermeirssen, E.L.M. 2000. Distinguishing between female sperm choice versus male sperm competition: a comment on birkhead. Evolution 54: 1050-1052.
18. Kolliker, M., Heeb, P., Werner, I., Mateman, A.C., Lessells, C.M. & Richner, H. 1999. Offspring sex ratio is related to male body size in the great tit (Parus major). Behav. Ecol. 10: 68-72.
19. Komdeur, J., Daan, S., Tinbergen, J. & Mateman, C. 1997. Extreme adaptive modification in sex ratio of the Seychelles warbler's eggs. Nature (London) 385: 522-525.
20. Krackow, S. & Tkadlec, E. 2001. Analysis of brood sex ratios: implications of offspring clustering. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50: 293-301.
21. Lessells, C.M. & Boag, P.T. 1987. Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. Auk 104: 116-121.
22. Madsen, T., Shine, R., Loman, J. & Hakansson, T. 1992. Why do female adders copulate so frequently? Nature 355: 440-442.
23. Mange, A. 1970. Possible nonrandom utilization of X- and Y-bearing sperm in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 65: 95-106.
24. Olsson, M., Madsen, T., Shine, R., Gullberg, A. & Tegelstrom, H. 1994. Rewards of promiscuity. Nature 372: 230.
25. Olsson, M., Shine, R., Gullberg, A., Madsen, T. & Tegelström, H. 1996. Female lizards control paternity of their offspring by selective use of sperm. Nature 383: 585.
26. Petrie, M. 1994. Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate trains. Nature 371: 598-599.
27. Radford, A.N. & Blakey, J.K. 2000. Intensity of nest defense is related to offspring sex ratio in the great tit Parus major. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267: 535-538.
28. Reeder, T.W. & Wiens, J.J. 1996. Evolution of the lizard family Phrynosomatidae as inferred from diverse types of data. Herpes Monographs 10: 43-84.
29. Rice, W.R. & Chippindale, A.K. 2001. Intersexual ontogenetic conflict. J. Evol. Biol. 14: 685-693.
30. Sheldon, B.C., Andersson, S., Griffith, S.C., Ornborg, J. & Sendecka, J. 1999. Ultraviolet colour variation influences blue tit sex ratios. Nature (London) 402: 874-877.
31. Sinervo, B. & Calsbeek, R. Ontogenetic conflict between the sexes driven by sexual selection and antagonistic natural selection. Nature (submitted).
32. Sinervo, B. & Lively, C.M. 1996. The rock-paper-scissors game and the evolution of alternative male reproductive strategies. Nature 380: 240-243.
33. Sinervo, B., Svensson, E. & Comendant, T. 2000. Density cycles and an offspring quantity and quality game driven by natural selection. Nature 406: 985-988.
34. Svensson, E. & Nilsson, J.-A. 1996. Mate quality affects offspring sex ratio in blue tits. Proc. R. Soc. Land. B 263: 357-361.
35. Tregenza, T. & Wedell, N. 2002. Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature (London) 415: 71-73.
36. Vacquier, V.D. 1995. Evolution of gamete recognition. Science (Washington, DC) 285: 1995-1998.
37. West, S.A. & Sheldon, B.C. 2002. Constraints in the evolution of sex ratio adjustment. Science (Washington, DC) 295: 1685-1688.
38. Wilkinson, G.S. & Reillo, P.R. 1994. Female choice response to artificial selection on a exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 255: 1-6.
39. Wilkinson, G.S., Presgraves, D.C. & Crymes, L. 1998. Male eye span in stalk-eyed flies indicates genetic quality by meiotic drive suppression. Nature 391: 276-278.
40. Yasui, Y. 1997. A "good-sperm" model can explain the evolution of costly multiple mating by females. Am. Nat. 149: 573-584.
41. Zamudio, K. & Sinervo, B. 2000. Polygyny, mate-guarding, and posthumous fertilizations as alternative male strategies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97: 14427-14432.