Overcoming statistical bias to estimate genetic mating systems in open populations: A comparison of bateman's principles between the sexes in a sex-role-reversed pipefish

Evolution

Volumn 67, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 646-660

  Mobley, Kenyon B ^a   Jones, Adam G ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY   (Germany)

^b TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bateman gradient; Mating system; Microsatellites; Operational sex ratio; Opportunity for sexual selection; Parentage analysis

Indexed keywords

MICROSATELLITE DNA;

COMPARATIVE STUDY; DATA PROCESSING; ESTIMATION METHOD; FISH; GENETIC VARIATION; MATING BEHAVIOR; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SEX ROLE; SEXUAL SELECTION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; FISH; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETICS; MALE; MATE CHOICE; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT;

ANIMALS; FEMALE; FISHES; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MICROSATELLITE REPEATS; SELECTION, GENETIC; SEX CHARACTERISTICS;

SYNGNATHUS FLORIDAE;

EID: 84874717008     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01819.x     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Andersson, M., and Y. Iwasa 1996. Sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:53-58.
2. Arnold, S. J., and D. Duvall 1994. Animal mating systems: a synthesis based on selection theory. Am. Nat. 143:317-348.
3. Arnold, S. J., and M. J. Wade 1984. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: Theory. Evolution 38:709-719.
4. Barreto, F. S., and J. C. Avise 2011. The genetic mating system of a sea spider with male-biased sexual size dimorphism: evidence for paternity skew despite random mating success. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65:1595-1604.
5. Bateman, A. J. 1948. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349-368.
6. Beaumont, M. A., W. Y. Zhang, and D. J. Balding 2002. Approximate Bayesian computation in population genetics. Genetics 162:2025-2035.
7. Berglund, A., and G. Rosenqvist 1990. Male limitation of female reproductive success in a pipefish: effects of body-size differences. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 27:129-133.
8. Berglund, A., G. Rosenqvist, and I. Svensson 1986. Mate choice, fecundity and sexual dimorphism in two pipefish species (Syngnathidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 19:301-307.
9. Berglund, A., G. Rosenqvist, and I. Svensson 1989. Reproductive success of females limited by males in 2 pipefish species. Am. Nat. 133:506-516.
10. Coleman, S. W., and A. G. Jones 2011. Patterns of multiple paternity and maternity in fishes. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 103:735-760.
11. Crow, J. F. 1958. Some possibilities for measuring selection intensities in man. Hum. Biol. 30:1-13.
12. Darwin, C. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. Murray, London
13. Fabiani, A., F. Galimberti, S. Sanvito, and A. R. Hoelzel 2004. Extreme polygyny among southern elephant seals on Sea Lion Island, Falkland Islands. Behav. Ecol. 6:961-969.
14. Jones, A. G. 2001. Gerud1.0: a computer program for the reconstruction of parental genotypes from progeny arrays using multilocus DNA data. Mol. Ecol. Notes 1:215-218.
15. Jones, A. G. 2005. Gerud2.0: a computer program for the reconstruction of parental genotypes from half-sib progeny arrays with known or unknown parents. Mol. Ecol. Notes 5:708-711.
16. Jones, A. G. 2009. On the opportunity for sexual selection, the Bateman gradient and the maximum intensity of sexual selection. Evolution 63:1673-1684.
17. Jones, A. G., and J. C. Avise 1997a. Microsatellite analysis of maternity and the mating system in the Gulf pipefish Syngnathus scovelli, a species with male pregnancy and sex-role reversal. Mol. Ecol. 6:203-213.
18. Jones, A. G., and J. C. Avise 1997b. Polygynandry in the dusky pipefish Syngnathus floridae revealed by microsatellite markers. Evolution 51:1611-1622.
19. Jones, A. G., and J. C. Avise 2001. Mating systems and sexual selection in male-pregnant pipefishes and seahorses: insights from microsatellite-based studies of maternity. J. Hered. 92:150-158.
20. Jones, A. G., and W. R. Ardren 2003. Methods of parentage analysis in natural populations. Mol. Ecol. 12:2511-2523.
21. Jones, A. G., and N. L. Ratterman 2009. Mate choice and sexual selection: what have we learned since Darwin Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106:10001-10008.
22. Jones, A. G., G. Rosenqvist, A. Berglund, and J. C. Avise 1999. The genetic mating system of a sex-role-reversed pipefish (Syngnathus typhle): a molecular inquiry. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 46:357-365.
23. Jones, A. G., G. Rosenqvist, A. Berglund, S. J. Arnold, and J. C. Avise 2000. The Bateman gradient and the cause of sexual selection in a sex-role-reversed pipefish. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267:677-680.
24. Jones, A. G., D. Walker, and J. C. Avise 2001. Genetic evidence for extreme polyandry and extraordinary sex-role reversal in a pipefish. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268:2531-2535.
25. Jones, A. G., J. R. Arguello, and S. J. Arnold 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.
26. Jones, A. G., J. R. Arguello, and S. J. Arnold 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.
27. Jones, A. G., G. Rosenqvist, A. Berglund, and J. C. Avise 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. Jones, A. G., C. M. Small, K. A. Paczolt, and N. L. Ratterman 2010. A practical guide to methods of parentage analysis. Mol. Ecol. Res. 10:6-30.
29. Kelly, C. D., J. G. J. Godin, and J. M. Wright 1999. Geographical variation in multiple paternity within natural populations of the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266:2403-2408.
30. Klug, H., J. Heuschele, M. D. Jennions, and H. Kokko 2010. The mismeasurement of sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 23:447-462.
31. Krakauer, A. H., M. S. Webster, E. H. DuVal, A. G. Jones, and S. M. Shuster 2011. The opportunity for sexual selection: not mismeasured, just misunderstood. J. Evol. Biol. 24:2064-2071.
32. Le Boeuf, B., and J. Reiter 1988. Lifetime reproductive success in northern elephant seals. Pp. 344-362 in T. Clutton-Brock, ed. Reproductive success. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
33. Miller, L. M., and A. R. Kapuscinski 1996. Microsatellite DNA markers reveal new levels of genetic variation in northern pike. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 125:971-977.
34. Mobley, K. B., and A. G. Jones 2007. Geographical variation in the mating system of the dusky pipefish (Syngnathus floridae). Mol. Ecol. 16:2596-2606.
35. Mobley, K. B., and A. G. Jones 2009. Environmental, demographic, and genetic mating system variation among five geographically distinct dusky pipefish (Syngnathus floridae) populations. Mol. Ecol. 18:1476-1490.
36. Mobley, K. B., C. M. Small, and A. G. Jones 2011. The genetics and genomics of Syngnathidae: pipefishes, seahorses, and seadragons. J. Fish Biol. 78:1624-1646.
37. Neff, B. D., T. E. Pitcher, and I. W. Ramnarine 2008. Inter-population variation in multiple paternity and reproductive skew in the guppy. Mol. Ecol. 17:2975-2984.
38. Parker, P. G., and Z. Tang-Martinez 2005. Bateman gradients in field and laboratory studies: a cautionary tale. Integr. Comp. Biol. 45:895-902.
39. Pearse, D. E., C. M. Eckerman, F. J. Janzen, and J. C. Avise 2001. A genetic analogue of 'mark-recapture' methods for estimating population size: an approach based on molecular parentage assessments. Mol. Ecol. 10:2711-2718.
40. Pollock, K. H., J. D. Nichols, C. Brownie, and J. E. Hines 1990. Statistical inference for capture-recapture experiments. Wildlife Mongr. 107:1-97.
41. Raymond, M., and F. Rousset 1995. GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J. Hered. 86:248-249.
42. Scobell, S. K., A. M. Fudickar, and R. Knapp 2009. Potential reproductive rate of a sex-role reversed pipefish over several bouts of mating. Anim. Behav. 78:747-753.
43. Shuster, S. M., and M. J. Wade 2003. Mating systems and strategies. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ
44. Tatarenkov, A., C. I. M. Healy, G. F. Grether, and J. C. Avise 2008. Pronounced reproductive skew in a natural population of green swordtails, Xiphophorus helleri. Mol. Ecol. 17:4522-4534.
45. Vincent, A., I. Ahnesjö, and A. Berglund 1994. Operational sex ratios and behavioural sex differences in a pipefish population. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 34:435-442.
46. Wade, M. J. 1979. Sexual selection and variance in reproductive success. Am. Nat. 114:742-747.
47. Wade, M. J., and S. J. Arnold 1980. The intensity of sexual selection in relation to male sexual behaviour, female choice, and sperm precedence. Anim. Behav. 28:446-461.
48. Wade, M. J., and S. M. Shuster 2004. Sexual selection: harem size and the variance in male reproductive success. Am. Nat. 164:E83-E89.
49. Woolfenden, B. E., H. L. Gibbs, and S. G. Sealy 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.