The mismeasurement of sexual selection

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 447-462

  Klug, H ^a   Heuschele, J ^a   Jennions, M D ^b   Kokko, H ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Mate competition; Mating systems; Operational sex ratio; Opportunity for sexual selection; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTIONARY THEORY; MATING SUCCESS; RELATIVE ABUNDANCE; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; SEX RATIO; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; MALE; REVIEW; SEX RATIO; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT;

ANIMALS; FEMALE; MALE; MODELS, GENETIC; SELECTION, GENETIC; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; SEX RATIO;

EID: 77749264579     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01921.x     Document Type: Review

References (86)

1. Ahnesjö I, Kvarnemo C, Merilaita S. Using potential reproductive rates to predict mating competition among individuals prepared to mate. Behav. Ecol. 2001, 12:397-401.
2. Albrecht T, Schnitzer J, Kreisinger J, Exnerová A, Bryja J, Munclinger P. Extrapair paternity and the opportunity for sexual selection in long-distant migratory passerines. Behav. Ecol. 2007, 18:477-486.
3. Andersson M. Sexual Selection 1994, 89-91. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, pp
4. Andersson M. Social polyandry, parental investment, sexual selection, and evolution of reduced female gamete size. Evolution 2004, 58:24-34.
5. Andersson M, Iwasa Y. Sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1996, 11:53-58.
6. Arnold SJ, Duvall D. Mating systems: a synthesis based on selection theory. Am. Nat. 1994, 143:317-348.
7. Arnold SJ, Wade MJ. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: theory. Evolution 1984a, 38:709-719.
8. Arnold SJ, Wade MJ. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: applications. Evolution 1984b, 38:720-734.
9. Bateman AJ. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 1948, 2:349-368.
10. Bjork A, Pitnick S. Intensity of sexual selection along the anisogamy-isogamy continuum. Nature 2006, 441:742-745.
11. Byers BE, Mays HL, Stewart IRK, Westneat DF. Extrapair paternity increases variability in male reproductive success in the chestnut-sided warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica), a socially momogamous songbird. Auk. 2004, 121:788-795.
12. Clutton-Brock TH, Parker GA. Potential Reproductive Rates and the Operation of Sexual Selection. Q. Rev. Biol. 1992, 67:437-456.
13. Clutton-Brock TH, Vincent ACJ. Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females. Nature 1991, 351:58-60.
14. Crow JF. Some possibilities for measuring selection intensities in man. Hum. Biol. 1958, 30:1-13.
15. Dolan AC, Murphy MT, Redmond LJ, Sexton K, Duffield D. Extrapair paternity and the opportunity for sexual selection in a socially monogamous passerine. Behav. Ecol. 2007, 18:985-993.
16. Dorus S, Evans PD, Wyckoff GJ, Choi SS, Lahn BT. Rate of molecular evolution of the seminal protein gene SEMG2 correlates with levels of female promiscuity. Nat. Genet. 2004, 36:1326-1329.
17. Downhower JF, Blumer LS, Brown L. Opportunity for selection: an appropriate measure for evaluating variation in the potential for selection? Evolution 1987, 41:1395-1400.
18. Duval EH, Kempenaers B. Sexual selection in a lekking bird: the relative opportunity for selection by female choice and male competition. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 2008, 275:1995-2003.
19. Emlen ST, Oring LW. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 1977, 197:215-223.
20. Emlen ST, Wrege PH. Size dimorphism, intrasexual competition, and sexual selection in Wattled Jacana (Jacana jacana), a sex-role-reversed shorebird in Panama. Auk. 2004, 121:391-403.
21. Fairbairn DJ, Wilby AE. Inequality of opportunity: measuring the potential for sexual selection. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2001, 3:667-686.
22. Ferguson IM, Fairbairn DJ. Is selection ready when opportunity knocks? Evol. Ecol. Res. 2001, 3:199-207.
23. Fisher RA. The Genetical Evolution of Natural Selection 1930, Clarendon Press, Oxford
24. Fitze PS, Le Galliard J-F. Operational sex ratio, sexual conflict, and the intensity of sexual selection. Ecol. Lett. 2008, 11:432-439.
25. Freeman-Gallant CR, Wheelwright NT, Meiklejohn KE, States SL, Sollecito SV. Little effect of extrapair paternity on the opportunity for sexual selection in savannah sparrows (Passerculus sandwichensis). Evolution 2005, 59:422-430.
26. Gopurenko D, Williams RN, DeWoody JA. Reproductive and mating success in the small-mouthed salamander (Ambystoma texanum) estimated via microsatellite parentage analysis. Evol. Biol. 2007, 34:130-139.
27. Grafen A. Measuring sexual selection: why bother? Sexual Selection: Testing Alternatives 1987, 221-223. Bradbury JWAndersson MB. In, eds, pp, Wiley, Chichester, U.K
28. Grafen A. On the uses of data of lifetime reproductive success. Reproductive Success 1988, 454-471. Clutton-Brock TH. In, ed, pp, University of Chicago Press, Chicago
29. Hardy ICW. Sex ratios: Concepts and Research Methods 2002, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
30. Head ML, Lindholm AK, Brooks R. Operational sex ratio and density do not affect directional selection on male sexual ornaments and behavior. Evolution 2008, 62:135-144.
31. Hood BM. Supersense: Why We Believe in the Unbelievable 2009, HarperOne, San Francisco
32. Ims RA. The potential for sexual selection: effect of sex ratio and spatiotemporal distribution of receptive females. Evol. Ecol. 1988, 2:338-352.
33. Järvenpää M, Lindström K. Water turbidity by algal blooms causes mating system breakdown in a shallow water fish, the sand goby Pomatoschistus minutus. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 2004, 271:2361-2365.
34. Jennions MD, Kokko H. Sexual selection. Evolutionary Behavioral Ecology 2010, Westneat DF, Fox CW. In, eds, Oxford University Press, New York
35. Johnstone RA, Reynolds JD, Deutsch JC. Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 1996, 50:1382-1391.
36. Jones AG. On the opportunity for sexual selection, the Bateman gradient, and the maximum intensity of sexual selection. Evolution 2009, 63:1673-1684.
37. Jones AG, Arguello JR, & Arnold SJ. Validation of Bateman's principles: a genetic study of sexual selection and mating patterns in the rough-skinned newt. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2002, 269:2533-2539.
38. Jones AG, Arguello JR, Arnold SJ. Molecular parentage analysis in experimental newt populations: the response of mating system measures to variation in the operational sex ratio. Am. Nat. 2004, 164:444-456.
39. Kelly CD. Identifying a causal agent of sexual selection on weaponry in an insect. Behav. Ecol. 2008, 19:184-192.
40. Kelly CD, Bussiére LF, Gwynne DT. Sexual selection for male mobility in a giant insect with female-biased size dimorphism. Am. Nat. 2008, 172:417-423.
41. Klemme I, Ylonen H, Eccard JA. Reproductive success of male bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus): the effect of operational sex ratio and body size. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2007, 61:1911-1918.
42. Kleven O, Jacobsen F, Izadnegahdar R, Roberston RJ, Lifjeld JT. Male tail treamer length predicts fertilization success in the North American barn swallow (Hirundo rustica erythrogaster). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2006, 59:412-418.
43. Koenig WD, Albano SD. On the measurement of sexual selection. Am. Nat. 1986, 127:403-409.
44. Kokko H, Jennions MD. It takes two to tango. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2003, 18:103-104.
45. Kokko H, Monaghan P. Predicting the direction of sexual selection. Ecol. Lett. 2001, 4:159-165.
46. Kokko H, Rankin DJ. Lonely hearts or sex in the city? Density-dependent effects in mating systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2006, 361:319-334.
47. Kokko H, Sutherland WJ, Lindström J, Reynolds JD, Mackenzie A. Individual mating success, lek stability, and the neglected limitations of statistical power. Anim. Behav. 1998, 56:755-762.
48. Kokko H, Mackenzie A, Reynolds JD, Lindström J, Sutherland WJ. Measures of inequality are not equal. Am. Nat. 1999, 154:358-382.
49. Krakauer AH. Sexual selection and the genetic mating system of wild turkeys. Condor 2008, 110:1-12.
50. Kvarnemo C, Ahnesjö I. The dynamics of operational sex ratios and competition for mates. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1996, 11:404-408.
51. Kvarnemo C, Ahnesjö I. Operational sex ratios and mating competition. Sex Ratios: Concepts and Research Methods 2002, 366-382. Hardy ICW, In, ed, pp, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
52. Kvarnemo C, Moore GI, Jones AG. Sexually selected females in the monogamous Western Australian seahorse. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2007, 274:521-525.
53. Lande R. Quantitative genetical analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain:body evolution. Evolution 1979, 33:403-416.
54. Lande R, Arnold SJ. Measuring selection on correlated characters. Evolution 1983, 37:1210-1226.
55. Lee AM, Engen S, Saether BE. Understanding mating systems: A mathematical model of the pair formation process. Theor. Pop. Biol. 2008, 73:112-124.
56. Lorenzi MC, Sella G. A measure of sexual selection in hermaphroditic animals: parentage skew and the opportunity for selection. J. Evol. Biol. 2008, 21:827-833.
57. Lynch M, Walsh B. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits 1998, Sinauer, Sunderland, MA
58. Mills SC, Grapputo A, Koskela E, Mappes T. Quantitative measure of sexual selection with respect to the operational sex ratio: comparison of selection indices. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2007, 274:143-150.
59. Mobley KB, Jones AG. Geographical variation in the mating system of the dusky pipefish (Syngnathus floridae). Mol. Ecol. 2007, 16:2596-2606.
60. Moore SL, Wilson K. Parasites as a viability cost of sexual selection in natural populations of mammals. Science 2002, 297:2015-2018.
61. Morisita M. I-index, a measure of dispersion of individuals. Res. Popul. Ecol. 1962, 4:1-7.
62. Okuda N. Sex roles are not always reversed when the potential reproductive rate is higher in females. Am. Nat. 1999, 153:540-548.
63. Perlut NG, Freeman-Gallant CR, Strong AM, Donovan TM, Kilpatrick CW, Zalik NJ. Agricultural management affects evolutionary process in a migratory songbird. Molec. Ecol. 2008, 17:1248-1255.
64. Preston BT, Stevenson IR, Pemberton JM, Wilson K. Dominant rams lose out by sperm depletion - a waning success in siring counters a ram's high score in competition for ewes. Nature 2001, 409:618-682.
65. Prohl H. Clutch loss affects the operational sex ratio in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2005, 58:310-315.
66. Reichard M, Smith C, Ryja JB. Seasonal change in the opportunity for sexual selection. Molec. Ecol. 2008, 17:642-651.
67. Reynolds JD. Animal breeding systems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1996, 11:68-72.
68. Rios-Cardenas O. Patterns of parental investment and sexual selection in teleost fishes: do they support Bateman's principles? Integr. Comp. Biol. 2005, 45:885-894.
69. Rossiter SJ, Ransome RD, Faulkes CG, Dawson DA, Jones G. Long-term paternity skew and the opportunity for selection in a mammal with reversed sexual size dimorphism. Mol. Ecol. 2006, 15:3035-3043.
70. Ruzzante DE, Hamilton DC, Kramer DL, Grant JWA. Scaling of the variance and the quantification of resource monopolization. Behav. Ecol. 1996, 7:199-207.
71. Schulte-Hostedde AI, Millar JS, Gibbs HL. Sexual selection and mating patterns in a mammal with female-biased sexual size dimorphism. Behav. Ecol. 2004, 15:351-356.
72. Seddon N, Merrill RM, Tobias JA. Sexually selected traits predict patterns of species richness in a diverse clade of suboscine birds. Am. Nat. 2008, 171:620-631.
73. Shuster SM. Sexual selection and mating systems. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106:10009-10016.
74. Shuster SM, Wade MJ. Mating Systems and Strategies 2003, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
75. Singer A, Kvarnemo C, Lindström K, Svensson O. Genetic mating patterns studied in pools with manipulated nest site availability in two populations of Pomatoschistus minutus. J. Evol. Biol. 2006, 19:1641-1650.
76. Sutherland WJ. Chance can produce a difference in variance in mating success and explain Bateman's data. Anim. Behav. 1985, 33:1349-1352.
77. Sword GA, Simpson SJ. Radiotracking sexual selection. Curr. Biol. 2008, 18:R955-R956.
78. Taleb NN. Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden role of Chance in the Markets and Life 2007, 2nd edn, Penguin, U.K
79. Twiss SD, Thomas C, Poland V, Graves JA, Pomeroy P. The impact of climatic variation on the opportunity for sexual selection. Biol. Lett. 2007, 3:12-15.
80. Vanpé C, Kjellander P, Galan M, Cosson J-F, Aulagnier S, Liberg O, Hewison AJM. Mating system, sexual dimorphism, and the opportunity for sexual selection in a territorial ungulate. Behav. Ecol. 2008, 19:309-316.
81. Vieites DR, Nieto-Roman S, Barluenga M, Palanca A, Vences M, Meyer A. Post-mating clutch piracy in an amphibian. Nature 2004, 431:305-308.
82. Wade MJ. Sexual selection and variance in reproductive success. Am. Nat. 1979, 114:742-764.
83. Weatherhead PJ. Long-term decline in a red-winged blackbird population: ecological causes and sexual selection consequences. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2005, 272:2313-2317.
84. Webster MS, Tarvin KA, Tuttle EM, Pruett-Jones S. Promiscuity drives sexual selection in a socially monogamous bird. Evolution 2007, 61:2205-2211.
85. Westneat DF. No Evidence of Current Sexual Selection on Sexually Dimorphic Traits in a Bird with High Variance in Mating Success. Am. Nat. 2006, 167:E171-E189.
86. Wiegmann DD, Nguyen T. Mating system and demographic constraints on the opportunity for sexual selection. Theor. Popul. Biol. 2006, 69:34-47.