Sexual size dimorphism in seabirds: Sexual selection, fecundity selection and differential niche-utilisation

Oikos

Volumn 113, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 385-394

  Serrano Meneses, Martín Alejandro ^a   Székely, Tamás ^a  

^a University of Bath   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREEDING SITE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EGG; FECUNDITY; NICHE; PHYLOGENETICS; SEABIRD; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SEXUAL SELECTION;

EID: 33745042391     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2006.14246.x     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Abouheif E. Fairbairn D. J.. 1997. A comparative analysis of allometry for sexual size dimorphism: assessing Rensch's Rule Am. Nat. 149: 540 562.
2. Anderson S. S. Fedak M. F.. 1985. Grey seal males: energetic and behavioural links between size and sexual success Anim. Behav. 33: 829 838.
3. Andersson M.. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press.
4. Andersson M. Norberg R. A.. 1981. Evolution of reversed sexual size dimorphism and role partitioning among raptors, with a size scaling of flight performance Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 15: 105 130.
5. Behrenfeld M. J. Falkowski P. G.. 1997. Photosynthetic rates derived from satellite-based chlorophyll concentration Limnol. Oceanogr. 42: 1 20.
6. Blanckenhorn W. U.. 2000. The evolution of body size: what keeps organisms small? Q. Rev. Biol. 75: 385 407.
7. Blomqvist D. Johansson O.C. Unger U. et al. 1997. Male aerial display and reversed sexual size dimorphism in the dunlin Anim. Behav. 54: 1291 1299.
8. Causey D.. 2002. Red-faced cormorant (Phalacrocorax urile) Poole A. Gill F. The birds of North America. No. 617. Acad. Natl. Sci. Am. Ornithol. Union.
9. Clark Labs, http://www.clarklabs.org
10. Clutton-Brock T. H. Guinness F. E. Albon S. D.. 1982. Red deer: behavior and ecology of two sexes. Univ. of Chicago Press.
11. Colwell R. K.. 2000. Rensch's rule crosses the line: convergent allometry of sexual size dimorphism in hummingbirds and flower mites Am. Nat. 156: 495 510.
12. Cramp S. Simmons K. E. L.. 1977. Handbook of the birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa: the birds of the Western Palaearctic. Vol. 1. Oxford Univ. Press.
13. Cushman-Murphy R. Pennoyer J. M.. 1952. Larger petrels of the genus Pterodroma. Am. Mus. Novitates, No. 1580.
14. Darwin C.. 1871. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Princeton Univ. Press.
15. Diamond A. W. Schreiber E. A.. 2002. Magnificent frigatebird (Fregata magnificens) Poole A. Gill F. The birds of North America. No. 601. Acad. Natl. Sci. Washington, DC: Am. Ornithol. Union.
16. Dunning J. B., Jr.. 1983. CRC handbook of avian body masses. CRC Press.
17. Evans R. M. Knopf F. L.. 1993. American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) Poole A. Gill F. The birds of North America. No. 57. Acad. Natl. Sci. Washington, DC: Am. Ornithol. Union.
18. Fairbairn J. Shine R.. 1993. Patterns of sexual size dimorphism in seabirds of the Southern Hemisphere Oikos 68: 139 145.
19. 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.
20. Felsenstein J.. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method Am. Nat. 125: 1 15.
21. Figuerola J.. 1999. A comparative study on the evolution of reversed size dimorphism in monogamous waders Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 67: 1 18.
22. Fleet R. R.. 1974. The red-tailed tropicbird on Kure Atoll Ornithol. Monogr. 16: 1 64.
23. Friesen V. L. Anderson D. J.. 1997. Phylogeny and evolution of the Sulidae (Aves: Pelecaniformes): a test of alternative modes of speciation Mol. Phyl. Evol. 7: 252 260.
24. Garland T. Jr. Harvey P. H. Ives A. R.. 1992. Procedures for the analyses of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts Syst. Biol. 41: 18 32.
25. Gauger-Metz V. Schreiber E. A.. 2002. Great frigatebird (Fregata minor) Poole A. Gill F. The birds of North America. No. 681. Acad. Natl. Sci. Washington, DC: Am. Ornithol. Union.
26. Gould P. J. King W. B. Sanger G. A.. 1974. Red-tailed tropicbird (Phaethon rubricauda) King W. B. Pelagic studies of seabirds in the central and eastern Pacific: 206-231. Smithsonian Inst.
27. Hakkarainen H. Huhta E. Lahti K. et al. 1996. A test of male mating and hunting success in the kestrel: the advantages of smallness? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 39: 375 380.
28. Harris M. P.. 1970. The biology of an endangered species, the dark-rumped petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia), in the Galápagos Islands Condor 72: 76 84.
29. Harvey P. Pagel M. D.. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford Univ. Press.
30. Hatch S. A. Nettleship. D. N.. 1998. Northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) Poole A. Gill F. The birds of North America. No. 361. Acad. Natl. Sci. Washington, DC: Am. Ornithol. Union.
31. Head G.. 1995. Selection on fecundity and variation in the degree of sexual size dimorphism among spider species (Class Araneae) Evolution 49: 776 781.
32. Hedrick A. V. Temeles E. J.. 1989. The evolution of sexual dimorphism in animals: hypotheses and tests Trends Ecol. Evol. 4: 136 138.
33. Honěk A.. 1993. Intraspecific variation in body size and fecundity in insects: a general relationship Oikos 66: 483 492.
34. del Hoyo J. Elliott A. Sargatal J.. 1992. Handbook of the birds of the World. Vol. 1. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
35. Huntington C. E. Butler R. G. Mauck R. A.. 1996. Leach's storm-petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa) Poole A. Gill F. The birds of North America. No. 233. Acad. Natl. Sci. Washington, DC: Am. Ornithol. Union.
36. Imber M. J.. 1976. Breegind biology of the grey-faced petrel Pterodroma macroptera gouldi N. Z. Dept of Internal Affairs Wildlife Publ. 183: 51 64.
37. Jehl Jr. J. R. Murray Jr. B. G.. 1986. The evolution of normal and reverse sexual size dimorphism in shorebirds and other birds Curr. Ornithol. 3: 1 86.
38. Jeremy J. H. Weseloh D. V.. 1999. Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) Poole A. Gill F. The birds of North America. No. 441. Acad. Natl. Sci. Washington, DC: Am. Ornithol. Union.
39. Johnsgard P. A.. 1993. Cormorants, darters and pelicans of the World. Smithsonian Inst. Press.
40. Jouventin P. Bried J.. 2001. The effect of mate choice on speciation in snow petrels Anim. Behav. 62: 123 132.
41. Jouventin P. Lequette B. Dobson F. S.. 1999. Age-related mate choice in the wandering albatross Anim. Behav. 57: 1099 1106.
42. Kennedy M. Page R. D. M.. 2002. Seabird supertrees: combining partial estimates of procellariiform phylogeny Auk 119: 88 108.
43. Kennedy M. Spencer H. G.. 2004. Phylogenies of the frigatebirds (Fregatidae) and tropicbirds (Phaethonidae), two divergent groups of the traditional order Pelecaniformes, inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences Mol. Phyl. Evol. 31: 31 38.
44. Kennedy M. Gray R. D. Spencer H. G.. 2000. The phylogenetic relationships of the shags and cormorants: can sequence data resolve a disagreement between behavior and morphology? Mol. Phyl. Evol. 3: 345 359.
45. Lindenfors P. Tullberg B. S.. 1998. Phylogenetic analyses of primate size evolution: the consequences of sexual selection Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 64: 413 447.
46. Lindenfors P. Tullberg B. S. Biuw M.. 2002. Phylogenetic analyses of sexual selection and sexual size dimorphism in pinnipeds Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 52: 188 193.
47. Löfgren L.. 1984. Ocean birds: their breeding, biology and behaviour. Croom and Helm, Canberra.
48. Marchant S. Higgins. P. J.. 1990. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic birds. Vol. 1, Parts A and B. Oxford Univ. Press.
49. Megyesi J. L. O'Daniel D.. 1997. Bulwer's petrel (Bulweria bulwerii). The birds of North America No. 281. Acad. Natl. Sci., Washington, DC: Am.Ornithol. Union.
50. Metz V. G. Schreiber E. A.. 2002. Great frigatebird (Fregata minor) Poole A. Gill F. The birds of North America. No. 681. Acad. Natl. Sci. Washington, DC: Am. Ornithol. Union.
51. Monroe B. L. Jr. Sibley C. G.. 1993. A World checklist of birds. Yale Univ. Press.
52. Nelson B.. 1978. The Sulidae: gannets and boobies. Oxford Univ. Press.
53. Nelson B.. 2002. The Atlantic gannet. Biddles the Printers, Guildford.
54. Norman F. I. Brown R. S.. 1987. Notes on common diving-petrels Pelecanoides urinatrix Found Beach-washed in Victoria, 1985 Emu 87: 179 185.
55. Nunn G. B. Stanley S. E.. 1998. Body size effects and rates of cytochrome b evolution in tube-nosed seabirds Mol. Biol. Evol. 15: 1360 1371.
56. Owens I.P.F. Hartley I.R.. 1998. Sexual dimorphism in birds: why are there so many different forms of dimorphism? Proc. R. Soc. B 265: 397 407.
57. Pagel M.. 1994. Detecting correlated evolution on phylogenies: a general method for the comparative analysis of discrete characters Proc. R. Soc. B 255: 37 45.
58. Payne R. B.. 1984. Sexual selection, lek and arena behavior, and sexual size dimorphism in birds J. Field Ornithol. 56: 92 93.
59. Prenter J. Elwood R. W. Montgomery W. I.. 1999. Sexual size dimorphism and reproductive investment by female spiders: a comparative analysis Evolution 53: 1987 1994.
60. Provincial Museum of Alberta, the blue-footed booby http://www.pma. edmonton.ab.ca/vexhibit/eggs/vexeggs/wrldeggs/bfboob.htm.
61. Purvis A. Rambaut A.. 1995. Comparative analysis by independent contrasts (CAIC): an Apple Macintosh application for analyzing comparative data Comput. Appl. Biosci. 11: 247 251.
62. R Development Core Team. 2004. R: a language and environment for statistical computing.-R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-00-3, URL http://www.R-project.org.
63. Raihani G. Székely T. Serrano-Meneses M. A. et al. 2006. The influence of sexual selection and male agility on sexual size dimorphism in bustards (Otididae) Anim. Behav. 71: 833 838.
64. Rand R. W.. 1960. The biology of guano-producing seabirds 3. The distribution, abundance and feeding habits of the cormorants Phalacrocoracidae off the south west coast of the Cape Providence. Dept of Commerce and Industries, Div. of Fisheries Investigational Rep. No 42.
65. Ridley M. Thompson D. J.. 1979. Size and mating in Asellus aquaticus (Curstacea: Isopoda) Z. Tierpsychol. 51: 380 397.
66. Sandercock B. K.. 1998. Assortative mating and sexual size dimorphism in western and semipalmated sandpipers Auk 115: 786 791.
67. Sandercock B. K.. 2001. What is the relative importance of sexual selection and ecological processes in the evolution of sexual size dimorphism in monogamous shorebirds? Wader Study Group Bull. 96: 64 70.
68. - In: Schreiber E. A. Burger J. Biology of marine birds. CRC Press 2002 Schenk G. A.. 1996. Red footed booby (Sula sula) Poole A. Gill F. The birds of North America. No. 241. Acad. Nat. Sci. Washington, DC: Am. Ornithol. Union.
69. SEAWIFS: estimated primary productivity map http://marine.rutgers.edu/ opp/swf/Production/results/all2_swf.html.
70. Selander R. K.. 1966. Sexual dimorphism and differential niche utilization in birds Condor 68: 113 151.
71. Serventy D. L. Serventy V. N. Warham J.. 1971. The handbook of Australian sea-birds. A. H. and A. W. Reed, Australia.
72. Shine R.. 1979. Sexual selection and size dimorphism in the Amphibia Copeia 1979: 297 306.
73. Shine R.. 1989. Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual dimorphism: a review of the evidence Q. Rev. Biol. 64: 419 461.
74. Sibley C. G. Ahlquist J. E.. 1990. Phylogeny and classification of birds. Yale Univ. Press.
75. Simons T. R.. 1985. Biology and behavior of the endangered Hawaiian dark-rumped petrel Condor 87: 229 245.
76. Simons T. R. Hodges C. N.. 1998. Dark-rumped petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia) Poole A. Gill F. The birds of North America. No. 13. Acad. Nat. Sci. Washington, DC: Am. Ornithol. Union.
77. Smith R. J.. 1999. Statistics of sexual size dimorphism J. Human Evol. 36: 423 459.
78. Sokal R. R. Rohlf F. J.. 1981. Biometry, 2nd ed. Freeman.
79. Székely T. Reynolds J. D. Figuerola J.. 2000. Sexual size dimorphism in shorebirds, gulls, and alcids: the influence of sexual and natural selection Evolution 54: 1404 1413.
80. Székely T. Freckleton R. P. Reynolds J. D.. 2004. Sexual selection explains Rensch's rule of size dimorphism in shorebirds Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 101: 12224 12227.
81. Thom M. D. Harrington L. A. Macdonald D. W.. 2004. Why are American mink sexually dimorphic? A role for niche separation Oikos 105: 525 535.
82. Tickell W. L. N.. 2000. Albatrosses. Yale Univ. Press.
83. Urban E. K. Fry C. H. Keith S.. 1986. The birds of Africa. Vol. 1. Academic Press.
84. Webster M. S.. 1992. Sexual dimorphism, mating system and body size in New World blackbirds (Icterinae) Evolution 46: 1621 1641.
85. Whittow G. C.. 1993a. Black-footed albatross (Diomedea nigripes) Poole A. Gill F. The birds of North America. No. 65. Acad. Natl. Sci. Washington, DC: Am. Ornithol. Union..
86. Whittow G. C.. 1993b. Laysan albatross (Diomedea immutabilis) Poole A. Gill F. The birds of North America. No. 66. Acad. Natl. Sci. Washington, DC: Am. Ornithol. Union.
87. Whittow G. C.. 1997. Wedge-tailed shearwater (Puffinus pacificus) Poole A. Gill F. The birds of North America. No. 305. Acad. Natl. Sci. Washington, DC: Am. Ornithol. Union.
88. Wiewandt T. A.. 1982. Evolution of nesting patterns in Iguanine lizards Burghardt G. M. Rand A. S. Iguanas of the world: their behavior, ecology, and conservation. Noyes, Park Ridge, New Jersey 119 141.
89. Williams T. D.. 1995. The penguins. Oxford Univ. Press.