Reproductive constraints, not environmental conditions, shape the ontogeny of sex-specific mass-size allometry in roe deer

Oikos

Volumn 120, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 1217-1226

  Hewison, A J Mark ^a   Gaillard, Jean Michel ^b   Delorme, Daniel ^c   van Laere, Guy ^c   Amblard, Thibaut ^c   Klein, François ^c  

^a CEMAGREF   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ LYON 1   (France)

^c OFFICE NATIONAL DE LA CHASSE ET DE LA FAUNE SAUVAGE   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; BIOACCUMULATION; BODY SIZE; COHORT ANALYSIS; DEER; DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY; DIVERGENCE; ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS; FUNCTIONAL MORPHOLOGY; GROWTH; JUVENILE; ONTOGENY; POPULATION STRUCTURE; PRIORITIZATION; REPRODUCTION; REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; RESOURCE AVAILABILITY; SELECTION; SENESCENCE; SEX-RELATED DIFFERENCE; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SKELETON;

ANIMALIA; CAPREOLUS; CERVIDAE; MAMMALIA;

EID: 79960641367     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19316.x     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Andersson M. B. 1994. Sexual selection. - Princeton Univ. Press.
2. Andersen R. and Linnell J. D. C. 1997. Variation in maternal investment in a small cervid: the effects of cohort, sex, litter size and time of birth in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) fawns. Oecologia 109: 74-79.
3. Andersen R. et al. 1998a. Variation in life-history parameters in roe deer. - In: Andersen R. et al. (eds), The European roe deer: the biology of success, Scandinavian Univ. Press, pp. 285-308.
4. Andersen R. et al. 1998b. The European roe deer: the biology of success. - Scandinavian Univ. Press.
5. Andersen R. et al. 2000. Factors affecting maternal care in an income breeder, the European roe deer. J. Anim. Ecol. 69: 672-682.
6. Badyaev A. V. 2002. Growing apart: an ontogenetic perspective on the evolution of sexual size dimorphism. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17: 369-378.
7. Burnham K. P. and Anderson D. R. 2002. Model selection and multi-model interference: a practical information-theoretic approach. - Springer.
8. Clutton-Brock T. H. 1987. Sexual selection in the Cervidae. - In: Wemmer C. M. (ed.), Biology and management of the Cervidae. Smithsonian Inst. Press, pp. 110-122.
9. Clutton-Brock T. H. et al. 1980. Antlers, body size and breeding group-size in the Cervidae. Nature 285: 565-567.
10. Clutton-Brock T. H. et al. 1982. Red deer - behavior and ecology of two sexes. - Univ. of Chicago Press.
11. Coltman D. W. et al. 1999. Density-dependent variation in lifetime breeding success and natural and sexual selection in Soay rams. Am. Nat. 154: 730-746.
12. Cook J. G. et al. 1996. Nutrition-growth relations of elk calves during late summer and fall. J. Wildl. Manage. 60: 528-541.
13. Delorme D. et al. 1988. Intérêt de l'étude de la période juvénile pour le suivi de l'évolution d'une population de chevreuils (Capreolus capreolus). Gibier Faune Sauvage 5: 15-26.
14. Dobson F. S. 1992. Body mass, structural size and life-history patterns of the Columbian ground squirrel. Am. Nat. 140: 109-125.
15. Eberhardt L. L. and Siniff D. B. 1977. Population dynamics and marine mammal management policies. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 34: 183-190.
16. 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.
17. Ferguson S. H. et al. 2000. The influences of density on growth and reproduction in moose Alces alces. Wildl. Biol. 6: 31-39.
18. Festa-Bianchet M. et al. 1995. Life-history consequences of variation in age of primiparity in bighorn ewes. Ecology 76: 871-881.
19. Festa-Bianchet M. et al. 1996. The development of sexual dimorphism: seasonal and lifetime mass changes in bighorn sheep. Can. J. Zool. 74: 330-342.
20. Gaillard J.-M. et al. 1992. Effects of age and body weight on the proportion of females breeding in a population of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). Can. J. Zool. 70: 1541-1545.
21. Gaillard J.-M. et al. 1993. Roe deer survival patterns - a comparative analysis of contrasting populations. J. Anim. Ecol. 62: 778-791.
22. Gaillard J.-M. et al. 1997. Early survival in roe deer: causes and consequences of cohort variation in two contrasted populations. Oecologia 112: 502-513.
23. Gaillard J.-M. et al. 1998. Population dynamics. - In: Awnderson R. et al. (eds), The European roe deer: the biology of success. Scandinavian Univ. Press, pp. 309-335.
24. Gaillard J. M. et al. 2000a. Body mass and individual fitness in female ungulates: bigger is not always better. Proc. R. Soc. B 267: 471-477.
25. Gaillard J. M. et al. 2000b. Temporal variation in fitness components and population dynamics of large herbivores. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31: 367-393.
26. Gaillard J. M. et al. 2003a. Cohort effects and deer population dynamics. Ecoscience 10: 412-420.
27. Gaillard J. M. et al. 2003b. Effects of hurricane Lothar on the population dynamics of European roe deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 67: 767-773.
28. Garel M. et al. 2010. Sex-specific growth in Alpine chamois. J. Mammal. 90: 954-960.
29. Girard-Buttoz C. et al. 2009. Seasonal and social influences on fecal androgen and glucocorticoid excretion in wild male long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis). Physiol. Behav. 98: 168-175.
30. Green W. C. H. and Rothstein A. 1991. Trade-offs between growth and reproduction in female bison. Oecologia 86: 521-527.
31. Hewison A. J. M. 1996. Variation in the fecundity of roe deer in Britain: effects of age and body weight. Acta Theriol. 41: 187-198.
32. Hewison A. J. M. and Gaillard J. M. 2001. Phenotypic quality and senescence affect different components of reproductive output in roe deer. J. Anim. Ecol. 70: 600-608.
33. Hewison A. J. M. et al. 1996. Annual variation in body composition of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in moderate environmental conditions. Can. J. Zool. 74: 245-253.
34. Hewison A. J. M. et al. 2002. The influence of density on post-weaning growth in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) fawns. J. Zool. 257: 303-309.
35. Isaac J. L. 2005. Potential causes and life-history consequences of sexual size dimorphism in mammals. Mamm. Rev. 35: 101-115.
36. Jarman P. 1983. Mating system and sexual dimorphism in large, terrestrial, mammalian herbivores. Biol. Rev. 58: 485-520.
37. Johansson A. 1996. Territorial dynamics and marking behaviour in male roe deer. - PhD thesis, Stockholm Univ., Sweden.
38. Jönsson K. I. 1997. Capital and income breeding as alternative tactics of resource use in reproduction. Oikos 78: 57-66.
39. Klein D. R. 1964. Range related differences in growth of deer reflected in skeletal ratios. J. Mammal. 45: 226-235.
40. Leberg P. L. and Smith M. H. 1993. Influence of density on growth of white-tailed deer. J. Mammal. 74: 723-731.
41. LeBlanc M. et al. 2001. Sexual size dimorphism in bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis): effects of population density. Can. J. Zool. 79: 1661-1670.
42. Moore S. L. and Wilson K. 2002. Parasites as a viability cost of sexual selection in natural populations of mammals. Science 297: 2015-2018.
43. Mysterud A. et al. 2008. Age-specific feeding cessation in male red deer during rut. J. Zool. 275: 407-412.
44. Nilsen E. B. et al. 2009. A slow life in hell or a fast life in heaven: demographic analyses of contrasting roe deer populations. J. Anim. Ecol. 78: 585-594.
45. Pettorelli N. et al. 2002. Variations in adult body mass in roe deer: the effects of population density at birth and of habitat quality. Proc. R. Soc. B 269: 747-753.
46. Pettorelli N. et al. 2006. Using a proxy of plant productivity (NDVI) to find key periods for animal performance: the case of roe deer. Oikos 112: 565-572.
47. Pinheiro J. C. and Bates D. M. 2000. Mixed effects models in S and S-Plus. - Springer.
48. Post E. et al. 1997. Global climate change and phenotypic variation among red deer cohorts. Proc. R. Soc. B 264: 1317-1324.
49. Post E. et al. 1999. Environmental variation shapes sexual dimorphism in red deer. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96: 4467-4471.
50. Ratcliffe P. R. and Mayle B. 1992. Roe deer biology and management. For. Comm. Bull. 105: 1-28.
51. Reeve J. P. and Fairbairn D. J. 2001. Predicting the evolution of sexual size dimorphism. J. Evol. Biol. 14: 244-254.
52. Skogland T. 1983. The effects of density dependent resource limitation on size of wild reindeer. Oecologia 60: 156-168.
53. Solberg E. J. et al. 2004. Lasting effects of conditions at birth on moose body mass. Ecography 27: 677-687.
54. Toïgo C. et al. 1999. Cohort affects growth of males but not females in alpine ibex (Capra ibex ibex). J. Mammal. 80: 1021-1027.
55. Toïgo C. et al. 2006. How does environmental variation influence body mass, body size and body condition? Roe deer as a case study. Ecography 29: 301-308.
56. Vanpé C. et al. 2007. Antler size provides an honest signal of male phenotypic quality in roe deer. Am Nat. 169: 481-493.
57. Vanpé C. et al. 2008. Mating system, sexual dimorphism and the opportunity for sexual selection in a territorial ungulate. Behav. Ecol. 19: 309-316.
58. Vanpé C. et al. 2009a. Access to mates in a territorial ungulate is determined by the size of a male's territory, but not by its habitat quality. J. Anim. Ecol. 78: 42-51.
59. Vanpé C. et al. 2009b. Age-specific variation in male breeding success of a territorial ungulate species, the European roe deer. J. Mammal. 90: 661-665.
60. Vanpé C. et al. 2010. Assessing the intensity of sexual selection on male body mass and antler length in roe deer Capreolus capreolus: is bigger better in a weakly dimorphic species? Oikos 119: 1484-1492.