The opportunity for sexual selection: Not mismeasured, just misunderstood

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 24, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 2064-2071

  Krakauer, A H ^a   Webster, M S ^b   Duval, E H ^c   Jones, A G ^d   Shuster, S M ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Fuller Evolutionary Biology Program   (United States)

^c FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bateman gradient; Mating system; Operational sex ratio; Selection gradient

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; MALE; METHODOLOGY; NOTE; POPULATION GENETICS; SEX RATIO; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT;

ANIMALS; FEMALE; GENETICS, POPULATION; MALE; SELECTION, GENETIC; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; SEX RATIO;

EID: 79960786534     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02317.x     Document Type: Note

References (53)

1. Andersson, M.B. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
2. Anthes, N., David, P., Auld, J.R., Hoffer, J.N.A., Jarne, P., Koene, J.M. et al. 2010. Bateman gradients in hermaphrodites: an extended approach to quantify sexual selection. Am. Nat. 176: 249-263.
3. Arnold, S.J. & Duvall, D. 1994. Animal mating systems - a synthesis based on selection theory. Am. Nat. 143: 317-348.
4. Arnold, S.J. & Wade, M.J. 1984a. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection - applications. Evolution 38: 720-734.
5. Arnold, S.J. & Wade, M.J. 1984b. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection - theory. Evolution 38: 709-719.
6. Bateman, A.J. 1948. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2: 349-368.
7. Berglund, A., Rosenqvist, G. & Svensson, I. 1986. Reversed sex-roles and the parental energy investment in zygotes of 2 pipefish (Sygnathidae) species. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 29: 209-215.
8. Bro-Jorgensen, J. 2007. The intensity of sexual selection predicts weapon size in male bovids. Evolution 61: 1316-1326.
9. Clutton-Brock, T.H., Albon, S.D. & Harvey, P.H. 1980. Antlers, body size, and breeding group size in the Cervidae. Nature (London) 285: 565-567.
10. Coleman, S.W., Patricelli, G.L. & Borgia, G. 2004. Variable female preferences drive complex male displays. Nature 428: 742-745.
11. Cornwallis, C.K. & Uller, T. 2010. Towards an evolutionary ecology of sexual traits. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25: 145-153.
12. Crow, J.F. 1958. Some possibilities for measuring selection intensities in man. Human Biol. 30: 1-13.
13. Darwin, C. 1871. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. John Murray, London.
14. van Doorn, G.S., Edelaar, P. & Weissing, F.J. 2009. On the origin of species by natural and sexual selection. Science 326: 1704-1707.
15. DuVal, E.H. & Kempenaers, B. 2008. Sexual selection in a lekking bird: the relative opportunity for selection by female choice and male competition. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 275: 1995-2003.
16. Emlen, S.T. & Oring, L.W. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197: 215-223.
17. Fisher, R.A. 1929. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
18. Freeman-Gallant, C.R., Wheelwright, N.T., Meiklejohn, K.E., States, S.L. & Sollecito, S.V. 2005. Little effect of extrapair paternity on the opportunity for sexual selection in savannah sparrows (Passerculus sandwichensis). Evolution 59: 422-430.
19. Grafen, A. 1987. Measuring sexual selection: why bother? In: Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives (J.W. Bradbury & M.B. Andersson, eds), pp. 221-233. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
20. Grafen, A. 1988. On the uses of data on lifetime reproductive success. In: Reproductive Success (T.H. Clutton-Brock, ed.), pp. 454-471. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
21. Hauber, M.E. & Lacey, E.A. 2005. Bateman's principle in cooperatively breeding vertebrates: the effects of non-breeding alloparents on variability in female and male reproductive success. Integr. Comp. Biol. 45: 903-914.
22. Hersch, E.I. & Phillips, P.C. 2004. Power and potential bias in field studies of natural selection. Evolution 58: 479-485.
23. Hughes, C. 1998. Integrating molecular techniques with field methods in studies of social behavior: a revolution results. Ecology 79: 383-399.
24. Jones, A.G. 2009. On the opportunity for sexual selection, the bateman gradient and the maximum intensity of sexual selection. Evolution 63: 1673-1684.
25. Jones, A.G., Rosenqvist, G., Berglund, A., Arnold, S.J. & Avise, J.C. 2000. The Bateman gradient and the cause of sexual selection in a sex-role-reversed pipefish. Proc. R. Soc. Biol. Sci. B 267: 677-680.
26. Jones, A.G., Walker, D. & Avise, J.C. 2001. Genetic evidence for extreme polyandry and extraordinary sex-role reversal in a pipefish. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268: 2531-2535.
27. Jones, A.G., Rosenqvist, G., Berglund, A. & Avise, J.C. 2005. The measurement of sexual selection using Bateman's principles: an experimental test in the sex-role-reversed pipefish Syngnathus typhle. Integr. Comp. Biol. 45: 874-884.
28. Klug, H., Heuschele, J., Jennions, M.D. & Kokko, H. 2010a. The mismeasurement of sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 23: 447-462.
29. Klug, H., Lindstrom, K. & Kokko, H. 2010b. Who to include in studies of sexual selection is no trivial matter. Ecol. Lett. 13: 1094-1102.
30. Krakauer, A.H. 2008. Sexual selection and the genetic mating system of Wild Turkeys. Condor 110: 1-12.
31. Lande, R. & Arnold, S.J. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37: 1210-1226.
32. Mobley, K.B. & Jones, A.G. 2007. Geographical variation in the mating system of the dusky pipefish (Syngnathus floridae). Mol. Ecol. 16: 2596-2606.
33. Moller, A.P. & Jennions, M.D. 2002. How much variance can be explained by ecologists and evolutionary biologists? Oecologia 132: 492-500.
34. Patricelli, G.L. & Krakauer, A.H. 2010. Tactical allocation of effort among multiple signals in sage grouse: an experiment with a robotic female. Behav. Ecol. 21: 97-106.
35. Petrie, M. & Kempenaers, B. 1998. Extra-pair paternity in birds: explaining variation between species and populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13: 52-58.
36. Price, T.D. 1984. Sexual selection on body size, plumage and territory variables in a population of Darwin's finches. Evolution 38: 327-341.
37. Promislow, D.E.L., Montgomerie, R. & Martin, T.E. 1992. Mortality costs of sexual dimorphism in birds. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Biol. Sci. 250: 143-150.
38. Qvarnstrom, A., Haavie, J., Saether, S.A., Eriksson, D. & Part, T. 2006. Song similarity predicts hybridization in flycatchers. J. Evol. Biol. 19: 1202-1209.
39. Safran, R.J., Adelman, J.S., McGraw, K.J. & Hau, M. 2008. Sexual signal exaggeration affects physiological state in male barn swallows. Curr. Biol. 18: R461-R462.
40. Shuster, S.M. 2009. Sexual selection and mating systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106: 10009-10016.
41. Shuster, S.M. & Wade, M.J. 2003. Mating Systems and Strategies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
42. Tatarenkov, A., Healey, C.I.M., Grether, G.F. & Avise, J.C. 2008. Pronounced reproductive skew in a natural population of green swordtails, Xiphophorus helleri. Mol. Ecol. 17: 4522-4534.
43. Vanpe, C., Kjellander, P., Galan, M., Cosson, J.F., Aulagnier, S., Liberg, O. et al. 2008. Mating system, sexual dimorphism, and the opportunity for sexual selection in a territorial ungulate. Behav. Ecol. 19: 309-316.
44. Wade, M.J. 1979. Sexual selection and variance in reproductive success. Am. Nat. 114: 742-747.
45. Wade, M.J. & Arnold, S.J. 1980. The intensity of sexual selection in relation to male sexual behaviour, female choice, and sperm precedence. Anim. Behav. 28: 446-461.
46. Wade, M.J. & Kalisz, S. 1990. The causes of natural selection. Evolution 44: 1947-1955.
47. Wade, M.J. & Shuster, S.M. 2004. Sexual selection: Harem size and the variance in male reproductive success. Am. Nat. 164: E83-E89.
48. Wade, M.J. & Shuster, S.M. 2005. Don't throw Bateman out with the bathwater!. Integr. Comp. Biol. 45: 261-268.
49. Wade, M.J. & Shuster, S.M. 2010. Bateman (1948): pioneer in the measurement of sexual selection. Heredity 105: 507-508.
50. Webster, M.S., Pruett-Jones, S., Westneat, D.F. & Arnold, S.J. 1995. Measuring the effects of pairing success, extra-pair copulations and mate quality on the opportunity for sexual selection. Evolution 49: 1147-1157.
51. Webster, M.S., Tarvin, K.A., Tuttle, E.M. & Pruett-Jones, S. 2007. Promiscuity drives sexual selection in a socially monogamous bird. Evolution 61: 2205-2211.
52. Whittingham, L.A. & Dunn, P.O. 2005. Effects of extra-pair and within-pair reproductive success on the opportunity for selection in birds. Behav. Ecol. 16: 138-144.
53. Woolfenden, B.E., Gibbs, H.L. & Sealy, S.G. 2002. High opportunity for sexual selection in both sexes of an obligate brood parasitic bird, the brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 52: 417-425.