Who to include in measures of sexual selection is no trivial matter

Ecology Letters

Volumn 13, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1094-1102

  Klug, Hope ^a,b   Lindström, Kai ^c   Kokko, Hanna ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c ÅBO AKADEMI UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

^d AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Density dependent sexual selection; Mate competition; Mating system; Natural selection; Resource competition; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA; POMATOSCHISTUS MINUTUS;

EID: 77955949124     PISSN: 1461023X     EISSN: 14610248     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01495.x     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Ahnesjö I, Kvarnemo C, Merilaita S. Using potential reproductive rates to predict mating competition among individuals qualified to mate. Behav. Ecol. 2001, 12:397-401.
2. Arnold SJ, Wade MJ. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: theory. Evolution 1984a, 38:709-719.
3. Arnold SJ, Wade MJ. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: applications. Evolution 1984b, 38:720-734.
4. Birkhead TR, Pizzari T. Postcopulatory sexual selection. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2002, 3:262-273.
5. Bonduriansky R. Sexual selection and allometry: a critical reappraisal of the evidence and ideas. Evolution 2007, 61:838-849.
6. Candolin U, Heuschele J. Is sexual selection beneficial during adaptation to environmental change? Trends Ecol. Evol. 2008, 23:446-452.
7. Clutton-Brock TH. Sexual selection in males and females. Science 2007, 318:1882-1885.
8. Crawley MJ. Statistical Computing: An Introduction to Data Analysis using SPlus 2002, J. Wiley, West Sussex
9. Darwin C. The Decent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex 1871, D. Appleton and Company, New York
10. Doherty PF, Sorci G, Royle JA, Hines JE, Nichols JD, Boulinier T. Sexual selection affects local extinction and turnover in bird communities. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100:5858-5862.
11. Dolan AC, Murphy MT, Rdemond LJ, Sexton K, Duffield D. Extrapair paternity and the opportunity for sexual selection in a socially monogamous passerine. Behav. Ecol. 2007, 18:985-993.
12. Duval EH, Kempenaers B. Sexual selection in a lekking bird: the relative opportunity for selection by female choice and male competition. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2008, 275:1995-2003.
13. Forsgren E, Kvarnemo C, Lindström K. Modes of sexual selection determined by resource abundance in two sand goby populations. Evolution 1996, 50:646-654.
14. Head ML, Lindholm AK, Brooks R. Operational sex ratio and density do not affect directional selection on male sexual ornaments and behavior. Evolution 2007, 62:135-144.
15. Jennions MD, Kokko H. Sexual selection. Evolutionary Behavioral Ecology 2010, 343-364. Westneat DF, Fox CW. eds, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp
16. Jirotkul M. Population density influences male-male competition in guppies. Anim. Behav. 1999, 58:1169-1175.
17. Jones AG. On the opportunity for sexual selection, the Bateman gradient and the maximum intensity of sexual selection. Evolution 2009, 63:1673-1684.
18. Klug H, Heuschele J, Jennions MD, Kokko H. The mismeasurement of sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 2010, 23:447-462.
19. Koenig WD, Albano SS. On the measurement of sexual selection. Am. Nat. 1986, 127:403-409.
20. Kokko H, Brooks R. Sexy to die for? Sexual selection and the risk of extinction. Ann. Zool. Fennici 2003, 40:207-219.
21. 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.
22. Kvarnemo C, Ahnesjö I. The dynamics of operational sex ratios and competition for mates. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1996, 11:404-408.
23. Kvarnemo C, Ahnesjö I. Operational sex ratios and mating competition. Sex Ratios: Concepts and Research Methods 2002, 366-382. Hardy ICW, ed, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp
24. Lindström K. Female spawning patterns and male mating success in the sand goby Pomatoschistus minutus. Mar. Biol. 1992, 113:475-480.
25. Lindström K. Effects of resource distribution on sexual selection and the cost of reproduction in sandgobies. Am. Nat. 2001, 158:64-74.
26. McLain DK. Population density and the intensity of sexual selection on body length in spatially or temporally restricted natural populations of a seed bug. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1992, 30:347-356.
27. Mobley KB, Jones AG. Geographical variation in the mating system of the dusky pipefish (Syngnathus floridae). Mol. Ecol. 2007, 16:2596-2606.
28. Olson CL. Comparative robustness of six tests in multivariate analysis of variance. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1974, 69:894-908.
29. Perlut NG, Freeman-Gallant CR, Strong AM, Donovan TM, Kilpatrick CW, Zalik NJ. Agricultural management affects evolutionary processes in a migratory songbird. Mol. Ecol. 2008, 17:1248-1255.
30. Pomiankowski A, Møller AP. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, Biol. Sci. 1995, 260:21-29.
31. Quinn G, Keough M. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists 2002, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
32. Reichard M, Smith C, Jordan WC. Genetic evidence reveals density-dependent mediated success of alternative mating behaviours in the European bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus). Mol. Ecol. 2004, 13:1569-1578.
33. Ritchie MG. Sexual selection and speciation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2007, 38:79-102.
34. Rundle HD, Chenoweth SF, Blows MW. The roles of natural and sexual selection during adaptation to a novel environment. Evolution 2006, 60:2218-2225.
35. Ruzzante DE, Hamilton DC, Kramer DL, Grant JWA. Scaling of the variance and the quantification of resource monopolization. Behav. Ecol. 1996, 7:199-207.
36. Shuster SM. Sexual selection and mating systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106:10009-10016.
37. Shuster SM, Wade MJ. Mating Systems and Strategies 2003, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
38. 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.
39. Sutherland WJ. Chance can produce a difference in variance in mating success and explain Bateman's data. Anim. Behav. 1985, 33:1349-1352.
40. Sutherland WJ. Random and deterministic components of variance in mating success. Sexual Selection: Testing Alternatives 1987, 209-219. Bradbury JWAndersson MB. eds, Wiley, Chichester, pp
41. Tobias JA, Seddon N. Sexual selection and ecological generalism are correlated in antbirds. J. Evol. Biol. 2009, 22:623-636.
42. Vanpé C, Kjellander P, Galan M, Cosson J-F, Aulagnier S, Liberg O. Mating system, sexual dimorphism, and the opportunity for sexual selection in a territorial ungulate. Behav. Ecol. 2008, 19:309-316.
43. Wade MJ. Sexual selection and variance in reproductive success. Am. Nat. 1979, 114:742-764.
44. Wade MJ, Shuster SM. Sexual selection: harem size and the variance in male reproductive success. Am. Nat. 2004, 164:E83-E89.
45. 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.