The operational sex ratio and density influence spatial relationships between breeding pipefish

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 888-897

  Aronsen, T ^a   Mobley, K B ^b   Berglund, A ^c   Sundin, J ^c   Billing, A M ^a   Rosenqvist, G ^a,d  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY   (Germany)

^c UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^d GOTLAND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

index of association; mating competition; mating system; mean crowding; sex roles; sexual selection.

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY; BREEDING POPULATION; INTRASEXUAL INTERACTION; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; SEX RATIO; SEX ROLE; SEXUAL SELECTION; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION; TELEOST;

SYNGNATHUS TYPHLE;

EID: 84879114976     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/art019     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Ahnesjo I. 1995. Temperature affects male and female potential reproductive rates differently in the sex-role reversed pipefish, Syngnathus typhle. Behav Ecol. 6:229-233.
2. Ahnesjo I. 2008. Behavioural temperature preference in a brooding male pipefish Syngnathus typhle. J Fish Biol. 73:1039-1045.
3. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
4. Baayen RH. 2010. languageR: data sets and functions with "Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics". R package version 1.0. Available from: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=languageR.
5. Baena ML, Macias-Ordonez R. 2012. Phenology of scramble polygyny in a wild population of chrysolemid beetles: the opportunity for and the strength of sexual selection. PLoS ONE. 7:e38315.
6. Berglund A. 1991. Egg competition in a sex-role reversed pipefish-subdominant females trade reproduction for growth. Evolution. 45:770-774.
7. Berglund A. 1994. The operational sex-ratio influences choosiness in a pipefish. Behav Ecol. 5:254-258.
8. Berglund A. 1995. Many mates make male pipefish choosy. Behaviour. 132:213-218.
9. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 1990. Male limitation of female reproductive success in a pipefish-effects of body-size differences. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 27:129-133.
10. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 1993. Selective males and ardent females in pipefishes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 32:331-336.
11. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 2001. Male pipefish prefer dominant over attractive females. Behav Ecol. 12:402-406.
12. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 2009. An intimidating ornament in a female pipefish. Behav Ecol. 20:54-59.
13. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I. 1988. Multiple matings and paternal brood care in the pipefish Syngnathus typhle. Oikos. 51:184-188.
14. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I. 1989. Reproductive success of females limited by males in 2 pipefish species. Am Nat. 133:506-516.
15. Berglund A, Widemo MS, Rosenqvist G. 2005. Sex role reversal revisited: choosy females and ornamented, competitive males in a pipefish. Behav Ecol. 16:649-655.
16. Clark L, Grant JWA. 2010. Intrasexual competition and courtship in female and male Japanese medaka, Oryzias latipes: effects of operational sex ratio and density. Anim Behav. 80:707-712.
17. Crawley MJ. 2007. The R book. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Darwin C. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: Murray.
18. Dunn SJ, Waits LP, Byers JA. 2012. Genetic versus census estimators of the opportunity for sexual selection in the wild. Am Nat. 179:451-462.
19. Emlen ST, Oring LW. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science. 197:215-223.
20. Forsgren E, Amundsen T, Borg AA, Bjelvenmark J. 2004. Unusually dynamic sex roles in a fish. Nature. 429:551-554.
21. Gelman A, Sy Y-S, Yajima M, Hill J, Pittau M, Kerman J, Zheng T. 2010. arm: data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. R package version 1.3-02. Available from: http://CRAN.R-project.org/ package=arm.
22. Grant JWA, Foam PE. 2002. Effect of operational sex ratio on female-female versus male-male competitive aggression. Can J Zool. 80:2242-2246.
23. Head ML, Lindholm AK, Brooks R. 2008. Operational sex ratio and density do not affect directional selection on male sexual ornaments and behavior. Evolution. 62:135-144.
24. Jirotkul M. 1999a. Operational sex ratio influences female preference and male-male competition in guppies. Anim Behav. 58:287-294.
25. Jirotkul M. 1999b. Population density influences male-male competition in guppies. Anim Behav. 58:1169-1175.
26. Jones AG, Arguello JR, Arnold SJ. 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 AG, Rosenqvist G, Berglund A, Avise JC. 1999. The genetic mating system of a sex-role-reversed pipefish (Syngnathus typhle): a molecular inquiry. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 46:357-365.
28. Jones AG, Rosenqvist G, Berglund A, Avise JC. 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.
29. de Jong K, Wacker S, Amundsen T, Forsgren E. 2009. Do operational sex ratio and density affect mating behaviour? An experiment on the twospotted goby. Anim Behav. 78:1229-1238.
30. Knell RJ, Pomfret JC. 2008. Crowding, sex ratio and horn evolution in a South African beetle community. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 275:315-321.
31. Kokko H, Rankin DJ. 2006. Lonely hearts or sex in the city? Densitydependent effects in mating systems. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 361:319-334.
32. Kvarnemo C. 1996. Temperature affects operational sex ratio and intensity of male-male competition: experimental study of sand gobies, Pomatoschistus minutus. Behav Ecol. 7:208-212.
33. Kvarnemo C. 1998. Temperature modulates competitive behaviour: why sand goby males fight more in warmer water. Ethol Ecol Evol. 10:105-114.
34. Kvarnemo C, Ahnesjo I. 1996. The dynamics of operational sex ratios and competition for mates. Trends Ecol Evol. 11:404-408.
35. Kvarnemo C, Forsgren E, Magnhagen C. 1995. Effects of sex ratio on intraand inter-sexual behaviour in sand gobies. Anim Behav. 50:1455-1461.
36. Lane JE, Forrest MNK, Willis CKR. 2011. Anthropogenic influences on natural animal mating systems. Anim Behav. 81:909-917.
37. Lloyd M. 1967. Mean crowding. J Anim Ecol. 36:1-30.
38. McLain DK. 1992. Population density and the intensity of sexual selection on body length in spatially or temporally restricted natural populations of a seed bug. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 30:347-356.
39. Mills SC, Reynolds JD. 2003. Operational sex ratio and alternative reproductive behaviours in the European bitterling, Rhodeus sericeus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 54:98-104.
40. Mobley KB, Jones AG. 2007. Geographical variation in the mating system of the dusky pipefish (Syngnathus floridae). Mol Ecol. 16:2596-2606.
41. Mobley KB, Jones AG. 2009. Environmental, demographic, and genetic mating system variation among five geographically distinct dusky pipefish (Syngnathus floridae) populations. Mol Ecol. 18:1476-1490.
42. Perry JN. 1998. Measures of spatial pattern for counts. Ecology. 79:1008-1017.
43. Perry JN, Dixon PM. 2002. A new method to measure spatial association for ecological count data. Ecoscience. 9:133-141.
44. Perry JN, Winder L, Holland JM, Alston RD. 1999. Red blue plots for detecting clusters in count data. Ecol Lett. 2:106-113.
45. Prohl H. 2002. Population differences in female resource abundance, adult sex ratio, and male mating success in Dendrobates pumilio. Behav Ecol. 13:175-181.
46. R Development Core Team. 2011. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from: http://www.R-project.org/.
47. Shuster SM. 2009. Sexual selection and mating systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 106:10009-10016.
48. Shuster SM, Wade MJ. 2003. Mating systems and strategies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
49. Silva K, Vieira MN, Almada VC, Monteiro NM. 2007. The effect of temperature on mate preferences and female-female interactions in Syngnathus abaster. Anim Behav. 74:1525-1533.
50. Smith CC. 2007. Independent effects of male and female density on sexual harassment, female fitness, and male competition for mates in the western mosquito fish Gambusia affinis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 61:1349-1358.
51. Svensson I. 1988. Reproductive costs in 2 sex-role reversed pipefish species (Syngnathidae). J Anim Ecol. 57:929-942.
52. Tomkins JL, Brown GS. 2004. Population density drives the local evolution of a threshold dimorphism. Nature. 431:1099-1103.
53. Vincent A, Ahnesjo I, Berglund A. 1994. Operational sex ratios and behavioral sex differences in a pipefish population. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 34:435-442.
54. Vincent ACJ, Berglund A, Ahnesjo I. 1995. Reproductive ecology of five pipefish species in one eelgrass meadow. Environ Biol Fish. 44:347-361.
55. Wade MJ. 1995. The ecology of sexual selection-mean crowding of females and resource-defense polygyny. Evol Ecol. 9:118-124.
56. Weir LK, Grant JWA, Hutchings JA. 2011. The influence of operational sex ratio on the intensity of competition for mates. Am Nat. 177:167-176.
57. Zeh DW. 1987. Aggression, density, and sexual dimorphism in chernetid Pseudoscorpions (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida). Evolution. 41:1072-1087.
58. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM. 2009. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. New York: Springer.