Quantifying sexual selection: A comparison of competing indices with mating system data from a terrestrially breeding salamander

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Volumn 99, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 73-83

  Croshaw, Dean A ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS   (United States)

^c University of Arizona   (United States)

Author keywords

Ambystoma opacum; Bateman's principles; Binomial skew index; Index of resource monopolization; Morisita index; Opportunity for selection

Indexed keywords

AMPHIBIAN; FITNESS; GENETIC MARKER; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SEX RATIO; SEXUAL SELECTION; SKEWNESS;

AMBYSTOMA; AMBYSTOMA OPACUM; SALAMANDROIDEA;

EID: 73349132670     PISSN: 00244066     EISSN: 10958312     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2009.01337.x     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Andersson M, Iwasa Y. 1996. Sexual selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11 : 53 58.
2. Arnold SJ. 1986. Limit on stabilizing, disruptive, and correlational selection set by the opportunity for selection. American Naturalist 128 : 143 146.
3. Arnold SJ. 1994. Bateman's principles and the measurement of sexual selection in plants and animals. American Naturalist 144 : S126 S149.
4. Arnold SJ, Duvall D. 1994. Animal mating systems: a synthesis based on selection theory. American Naturalist 143 : 317 348.
5. Arnold SJ, Wade MJ. 1984. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: theory. Evolution 38 : 709 719.
6. Bateman AJ. 1948. Intrasexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2 : 349 368.
7. Bertram SM, Gorelick R. 2009. Quantifying and comparing mating systems using normalized mutual entropy. Animal Behaviour 77 : 201 206.
8. Croshaw DA, Peters MB, Glenn TC. 2009. Comparing the performance of analytical techniques for genetic parentage of half-sib progeny arrays. Genetics research 91 : 313 325.
9. Croshaw DA, Schable NA, Peters MB, Glenn TC. 2005. Isolation and characterization of microsatellite DNA loci from Ambystoma salamanders. Conservation Genetics 6 : 473 479.
10. Darwin C. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London : Murray.
11. Downhower JF, Blumer LS, Brown L. 1987. Opportunity for selection: an appropriate measure for evaluating variation in the potential for selection? Evolution 50 : 1395 1400.
12. Emlen ST, Oring LW. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197 : 215 223.
13. Fairbairn DJ, Wilby AE. 2001. Inequality of opportunity: measuring the potential for sexual selection. Evolutionary Ecology Research 3 : 667 686.
14. Gibbons JW, Semlitsch RD. 1981. Terrestrial drift fences with pitfall traps: an effective technique for quantitative sampling of animal populations. Brimleyana 7 : 1 16.
15. Grant JWA, Brant MJ, Soos CE. 1995. Operational sex ratio, mediated by synchrony of female survival, alters the variance of male mating success in Japanese Medaka. Animal Behaviour 49 : 367 375.
16. Head ML, Lindholm AK, Brooks R. 2008. Operational sex ratio and density do not affect directional selection on male sexual ornaments and behavior. Evolution 62 : 135 144.
17. Hoglund J. 1989. Pairing and spawning patterns in the common toad, Bufo bufo: the effects of sex ratios and the time available for male-male competition. Animal Behaviour 38 : 423 429.
18. Jones AG, Arguello JR, Arnold SJ. 2004. Molecular parentage analysis in experimental newt populations: the response of mating system measures to variation in the operational sex ratio. American Naturalist 161 : 444 456.
19. Jones AG, Rosenqvist G, Berglund A, Avise JC. 2005. The measurement of sexual selection using Bateman's principles: an experimental test in the sex-role-reversed pipefish Syngnathus typhle. Integrative and Comparative Biology 45 : 874 884.
20. Kokko H, Mackenzie A, Reynolds JD, Lindstrom J, Sutherland WJ. 1999. Measures of inequality are not equal. American Naturalist 154 : 358 382.
21. Krenz JD, Scott DE. 1994. Terrestrial courtship affects mating locations in Ambystoma opacum. Herpetologica 50 : 46 50.
22. Kutsukake N, Nunn CL. 2006. Comparative tests of reproductive skew in male primates: the roles of demographic factors and incomplete control. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 60 : 695 706.
23. Lee AM, Engen S, Saether BE. 2008. Understanding mating systems: a mathematical model of the pair formation process. Theoretical Population Biology 73 : 112 124.
24. Lorch PD. 2005. Using upper limits of 'Bateman gradients' to estimate the opportunity for sexual selection. Integrative and Comparative Biology 45 : 924 930.
25. Lorch PD, Bussiere LF, Gwynne DT. 2008. Quantifying the potential for sexual dimorphism using upper limits on Bateman gradients. Behaviour 145 : 1 24.
26. Maness TJ, Anderson DJ. 2007. Serial monogamy and sex ratio bias in Nazca boobies. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 274 : 2047 2054.
27. Marshall TC, Slate J, Kruuk L, Pemberton JM. 1998. Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Molecular Ecology 7 : 639 655.
28. Mills SC, Grapputo A, Koskela E, Mappes T. 2007. Quantitative measure of sexual selection with respect to the operational sex ratio: a comparison of selection indices. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 274 : 143 150.
29. δ-index, a measure of dispersion of individuals. Researches on Population Ecology 4 : 1 7.
30. Nonacs P. 2000. Measuring and using skew in the study of social behavior and evolution. American Naturalist 156 : 577 589.
31. Nonacs P. 2003. Measuring the reliability of skew indices: is there one best index? Animal Behaviour 65 : 615 627.
32. Ruzzante DE, Hamilton DC, Kramer DL, Grant JWA. 1996. Scaling of the variance and quantification of resource monopolization. Behavioral Ecology 7 : 199 207.
33. SAS Institute. 2003. SAS system for Windows, Release 8.01. Cary, NC : SAS Institute.
34. Sharitz RR. 2003. Carolina bay wetlands: unique habitats of the southeastern United States. Wetlands 23 : 550 562.
35. Souroukis K, Cade WH. 1993. Reproductive competition and selection on male traits at varying sex ratios in the field cricket, Gryllus pennsylvanicus. Behaviour 126 : 45 62.
36. Sutherland WJ. 1985. Chance can produce a sex difference in variance in mating success and explain Bateman's data. Animal Behaviour 33 : 1249 1352.
37. Tsuji K, Kasuya E. 2001. What do the indices of reproductive skew measure? American Naturalist 158 : 155 165.
38. Tsuji K, Tsuji N. 1998. Indices of reproductive skew depend on average reproductive success. Evolutionary Ecology 12 : 141 152.