The opportunity to be misled in studies of sexual selection

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 591-598

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

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA   (United States)

Author keywords

Mate competition; Mating success; Operational sex ratio; Opportunity for selection; Selection gradient

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; FEMALE; MALE; MATE CHOICE; NOTE; PHYSIOLOGY; SAMPLE SIZE; SEX RATIO; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICS;

ANIMALS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; SAMPLE SIZE; SEX RATIO; STOCHASTIC PROCESSES;

EID: 84857040220     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02451.x     Document Type: Note

References (32)

1. 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.
2. Arnold, S.J. & Wade, M.J. 1984. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: theory. Evolution 38: 709-719.
3. Croshaw, D.A. 2010. Quantifying sexual selection: a comparison of competing indices with mating system data from a terrestrially breeding salamander. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 99: 73-83.
4. Crow, J.F. 1958. Some possibilities for measuring selection intensities in man. Hum. Biol. 30: 1-13.
5. Downhower, J.F., Blumer, L.S. & Brown, L. 1987. Opportunity for selection: an appropriate measure for evaluating variation in the potential for selection? Evolution 41: 1395-1400.
6. Edwards, A.W.F. 1994. The fundamental theorem of natural selection. Biol. Rev. 69: 443-474.
7. Emlen, S.T. & Oring, L.W. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197: 215-223.
8. Fairbairn, D.J. & Wilby, A.E. 2001. Inequality of opportunity: measuring the potential for sexual selection. Evol. Ecol. Res. 3: 667-686.
9. Fitze, P.S. & Le Galliard, J.-F. 2011. Inconsistency between different measures of sexual selection. Am. Nat. 178: 256-268.
10. Gotelli, N.J. & Graves, G.R. 1996. Null Models in Ecology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
11. Jennions, M.D. & Kelly, C.D. 2002. Geographic variation in male genitalia in Brachyrhaphis episcopi (Poecillidae): is it sexually or naturally selected? Oikos 97: 79-86.
12. Jennions, M.D. & Kokko, H. 2010. Sexual selection. In: Evolutionary Behavioral Ecology (D.F. Westneat & C.W. Fox, eds), pp. 343-364. Oxford University Press, New York.
13. Jones, A.G. 2009. On the opportunity for sexual selection, the Bateman gradient, and the maximum intensity of sexual selection. Evolution 63: 1673-1684.
14. Jones, A.G., Arguello, J.R. & Arnold, S.J. 2004. Molecular parentage analysis in experimental newt populations: the response of mating system measures to variation in the operational sex ratio. Am. Nat. 164: 444-456.
15. 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.
16. Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.
17. Klug, H., Heuschele, J., Jennions, M.D. & Kokko, H. 2010a. The mismeasurement of sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 23: 447-462.
18. Klug, H., Lindström, K. & Kokko, H. 2010b. Who to include in measures of sexual selection is no trivial matter. Ecol. Lett. 13: 1094-1102.
19. Kokko, H., Jennions, M.D. & Brooks, R. 2006. Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37: 43-66.
20. Kosztolányi, A., Barta, Z., Küpper, C. & Székely, T. 2011. Persistence of an extreme male-biased adult sex ratio in a natural population of polyandrous bird. J. Evol. Biol. 24: 1842-1846.
21. Krakauer, A.H., Webster, M.S., DuVal, E.H., Jones, A.G. & Shuster, S.M. 2011. The opportunity for sexual selection: not mismeasured, just misunderstood. J. Evol. Biol. 24: 2064-2071.
22. Maynard Smith, J. 1989. Evolutionary Genetics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
23. Mills, S.C., Grapputo, A., Koskela, E. & Mappes, T. 2007. Quantitative measure of sexual selection with respect to the operational sex ratio: comparison of selection indices. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 274: 143-150.
24. th century. Evol. Hum. Behav. 32: 147-155.
25. Owen-Smith, N. 1993. Comparative mortality rates of male and female kudus: the costs of sexual size dimorphism. J. Anim. Ecol. 62: 428-440.
26. Pérez-González, J. & Carranza, J. 2011. Female aggregation interacts with population structure to influence the degree of polygyny in red deer. Anim. Behav. 82: 957-970.
27. Shuster, S.M. & Wade, M.J. 2003. Mating Systems and Strategies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
28. Sutherland, W.J. 1985. Chance can produce a difference in variance in mating success and explain Bateman's data. Anim. Behav. 33: 1349-1352.
29. Sutherland, W.J. 1987. Random and deterministic components of variance in mating success. In: Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives (J.W. Bradbury & M.B. Andersson, eds), pp. 209-219. Wiley, Chichester.
30. Wade, M.J. 1979. Sexual selection and variance in reproductive success. Am. Nat. 114: 742-764.
31. Wade, M.J. 1995. The ecology of sexual selection - mean crowding of females and resource-defense polygyny. Evol. Ecol. 9: 118-124.
32. 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.