Rensch's rule in large herbivorous mammals derived from metabolic scaling

American Naturalist

Volumn 179, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 169-177

  Sibly, Richard M ^a   Zuo, Wenyun ^b   Kodric Brown, Astrid ^b   Brown, James H ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

^c SANTA FE INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Sexual selection; Size dimorphism

Indexed keywords

AGE AT MATURITY; ALLOMETRY; BIOENERGETICS; BODY MASS; BODY SIZE; GROUP SIZE; GROWTH RATE; HERBIVORE; LIFE HISTORY THEORY; MARSUPIAL; METABOLISM; MORTALITY; PINNIPED; PRIMATE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; RUMINANT; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BODY SIZE; BOVIDS; FEMALE; HERBIVORY; HISTOLOGY; MALE; MARSUPIAL; METABOLISM; PRIMATE; REPRODUCTION; SEAL; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SPECIES DIFFERENCE;

ANIMALS; BODY SIZE; FEMALE; HERBIVORY; MACROPODIDAE; MALE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PINNIPEDIA; PRIMATES; REPRODUCTION; RUMINANTS; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SPECIES SPECIFICITY;

BOVIDAE; CERVIDAE; MACROPODIDAE; MAMMALIA; OTARIIDAE; PINNIPEDIA; PRIMATES;

EID: 84855382879     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/663686     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Abouheif, E., and D. J. Fairbairn. 1997. A comparative analysis of allometry for sexual size dimorphism: assessing Rensch's rule. American Naturalist 149:540-562.
2. Blanckenhorn, W. U. 2000. The evolution of body size: what keeps organisms small? Quarterly Review of Biology 75:385-407.
3. Blanckenhorn, W. U. 2005. Behavioral causes and consequences of sexual size dimorphism. Ethology 111:977-1016.
4. Brown, J. H., J. F. Gillooly, A. P. Allen, V. M Savage, and G. B West. 2004. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85: 1771-1789.
5. Calder, W. A. 1984. Size, function and life history. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
6. Catchpole, E. A., Y. Fan, B. J. T. Morgan, T. H. Clutton-Brock, and T. Coulson. 2004. Sexual dimorphism, survival and dispersal in red deer. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 9:1-26.
7. Clutton-Brock, T. H., F. E. Guinness, and S. D. Albon. 1982. Red deer: behavior and ecology of two sexes. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
8. Clutton-Brock, T. H., S. D. Albon, and F. E. Guinness. 1988. Reproductive success in male and female red deer. Pages 325-343 in T. H. Clutton-Brock, ed. Reproductive success: studies of individual variation in contrasting breeding systems. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
9. Colwell, R. K. 2000. Rensch's rule crosses the line: convergent allometry of sexual size dimorphism in hummingbirds and flower mites. American Naturalist 156:495-510.
10. Croft, D. B. 1989. Social organization of the macropoda. Pages 505-525 in G. Grigg, P. Jarman, and I. Hume, eds. Kangaroos, wallabies and rat-kangaroos. Vol. 2. Surrey Beatty, Australia.
11. Croft, D. B., and J. F. Eisenberg. 2006. Behaviour. Pages 229-228 in P. J. Armati, C. R. Dickman, and I. D. Hume, eds. Marsupials. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
12. Dale, J., P. O. Dunn, J. Figuerola, T. Lislevand, T. Szekely, and L. A. Whittingham. 2007. Sexual selection explains Rensch's rule of allometry for sexual size dimorphism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 274:2971-2979.
13. Damuth, J. 1981. Population-density and body size in mammals. Nature 290:699-700.
14. Damuth, J. 1987. Interspecific allometry of population density in mammals and other animals: the independence of body mass and population energy-use. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 31:193-246.
15. Dial, K. P., E. Greene, and D. J. Irschick. 2008. Allometry of behavior. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23:394-401.
16. Ernest, S. K. M. 2003. Life history characteristics of placental non-volant mammals. Ecology 84:3402.
17. Fairbairn, D. J. 1997. Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28:659-687.
18. Fairbairn, D. J., W. U. Blanckenhorn, and T. Szekely, eds. 2007. Sex, size and gender roles: evolutionary studies of sexual size dimorphism. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
19. Fisher, D. O. and I. P. F. Owens. 2000. Female home range size and the evolution of social organization in macropod marsupials. Journal of Animal Ecology 69:1083-1098.
20. Fisher, D. O., I. P. F. Owens, and C. N. Johnson. 2001. The ecological basis of life history variation in marsupials. Ecology 82:3531-3540.
21. Fisher, R. A. 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
22. Frydlova, P., and D. Frynta. 2010. A test of Rensch's rule in varanid lizards. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 100: 293-306.
23. Fuller, T. K., R. M. Pace III, J. A. Markl, and P. L. Coy. 1989. Morphometrics of white-tailed deer in north-central Minnesota. Journal of Mammalogy 70:184-188.
24. Geist, V. 1998. Deer of the world: their evolution, behaviour, and ecology. Stackpole, Mechanicsburg, PA.
25. Geist, V., and M. Bayer. 1988. Sexual dimorphism in the Cervidae and its relation to habitat. Journal of Zoology (London) 214: 45-53.
26. Georgiadis, N. 1985. Growth patterns, sexual dimorphism and reproduction in African ruminants. African Journal of Ecology 23:75-87.
27. Gordon, A. D. 2006. Scaling of size and dimorphism in primates II: macroevolution. International Journal of Primatology 27: 63-105.
28. Hou, C., W. Zuo, M. E. Moses, W. H. Woodruff, J. H. Brown, and G. B. West. 2008. Energy uptake and allocation during ontogeny. Science 322:736-739.
29. Jarman, P. J. 1974. The social organization of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behaviour 48:215-267.
30. Jarman, P. J. 1983. Mating system and sexual dimorphism in large, terrestrial, mammalian herbivores. Biological Reviews 58:485-520.
31. Jarman, P. J., and G. Coulson. 1989. Dynamics and adaptiveness of grouping in macropods. Pages 527-547 in G. Grigg, P. Jarman, and I. Hume, eds. Kangaroos, wallabies and rat-kangaroos. Vol. 2. Surrey Beatty, Australia.
32. Jetz, W., C. Carbone, J. Fulford, and J. H. Brown. 2004. The scaling of animal space use. Science 306:266-268.
33. Jorgenson, J. T., M. Festa-Bianchet, J. M. Gaillard, and W. D. Wishart. 1997. Effects of age, sex, disease, and density on survival of bighorn sheep. Ecology 78:1019-1032.
34. Kelt, D. A., and D. Van Vuren. 1999. On the relationship between body size and home range area: consequences of energetic constraints in mammals. Ecology 80:337-400.
35. Kelt, D. A., and D. Van Vuren. 2001. The ecology and macroecology of mammalian home range. American Naturalist 157:637-645.
36. Kenagy, G. J., D. Masman, S. M. Sharbaugh, and K. A. Nagy. 1990. Energy expenditure during lactation in relation to litter size in free-living golden-mantled ground squirrels. Journal of Animal Ecology 59:73-88.
37. Kodric-Brown, A., R. M. Sibly, and J. H. Brown 2006. The allometry of ornaments and weapons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103:8733-8738.
38. Lindenfors, P., J. L. Gittleman, and K. E. Jones. 2007. Sexual size dimorphism in mammals. Pages 16-26 in D. J. Fairbairn, W. U. Blanckenhorn, and T. Székely, eds. Sex, size, and gender roles: evolutionary studies of sexual size dimorphism. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
39. Loison, A., J. M. Gaillard, C. Pelabon, and N. G. Yoccoz. 1999. What factors shape sexual size dimorphism in ungulates? Evolutionary Ecology Research 1:611-633.
40. McCoy, M. W., and J. F. Gillooly. 2008. Predicting natural mortality rates of plants and animals. Ecology Letters 11:710-718.
41. McCoy, M. W., and J. F. Gillooly. 2009. Corrigendum. Ecology Letters 12:731-733.
42. Moses, M. E., C. Hou, W. H. Woodruff, G. B. West, J. C. Nekola, W. Zuo, and J. H. Brown. 2008. Revisiting a model of ontogenetic growth: estimating model parameters from theory and data. American Naturalist 171:632-645.
43. Nagy, K. A. 2005. Field metabolic rate and body size. Journal of Experimental Biology 208:1621-1625.
44. Owen-Smith, R. N. 1988. Megaherbivores. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
45. Owen-Smith, R. N. 1993. Comparative mortality rates of male and female kudus: the costs of sexual size dimorphism. Journal of Animal Ecology 6:428-440.
46. Peters, R. H. 1983. The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
47. Reiss, M. J. 1989. The allometry of growth and reproduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
48. Rensch, B. 1950. Die Abhängigkeit der relativen sexualdifferenz von der Körpergröße. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 1:58-69.
49. Savage, V. M., J. F. Gillooly, W. H. Woodruff, G. B. West, A. P. Allen, B. J. Enquist, and J. H. Brown. 2004. The predominance of quarter-power scaling in biology. Functional Ecology 18: 257-282.
50. Sibly, R. M. 1981. Pages 109-139 in C. R. Townsend and P. Calow, eds. Physiological ecology: an evolutionary appraoch to resource use. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.
51. Sibly, R. M., D. Collett, D. E. L. Promislow, D. J. Peacock, and P. H. Harvey. 1997. Mortality rates of mammals. Journal of Zoology (London) 243:1-12.
52. Smith, R. J., and J. M. Cheverud. 2002. Scaling of sexual dimorphism in body mass: a phylogenetic analysis of Rensch's rule in primates. International Journal of Primatology 23:1095-1135.
53. Solberg, E. J., and B. E. Saether. 1994. Male traits as life-history variables: annual variation in body mass and antler size in moose (Alces alces). Journal of Mammalogy 75:1069-1079.
54. White, E. P., X. Xiao, N. J. B. Isaac, and R. M. Sibly. Methodological tools in Sibly, R. M., J. H. Brown, and A. Kodric-Brown, eds. Metabolic ecology: a scaling approach. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford (forthcoming).