Sexual size dimorphism in anurans fails to obey Rensch's rule

Frontiers in Zoology

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Liao, Wen Bo ^a   Zeng, Yu ^a   Zhou, Cai Quan ^a   Jehle, Robert ^b  

^a CHINA WEST NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Allometry; Anurans; Rensch's rule; Sexual size dimorphism

Indexed keywords

ANURA;

EID: 84874669340     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17429994     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1742-9994-10-10     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Shine R. Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual size dimorphism: a review of the evidence. Q Rev Biol 1989, 64:419-461. 10.1086/416458, 2697022.
2. Fairbairn DJ. Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 1997, 28:659-687.
3. Rensch B. Die Abhängigkeit der relativen Sexualdifferenz von der Kör- pergrösse. Bon Zool Beitr 1950, 1:58-69.
4. Colwell RK. Rensch's rule crosses the line: convergent allometry of sexual size dimorphism in hummingbirds and flower mites. Am Nat 2000, 156:495-510.
5. Andersen NM. A phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of sexual dimorphism and mating systems in water striders (Hemiptera: Gerridae). Biol J Linn Soc 1997, 61:345-368.
6. Johansson F, Crowley PH, Brodin T. Sexual size dimorphism and sex ratios in dragonflies (Odonata). Biol J Linn Soc 2005, 86:507-513.
7. Serrano-Meneses MA, Cordoba-Aguilar A, Azpilicueta-Amorin M, Gonzalez-Soriano E, Székely T. Sexual selection, sexual size dimorphism and Rensch's rule in Odonata. J Evol Biol 2009, 21:1259-1273.
8. Cox RM, Kelly SL, John-Adler HB. A comparative test of adaptive hypotheses for sexual size dimorphism in lizards. Evolution 2003, 57:1653-1669.
9. Frýdlová P, Frynta D. A test of Rensch's rule in varanid lizards. Biol J Linn Soc 2010, 100:293-306.
10. Berry JF, Shine R. Sexual size dimorphism and sexual selection in turtles (order Testudines). Oecologia 1980, 44:185-191.
11. Payne RB. Sexual selection, lek and arena behavior, and sexual size dimorphism in birds 1984, Washington DC: Ornithological monographs No. 33. American Ornithologists' Union.
12. Clutton-Brock TH, Harvey P, Rudder B. Sexual dimorphism, socionomic sex ratio and body weight in primates. Nature 1977, 269:797-800. 10.1038/269797a0, 927503.
13. Smith RJ, Cheverud JM. Scaling of sexual dimorphism in body mass: a phylogenetic analysis of Rensch's rule in Primates. Int J Primat 2002, 23:1095-1135.
14. Székely T, Freckleton RB, Reynolds JD. Sexual selection explains Rensch's rule of size dimorphism in shorebirds. PNAS 2004, 101:12224-12227. 10.1073/pnas.0404503101, 514460, 15304645.
15. Blanckenhorn WU, Dixon AFG, Fairbairn DJ, Foellmer MW, Gibert P, van der Linde K, Meier R, Nylin S, Pitnick S, Schoff C, Signorelli M, Teder T, Wiklund C. Proximate causes of Rensch's rule: does sexual size dimorphism in arthropods result from sex differences in developmental time?. Am Nat 2007, 169:245-257. 10.1086/510597, 17211807.
16. Young KA. Life-history variation and allometry for sexual size dimorphism in Pacific salmon and trout. Proc Royal Soc Lond (B) Biol Sci 2005, 272:167-172.
17. Polák J, Frynta D. Patterns of sexual size dimorphism in cattle breeds support Rensch's rule. Evol Ecol 2010, 24:1255-1266.
18. Polák J, Frynta D. Sexual size dimorphism in domestic goats, sheep, and their wild relatives. Biol J Linn Soc 2009, 98:872-883.
19. Raihani G, Székely T, Serrano-Meneses MA, Pitra C, Goriup P. The influence of sexual selection and male agility on sexual size dimorphism in bustards (Otididae). Anim Beha 2006, 71:833-838.
20. Abouheif E, Fairbairn DJ. A comparative analysis of allometry for sexual size dimorphism: assessing Rensch's rule. Am Nat 1997, 149:540-562.
21. Tubaro PL, Bertelli S. Female-biased sexual size dimorphism in tinamous: a comparative test fails to support Rensch's rule. Biol J Linn Soc 2003, 80:519-527.
22. Webb TJ, Freckleton RP. Only half right: species with female-biased dimorphism consistently break Rensch's rule. PLoS One 2007, 2(9):e897. 10.1371/journal.pone.0000897, 1964802, 17878932.
23. Stephens PR, Wiens J. Evolution of sexual size dimorphisms in emydid turtles: ecological dimorphism, Rensch's rule, and sympatric divergence. Evolution 2009, 63(4):910-925. 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00597.x, 19210531.
24. Herczeg G, Gonda A, Merilä J. Rensch's rule inverted-female-driven gigantism in nine-spined stickleback Pungitius pungitius. J Anim Ecol 2010, 79:581-588. 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01665.x, 20202005.
25. Remeš V, Székely T. Domestic chickens defy Rensch's rule: sexual size dimorphism in chicken breeds. J Evol Biol 2010, 23:2754-2759. 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02126.x, 21121089.
26. Preziosi RF, Fairbairn DJ. Lifetime selection on adult body size and components of body size in a waterstrider: opposing selection and maintenance of sexual size dimorphism. Evolution 2000, 54:558-566.
27. Fairbairn DJ, Preziosi RF. Sexual selection and the evolution of allometry for sexual size dimorphism in the water strider, Aquarius remigis. Am Nat 1994, 144:101-118.
28. Fairbairn DJ, Blanckenhorn W, Székely T. Sex, Size and Gender Roles-Evolutionary Studies of Sexual Dimorphism 2007, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29. Arak A. Sexual dimorphism in body size: a model and test. Evolution 1988, 42:820-825.
30. Shine R. Sexual selection and sexual dimorphism in the Amphibia. Copeia 1979, 1979:297-305.
31. Halliday TR, Verrell PA. Body size and age in amphibians and reptiles. J Herpet 1988, 22:253-265.
32. Monnet JM, Cherry MI. Sexual size dimorphism in anurans. Proc Royal Soc Lond (B) Biol Sci 2002, 269:2301-2307.
33. Lindenfors P, Székely T, Reynolds JD. Directional changes in sexual size dimorphism in shorebirds, gulls and alcids. J Evol Biol 2003, 16:930-938. 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00595.x, 14635908.
34. Dale J, Dunn PO, Figuerola J, Lislevand T, Székely T, Whittingham LA. Sexual selection explains Rensch's rule of allometry for sexual size dimorphism. Proc Roy Soc Lond (B) Biol Sci 2007, 274:2971-2979.
35. Liao WB, Chen W. Inverse Rensch-rule in a frog with female-biased sexual size dimorphism. Naturwissenschaften 2012, 99:427-431. 10.1007/s00114-012-0913-5, 22528023.
36. Stuart-Fox D. A test of Rensch's rule in dwarf chameleons (Bradypodion spp.), a group with female-biased sexual size dimorphism. Evol Ecol 2009, 23:425-433.
37. Darwin C. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex 1871, London: John Murray.
38. Zamudio KR. The evolution of female-biased sexual size dimorphism: a population-level comparative study in horned lizards (Phrynosoma). Evolution 1998, 52:1821-1833.
39. Shine R. The evolution of large body size in females: a critique of Darwin's fecundity advantage model. Am Nat 1988, 131:124-131.
40. Liao WB, Lu X. Age structure and body size of the Chuanxi tree toad Hyla annectans chuanxiensis from two different elevations (China). Zool Anz 2010, 248:255-263.
41. Liao WB, Lu X. A skeletochronlogical estimation of age and body size by the Sichuan torrent frog (Amolops mantzorum) between two populations at different altitudes. Anim Biol 2010, 60:479-489.
42. Liao WB, Lu X. Variation in body size, age and growth in a subtropical treefrog (Rhacophorus omeimontis) along an altitudinal gradient in western China. Ethol Ecol Evol 2011, 23:248-261.
43. Liao WB. A skeletochronlogical estimate of age in a population of the Siberian Wood Frog, Rana amurensis, from northeastern China. Acta Herpetol 2011, 6:237-245.
44. Liao WB, Lu X. Adult body size = f (initial size + growth rate × age): explaining the proximate cause of Bergman's cline in a toad along altitudinal gradients. Evol Ecol 2012, 26:579-590.
45. Fagerström T, Wiklund C. Why do males emerge before females? protandry as a mating strategy in male and female butterflies. Oecologia 1982, 52:164-166.
46. Lou SL, Jin L, Liu YH, Mi ZP, Tao G, Tang YM, Liao WB. Altitudinal variation in age and body size in Yunnan Pond Frog (Pelophylax pleuraden). Zool Sci 2012, 29:493-498. 10.2108/zsj.29.493, 22873806.
47. Liu YH, Liao WB, Zhou CQ, Mi ZP. Altitudinal variation in body size in the Rice Frog (Rana limnocharis) in southwestern China. Acta Herpetol 2012, 7:57-68.
48. Chen BY, Liao WB, Mi ZP. Body size and age of the China Wood Frog (Rana chensinensis) in northeastern China. NW J Zool 2011, 7:236-242.
49. Liao WB, Lu X, Shen YW, Hu JC. Age structure and body size of two populations of the rice frog Rana limnocharis from different altitudes. Ital J Zool 2011, 78:215-221.
50. Badyaev AV. Growing apart: An ontogenetic perspective on the evolution of sexual size dimorphism. TREE 2002, 17:369-378.
51. Stillwell RC, Davidowitz G. Sex differences in phenotypic plasticity of a mechanism that controls body size: Implications for sexual size dimorphism. Proc Royal Soc Lond (B) Biol Sci 2010, 277:3819-3826.
52. Zhang LX, Lu X. Sexual size dimorphism in anurans: ontogenetic determination revealed by an across-species comparison. Evol Biol 2013, 40:84-91.
53. Roff DA. Life History Evolution 2002, Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.
54. Stamps J, Krishnan VV. Sexual bimaturation and sexual size dimorphism in animals with asymptotic growth after maturity. Evol Ecol 1997, 11:21-39.
55. Stillwell RC, Blanckenhorn WU, Teder T, Davidowitz G, Fox CW. Sex differences in phenotypic plasticity affect variation in sexual size dimorphism in insects: from physiology to evolution. Annu Rev Entomol 2010, 55:227-245. 10.1146/annurev-ento-112408-085500, 19728836.
56. Ceballos CP, Valenzuela N. The role of sex-specific plasticity in shaping sexual dimorphism in a long-lived vertebrate, the snapping turtle Chelydra serpentine. Evol Biol 2011, 38:163-181.
57. Nylin S, Gotthard K. Plasticity in life history traits. Annu Rev Entomol 1998, 43:8363-8358.
58. Butler MA, Schoener TW, Losos JB. The relationship between sexual size dimorphism and habitat use in Greater Antillean Anolis lizards. Evolution 2000, 54:259-272.
59. Angilletta MJ, Dunham AE. The temperature-size rule in ectotherms: simple evolutionary explanations may not be general. Am Nat 2003, 162:332-342. 10.1086/377187, 12970841.
60. Fairbairn DJ. Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: testing two hypotheses for Rensch's rule in the water strider Aquarius remigis. Am Nat 2005, 166:S69-S84. 10.1086/444600, 16224713.
61. Pagel MD. A method for the analysis of comparative data. J Theor Biol 1992, 156:431-442.
62. Felsenstein J. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 1985, 125:1-15.
63. Harvey PH, Pagel MD. The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology 1991, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
64. Lovich JE, Gibbons JW. A review of techniques for quantifying sexual size dimorphism. Grow, Devel Aging: GDA 1992, 56:269-281.
65. Frost DR, Grant T, Faivovich J, Bain RH, Haas A, Haddad CFB, de Saì RO, Channing A, Wilkinson M, Donnellan SC, Raxworthy CJ, Campbell JA, Blotto BL, Moler P, Drewes RC, Nussbaum RA, Lynch JD, Green DM, Wheeler WC. The amphibian tree of life. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 2006, 297:1-370.
66. Garland T, Harvey PH, Ives AR. Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst Biol 1992, 41:18-31.
67. Purvis A, Rambaut A. Comparative-analysis by independent contrasts (CAIC): an Apple-Macintosh application for analyzing comparative data. J Comp Appl Biosci 1995, 11:247-251.