Unifying cornerstones of sexual selection: Operational sex ratio, Bateman gradient and the scope for competitive investment

Ecology Letters

Volumn 15, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 1340-1351

  Kokko, Hanna ^a   Klug, Hope ^b   Jennions, Michael D ^a  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA   (United States)

Author keywords

Bateman gradient; Mate competition; Mate limitation; Operational sex ratio; Scope for competitive investment; Sex roles; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; FITNESS; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATE CHOICE; REPRODUCTIVE COST; SEX RATIO; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; CHILD PARENT RELATION; MATE CHOICE; REPRODUCTIVE FITNESS; SEX RATIO; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; GENETIC FITNESS; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PARENTING; SEX RATIO; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

EID: 84867099485     PISSN: 1461023X     EISSN: 14610248     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01859.x     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
2. Andersson, M. & Iwasa, Y. (1996). Sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol., 11, 53-58.
3. Arnold, S.J. (1994). Bateman's principles and the measurement of sexual selection in plants and animals. Am. Nat., 144, S126-S149.
4. Arnold, S.J. & Duvall, D. (1994). Animal mating systems: a synthesis based on selection theory. Am. Nat., 143, 317-348.
5. Barrett, R.D.H., M'Gonigle, L.K.M. & Otto, S.P. (2006). The distribution of beneficial mutant effects under strong selection. Genetics, 174, 2071-2079.
6. Bateman, A.J. (1948). Intrasexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity, 2, 349-368.
7. Berglund, A. (1994). The operational sex ratio influences choosiness in a pipefish. Behav. Ecol., 5, 254-258.
8. Calabrese, J.M., Ries, L., Matter, S.F., Debinski, D.M., Auckland, J.N., Roland, J. et al. (2008). Reproductive asychrony in natural butterfly populations and its consequences for female matelessness. J. Anim. Ecol., 77, 746-756.
9. Cleveland, L., Itzkowitz, M. & Haley, M. (2002). Male variation in mating success after female numbers are reduced. J. Fish Biol., 60, 170-177.
10. Clutton-Brock, T.H. (2007). Sexual selection in males and females. Science, 318, 1882-1885.
11. Clutton-Brock, T.H. & Parker, G.A. (1992). Potential reproductive rates and the operation of sexual selection. Q. Rev. Biol., 67, 437-456.
12. Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Murray, London.
13. Denoël, M., Hector, M.P. & Poncin, P. (2005). Courtship behavior in the Alpine newt Triturus alpestris at two different densities of males. Herpetologica, 61, 373-379.
14. Emlen, S.T. & Oring, L.W. (1977). Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science, 197, 215-223.
15. Fitze, P.S. & Le Galliard, J.-F. (2008). Operational sex ratio, sexual conflict and the intensity of sexual selection. Ecol. Lett., 11, 432-439.
16. Fitze, P.S. & Le Galliard, J.-F. (2011). Inconsistency between different measures of sexual selection. Am. Nat., 178, 256-268.
17. Forsgren, E., Amundsen, T., Borg, Å.A. & Bjelvenmark, J. (2004). Unusually dynamic sex roles in a fish. Nature, 429, 551-554.
18. Grant, J.W.A. & Foam, P.E. (2002). Effect of operational sex ratio on female-female versus male-male competitive aggression. Can. J. Zool., 80, 2242-2246.
19. Gwynne, D.T. & Simmons, L.W. (1990). Experimental reversal of courtship roles in an insect. Nature, 346, 172-174.
20. Hammerstein, P. & Parker, G.A. (1987). Sexual selection: games between the sexes. In: Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives (eds Bradbury, J.W. & Andersson, M.B.). Wiley, Chichester, pp. 119-142.
21. Head, M.L. & Brooks, R. (2006). Sexual coercion and the opportunity for sexual selection in guppies. Anim. Behav., 71, 515-522.
22. Hutchinson, J.M.C. (2005). Is more choice always desirable? Evidence and arguments from leks, food selection, and environmental enrichment. Biol. Rev., 80, 73-92.
23. Jennions, M.D. & Kokko, H. (2010). Sexual selection. In: Evolutionary Behavioral Ecology (eds Westneat, D.F. & Fox, C.W.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 343-364.
24. Jennions, M.D., Kokko, H. & Klug, H. (2012). The opportunity to be misled in studies of sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol., 25, 591-598.
25. Jirotkul, M. (1999). Operational sex ratio influences female preference and male-male competition in guppies. Anim. Behav., 58, 287-294.
26. Jones, A.G. (2009). On the opportunity for sexual selection, the Bateman gradient and the maximum intensity of sexual selection. Evolution, 63, 1673-1684.
27. Jones, A.G. & Ratterman, N.L. (2009). Mate choice and sexual selection: what have we learned since Darwin? Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 106, 10001-10008.
28. 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. Lond. B., 267, 677-680.
29. Jones, A.G., Arguello, J.R. & Arnold, S.J. (2002). Validation of Bateman's principles: a genetic study of sexual selection and mating patterns in the rough-skinned newt. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., 269, 2533-2539.
30. 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.
31. de Jong, K., Forsgren, E., Sandvik, H. & Amundsen, T. In press. Measuring mating competition correctly: available evidence supports operational sex ratio theory. Behavioral Ecology.
32. Klug, H., Kontax, C.I., Annis, S. & Vasudevan, N. (2008). Operational sex ratio affects nest tending and aggression in the flagfish (Jordanella floridae). J. Fish Biol., 72, 1295-1305.
33. Klug, H., Heuschele, J., Jennions, M.D. & Kokko, H. (2010). The mismeasurement of sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol., 23, 447-462.
34. Kokko, H. & Jennions, M.D. (2008). Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. J. Evol. Biol., 21, 919-948.
35. Kokko, H. & Monaghan, P. (2001). Predicting the direction of sexual selection. Ecol. Lett., 4, 159-165.
36. Kokko, H. & Ots, I. (2006). When not to avoid inbreeding. Evolution, 60, 467-475.
37. Kokko, H., Brooks, R., McNamara, J.M. & Houston, A.I. (2002). The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., 269, 1331-1340.
38. 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.
39. Kvarnemo, C. (1994). Temperature differentially affects male and female reproductive rates in the sand goby: consequences for operational sex-ratio. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., 256, 151-156.
40. Kvarnemo, C. & Ahnesjö, I. (1996). The dynamics of operational sex ratios and competition for mates. Trends Ecol. Evol., 11, 404-408.
41. Kvarnemo, C. & Simmons, L.W. (1999). Variance in female quality, operational sex ratio and male mate choice in a bushcricket. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 45, 245-252.
42. Kvarnemo, C., Forsgren, E. & Magnhagen, C. (1995). Effects of sex ratio on intra- and inter-sexual behaviour in sand gobies. Anim. Behav., 50, 1455-1461.
43. Lehtonen, J. & Kokko, H. (2012). Positive feedback and alternative stable states in inbreeding, cooperation, sex roles and other evolutionary processes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 367, 211-221.
44. Mills, S.C. & Reynolds, J.D. (2003). Operational sex ratio and alternative reproductive behaviours in the European bitterling, Rhodeus sericeus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 54, 98-104.
45. Moore, S.L. & Wilson, K. (2002). Parasites as a viability cost of sexual selection in natural populations of mammals. Science, 297, 2015-2018.
46. Parker, G.A. & Simmons, L.W. (1996). Parental investment and the control of sexual selection: predicting the direction of sexual competition. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., 263, 315-321.
47. Patwa, Z. & Wahl, L.M. (2008). The fixation probability of beneficial mutations. J. Roy. Soc. Interface, 5, 1279-1289.
48. Quinn, T.P., Adkison, M.D. & Ward, M.B. (1996). Behavioral tactics of male sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) under varying operational sex ratios. Ethology, 102, 304-322.
49. Rhainds, M. (2010). Female mating failures in insects. Entomol. Exp. Appl., 136, 211-226.
50. Shuker, D.M., Ballantyne, G.A. & Wedell, N. (2006). Variation in the cost to females of the sexual conflict over mating in the seed bug, Lygaeus equestris. Anim. Behav., 72, 313-321.
51. Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man (ed Campbell, B.). Aldine Press, Chicago, pp. 139-179.
52. Vincent, A., Ahnesjö, I. & Berglund, A. (1994). Operational sex ratios and behavioral sex differences in a pipefish population. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 34, 435-442.
53. Weir, L.K., Grant, J.W.A. & Hutchings, J.A. (2011). The influence of operational sex ratio on the intensity of competition for mates. Am. Nat., 177, 167-176.
54. Werren, J.H., Baldo, L. & Clark, M.E. (2008). Wolbachia: master manipulators of invertebrate biology. Nat. Rev. Microbiol., 6, 741-751.
55. West, S.A. (2009). Sex Allocation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.