Sexual selection and mating patterns in a mammal with female-biased sexual size dimorphism

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 351-356

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Body size; Chipmunks; Mammals; Mating patterns; Microsatellites; Multiple paternity; Reproductive success; Tamias amoenus

Indexed keywords

MATING SUCCESS; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; RODENT; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ALBERTA; CANADA; KANANASKIS VALLEY; NORTH AMERICA;

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

EID: 1942507954     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arh021     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Andersson M, 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
2. Arnold SJ, Duvall D, 1994. Animal mating systems: a synthesis based on selection theory. Am Nat 143:317-348.
3. Bartmann S., Gerlach G, 2001. Multiple paternity and similar variance in reproductive success of male and female wood mice (Apodemus sylvaticus) housed in an enclosure. Ethology 107:889-899.
4. Berteaux D, Massebeouf F, Bonzom F-B, Bergeron J-M, Thomas DW, Lapierre H, 1996. Effect of carrying a radiocollar on expenditure of energy by meadow voles. J Mammal 77:359-363.
5. Birkhead TR, Appleton AC, 1998. Multiple paternity in mammals. In: Sperm competition and sexual selection (Birkhead TR, Møller AP, eds). San Diego, California: Academic Press; pp. 752-755.
6. Bonnet X, Shine R, Lourdais O, 2001. Taxonomic chauvinism. Trends Ecol Evol 17:1-3.
7. Boonstra R, Xia X, Pavone L, 1993. Mating system of the meadow vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Behav Ecol 4:83-89.
8. Callahan JR, 1981. Vocal solicitation and parental investment in female Eutamias. Am Nat 118:872-875.
9. Clutton-Brock TH, 1989. Mammalian mating systems. Proc R Soc Lond B 236:339-372.
10. Clutton-Brock TH, Guiness FE, Albon SD, 1983. Red deer: behavior and ecology of two sexes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11. Cohen J, 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
12. Coltman DW, Bowen WD, Wright JM, 1998. Male mating success in an aquatically mating pinniped, the harbour seal (Phoca vitulina), assessed by microsatellite DNA markers. Mol Ecol 7:627-638.
13. Coltman DW, Bowen WD, Wright JM, 1999a. A multivariate analysis of phenotype and paternity in male harbor seals, Phoca vitulina, at Sable Island, Nova Scotia. Behav Ecol 10:169-177.
14. Coltman DW, Festa-Bianchet M, Jorgenson JT, Strobeck C, 2002. Age-dependent sexual selection in bighorn rams. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:165-172.
15. Coltman DW, Smith JA, Bancroft DR, Pilkington J, MacColl ADC, Clutton-Brock TH, Pemberton JM, 1999b. Density-dependent variation in lifetime breeding success and natural and sexual selection in Soay rams. Am Nat 154:730-746.
16. Elliot L, 1978. Social behavior and foraging ecology of the eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) in the Adirondack mountains. Smithson Contrib Zool 265:1-107.
17. Faal F, Erdfelder E, 1992. GPOWER: a priori, post-hoc, and compromise power analysis. Bonn, Germany: Bonn University.
18. Ferguson IW, Fairbairn DJ, 2001. Is selection ready when opportunity knocks? Evol Ecol Res 3:199-207.
19. Festa-Bianchet M., Jorgenson JT, King WJ, Smith KG, Wishart WD, 1996. The development of sexual dimorphism: seasonal and lifetime mass changes in bighorn sheep. Can J Zool 74:330-342.
20. Hoogland JL, 1998. Why do female Gunnison's prairie dogs copulation with more than one male? Anim Behav 55:351-359.
21. Hughes C, 1998. Integrating molecular techniques with field methods in studies of social behaviour: a revolution results. Ecology 79:383-399.
22. Jennions MD, Petrie M, 2000. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21-64.
23. Keil A, EpplenJT, Sachser N, 1999. Reproductive success of males in the promiscuous-mating yellow-toothed cavy (Galea musteloides). J Mammal 80:1257-1263.
24. Kenagy GJ, Barnes BM, 1988. Seasonal reproductive patterns in four co-existing rodent species from the Cascade mountains. J Mammal 69:274-292.
25. Kissner KJ, 2002. Maternal influences on offspring quality on northern water snakes (Nerodia sipedon) (PhD thesis). Ottawa: Carleton University.
26. Koprowski JL, 1993. Alternative reproductive tactics in male eastern gray squirrels: "making the best of a bad job." Behav Ecol 4:165-17.
27. Le Beouf BJ, Reiter J, 1988. Lifetime reproductive success in northern elephant seals. In: Reproductive success (Clutton-Brock TH, ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28. Levenson H, 1990. Sexual size dimorphism in chipmunks. J Mammal 71:161-170.
29. Marshall TC, Slate J, Kruuk LEB, Pemberton JM, 1998. Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Mol Ecol 7:639-655.
30. Neuhaus P, 2000. Weight comparisons and litter size manipulation in Colombian ground squirrels (Spermophilus columbianus) show evidence of costs of reproduction. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48:75-83.
31. Petrie M, Kempenaers B, 1998. Extra-pair paternity in birds: explaining variation between species and populations. Trends Ecol Evol 13: 52-58.
32. Pemberton JM, Albon SD, Guinness FE, Clutton-Brock TH, Dover GA, 1992. Behavioral estimates of male mating success tested by DNA fingerprinting in a polygynous mammal. Behav Ecol 3:66-75.
33. Prosser MR, Weatherhead PJ, Gibbs HL, Brown GP, 2002. Genetic analysis of the mating system and opportunity for sexual selection in northern water snakes (Nerodia sipedon). Behav Ecol 13:800-807.
34. Reynolds JD, 1996. Animal breeding systems. Trends Ecol Evol 11:68-72.
35. Ribble DO, 1991. The monogamous mating system of Peromyscus californicus as revealed by DNA fingerprinting. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29:161-166.
36. Schulte-Hostedde AI, Millar JS, 2000. Measuring sexual size dimorphism in the yellow-pine chipmunk (Tamias amoenus). Can J Zool 78:728-733.
37. Schulte-Hostedde AI, Millar JS, 2002b. "Little chipmunk" syndrome?: Male body size and dominance in captive yellow-pine chipmunks (Tamias amoenus). Ethology 108:127-137.
38. Schulte-Hostedde AI, Millar JS, 2002a. Effects of body size and mass on running speed of male yellow-pine chipmunks (Tamias amoenus). Can J Zool 80:1584-1587.
39. Schulte-Hostedde AI, Gibbs HL, Millar JS, 2000. Microsatellite DNA loci suitable for parentage analysis in the yellow-pine chipmunk (Tamias amoenus). Mol Ecol 9:2180-2181.
40. Schulte-Hostedde AI, Millar JS, Hickling GJ, 2001. Sexual dimorphism in body composition of small mammals. Can J Zool 79:1016-1020.
41. Schulte-Hostedde AI, Millar JS, Gibbs HL, 2002. Female-biased sexual size dimorphism in the yellow-pine chipmunk (Tamias amoenus): sex specific patterns of annual reproductive success and survival. Evolution 56:2519-2529.
42. Schwagmeyer PL, Parker GA, Mock DW, 1998. Information asymmetries among males: implications for fertilization success in the thirteen-lined ground squirrel. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1861-1865.
43. Sharpe ST, Millar JS, 1990. Relocation of nest sites by female deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus borealis). Can J Zool 68:2364-2367.
44. Sheppard DH, 1969. A comparison of reproduction in two chipmunk species (Eutamias). Can J Zool 75:1891-1895.
45. Sutton D, 1992. Tamias amoenus. Mammal Species 390:1-8.
46. Topping MG, Millar JS, 1998. Mating patterns and reproductive success in the bushy-tailed woodrat (Neotoma cinerea), as revealed by DNA fingerprinting. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43:115-124.
47. Trivers RL, 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Sexual selection and the descent of man. (Campbell, B, ed). Chicago: Aldine Publishing; pp. 136-179.
48. Wauters LA, Dhondt AA, De Vos R, 1990. Factors affecting male mating success in red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris). Ethol Ecol Evol 2:195-204.
49. Weckerly FW, 1998. Sexual-size dimorphism: influence of mass and mating systems in the most dimorphic mammals. J Mammal 79:33-52.
50. Westneat DF, 2000. A retrospective and prospective look at the role of genetics in mating systems: toward a balanced view of the sexes. In: Vertebrate mating systems (Apollonio M, Festa-Bianchet M, Mainardi D, eds). Singapore: World Scientific; pp. 253-306.
51. Woolfenden BE, Gibbs HL, Sealy SG, 2002. High opportunity for sexual selection in both sexes of an obligate brood parasitic bird, the brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:417-425.
52. Yahner RH, 1978. The adaptive nature of the social system and behaviour in the eastern chipmunk, Tamias striatus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 3:397-427.