Asynchronous arrival pattern, operational sex ratio and occurrence of multiple paternities in a territorial breeding anuran, Rana dalmatina

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Volumn 86, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 191-200

  Lodé, Thierry ^a   Holveck, Marie Jeanne ^a   Lesbarrères, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ D'ANGERS   (France)

Author keywords

Alternative mating; Multiple mating; Polyandry; Sexual conflict

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTION; FROG; MULTIPLE MATING; PATERNITY; SEX RATIO; SYNCHRONY;

ANURA; RANA DALMATINA;

EID: 26844523533     PISSN: 00244066     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2005.00521.x     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2. Arak A. 1983. Male-male competition and mate choice in anuran amphibian. In: Bateson P, ed. Mate choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 181-210.
3. Arnqvist G. 1989. Multiple mating in a water strider: mutual benefits or intersexual conflict. Animal Behaviour 38: 749-756.
4. Arnqvist G, Rowe L. 2002. Antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415: 787-789.
5. Birkhead TR. 1998. Cryptic female choice: criteria for establishing female sperm choice. Evolution 52: 1212-1218.
6. Burke T. 1989. DNA fingerprinting and other methods for the study of mating success. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 4: 139-144.
7. Burley NT. 1988. The differential allocation hypothesis: an experimental test. American Naturalist 132: 611-628.
8. Byrne PG, Roberts JD. 2000. Does multiple paternity improve fitness of the frog Crinia Georgiana? Evolution 54: 968-973.
9. D'Orgeix CA, Turner BJ. 1995. Multiple paternity in the red-eyed treefrog Agalychnis callidryas (Cope). Molecular Ecology 4: 505-508.
10. Dhondt AA, Adriaensen F. 1994. Causes and effects of divorce in the blue tit Parus caeruleus. Journal of Animal Ecology 63: 979-987.
11. Duchesne P, Godbout MH, Bernatchez L. 2002. PAPA (package for the analysis of parental allocation): a computer program for simulated and real parental allocation, Version 1.0 ed. Laval, Québec, Canada: Université de Laval.
12. Emlen ST, Oring LW. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197: 215-223.
13. Fedorka KM, Mousseau TA. 2002. Material and genetic benefits of female multiple mating and polyandry. Animal Behaviour 64: 361-367.
14. Gavrilets S, Arnqvist G, Friberg U. 2001. The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268: 531-539.
15. Geisselmann B, Flindt R, Hemmer H. 1971. Studien zur Biologie, Okologie und Merkmalsvariabilitat der beiden Braunfroscharten Rana temporaria L. und Rana dalmatina Bonaparte. Zoologische Jahrbucher Systematik 98: 521-568.
16. Gosner KL. 1960. A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes and identification. Herpetologica 16: 183-190.
17. Goudet J. 2002. FSTAT, a program to estimate and test gene diversities and fixation indices, Version 2.9.3 edn. Lausanne, Switzerland: Université de Lausanne.
18. Gross MR. 1991. Evolution of alternative reproductive strategies: frequency-dependent sexual selection in male blueguil sunfish. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 332: 59-66.
19. Hasselquist D. 1998. Polygyny in great reed warblers: a long term study of factors contributing to male fitness. Ecology 53: 938-946.
20. Hoglund J. 1989. Size and plumage dimorphism in lek-breeding birds: a comparative analysis. American Naturalist 134: 72-87.
21. Hurst GDD, Sharpe RG, Broomfield AH, Walker LE, Majerus TMO, Zakharov IA, Majerus MEN. 1995. Sexually transmitted disease in a promiscuous insect, Adalia bipunctata. Ecological Entomology 20: 230-236.
22. Jakob E, Marshall S, Uetz G. 1996. Estimating fitness: a comparison of body condition indices. Oikos 77: 61-67.
23. Jennions MD, Passmore NI. 1993. Sperm competition in frogs: testis size and a 'sterile male' experiment on Chiromantis xerampelina (Rhacophoridae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 50: 211-220.
24. Jennions MD, Petrie M. 2000. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biological Review 75: 21-64.
25. Kirkpatrick M. 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36: 1-12.
26. Kirkpatrick M. 1996. Good genes and direct selection in evolution of mating preferences. Evolution 50: 2125-2140.
27. Kokko H. 1999. Competition for early arrival in migratory birds. Journal of Animal Ecology 68: 940-950.
28. Lande R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34: 292-305.
29. Laurila A, Seppä P. 1998. Multiple paternity in the common frog (Rana temporaria): genetic evidence from tadpole kin groups. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 63: 221-232.
30. Lesbarrères D, Lodë T. 2002. Rana dalmatina: evidence for a dear enemy effect. Ethology Ecology and Evolution 14: 287-295.
31. Lodé T, Lesbarrères D. 2004. Multiple paternity in Rana dalmatina, a monogamous territorial breeding Anuran. Naturwissenschaften 91: 44-47.
32. Lucas JR, Howard RD, Palmer JG. 1996. Callers and satellites: chorus behaviour in anurans as a stochastic dynamic game. Animal Behaviour 51: 501-518.
33. Maynard Smith J. 1982. Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Møller AP. 1994. Phenotype-dependent arrival time and its consequences in a migratory bird. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 35: 115-122.
35. Morbey YE. 2000. Protandry in Pacific salmon. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science 57: 1252-1257.
36. Morbey YE, Ydenberg RC. 2001. Protandrous arrival timing to breeding areas: a review. Ecology Letters 4: 663-673.
37. Partridge L, Hurst LD. 1998. Sex and conflict. Science 281: 2003-2008.
38. Pasteur N, Pasteur G, Bonhomme F, Catalan J, Britton-Davidian J. 1987. Manuel technique de génétique par electrophorèse des protéines. Paris: Lavoisier.
39. Peters RH. 1983. The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Rice WR. 1996. Sexually antagonistic male adaptations triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 381: 232-234.
41. Rice WR. 2000. Dangerous liaisons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 97: 12953-12955.
42. Roberts D, Standish RJ, Byrne PG, Doughty P. 1999. Synchronous polyandry and multiple paternity in the frog Crinia georgiana (Anura: Myobatrachidae). Animal Behaviour 57: 721-726.
43. Schneider H, Sofianidou TS, Kyriakopoulou-Sklavounou P. 1988. Calling behavior and calls of Rana dalmatina (Anura, Ranidae) in Greece. Zoological Yearbook of Physiology 92: 231-243.
44. Semlitsch RD, Scott DE, Pechmann J, Gibbons JW. 1993. Phenotypic variation in the arrival time of breeding salamanders: individual repeatability and environmental influences. Journal of Animal Ecology 62: 334-340.
45. Stockley P. 1998. Sexual conflict resulting from adaptation to sperm competition. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12: 154-159.
46. Stutt AD, Siva-Jothy MT. 2001. Traumatic insemination and sexual conflict in the bed bug Cimex lectularius. Proceedings of the National American Society 98: 5683-5687.
47. Taborsky M. 1994. Sneakers, satellites and helpers: parasitic and cooperative behavior in fish reproduction. Advances in Study Behaviour 21: 1-100.
48. Thornhill R, Alcock J. 1983. The evolution of insect mating systems. Cambridge MA: Havard University Press.
49. Vieites DR, Nieto-Roman S, Barluenga M, Palancal A, Vences M, Meyer A. 2004. Post-mating clutch piracy in an amphibian. Nature 341: 305-308.
50. Wells KD. 1977. The social behaviour of anuran amphibians. Animal Behaviour 25: 666-693.
51. Wilmer JW, Overall AJ, Pomeroy PP, Twiss SD, Amos W. 2000. Patterns of paternal relatedness in British grey seal colonies. Molecular Ecology 9: 283-292.
52. Yasui Y. 1998. The 'genetic benefits' of female multiple mating reconsidered. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 246-250.
53. Zeh DW, Zeh JA. 2000. Reproductive mode and the genetic benefits of polyandry. Animal Behaviour 61: 1051-1063.
54. Zeh JA, Zeh DW. 1996. The evolution of polyandry. I. Intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 263: 1711-1717.