The effect of operational sex ratio on the opportunity for sexual selection: A meta-analysis

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 86, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 675-683

  Rios Moura, Rafael ^a,c   Peixoto, Paulo Enrique Cardoso ^b  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF CEARÁ   (Brazil)

^b DEPARTAMENTO DE CIÊNCIAS BIOLÓGICAS   (Brazil)

^c FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF UBERLÂNDIA   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Intrasexual selection; Male competition; Mating system; OSR; Potential for sexual selection

Indexed keywords

DATA SET; FEMALE; MALE; META-ANALYSIS; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SEX RATIO; SEXUAL SELECTION;

EID: 84884349536     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.07.002     Document Type: Review

References (94)

1. Anderson M. Sexual Selection 1994, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
2. Anderson M., Simmons L.W. Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2006, 21:296-302.
3. Anholt B.R. Measuring selection on a population of damselflies with a manipulated phenotype. Evolution 1991, 45:1091-1106.
4. Arnold S.J., Wade M.J. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: theory. Evolution 1984, 38:709-719.
5. Barreto F.S., Avise J.C. Quantitative measures of sexual selection reveal no evidence for sex-role reversal in a sea spider with prolonged paternal care. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2010, 277:2951-2956.
6. Barreto F.S., Avise J.C. The genetic mating system of a sea spider with male-biased sexual size dimorphism: evidence for paternity skew despite random mating success. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2011, 65:1595-1604.
7. Bates D., Maechler M., Bolker B. lme4: Linear Mixed-effects Models Using S4 Classes 2011, R package version 0.999375-42, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://cran.r-project.org/package=lme4.
8. Bilde T., Tuni C., Elsayed R., Pekár S., Toft S. Death feigning in the face of sexual cannibalism. Biology Letters 2006, 22:23-25.
9. Bolker B., R Development Core Team bbmle: Tools for General Maximum Likelihood Estimation 2012, R package version 1.0.5.2, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://cran.r-project.org/package=bbmle.
10. Borenstein M., Hedges L.V., Higgins J.P.T., Rothstein H.R. Introduction to Meta-analysis 2009, J. Wiley, Chichester.
11. Brodie E.D., Moore A.J., Janzen F.J. Visualizing and quantifying natural selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 1995, 10:313-318.
12. Burnham K.P., Anderson D.R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: a Practical Information-theoretic Approach 2002, Springer, New York.
13. Clutton-Brock T.H. Sexual selection in males and females. Science 2007, 318:1882-1885.
14. Coltman D.W., Festa-Bianchet M., Jorgenson J.T., Strobeck C. Age-dependent sexual selection in bighorn rams. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2002, 269:165-172.
15. Cornwallis C.K., Uller T. Towards an evolutionary ecology of sexual traits. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2009, 25:145-152.
16. Crawley M.J. The R Book 2007, J. Wiley, Chichester.
17. Culver D.C., Jernigan R.W., O'Connell J. The geometry of natural selection in cave and spring populations of the amphipod Gammarus minus Say (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 1994, 52:49-67.
18. Darwin C. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex 1871, J. Murray, London.
19. Dickinson J.L. Determinants of paternity in the milkweed leaf beetle. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1988, 23:9-19.
20. Droney D.C. Sexual selection in a lekking Hawaiian Drosophila: the roles of male competition and female choice in male mating success. Animal Behaviour 1992, 44:1007-1020.
21. Emlen S.T., Oring L.W. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 1977, 197:215-223.
22. Emlen S.T., Wrege P.H. Size dimorphism, intrasexual competition and sexual selection in wattled jacana (Jacana jacana), a sex-role-reversed shorebird in Panama. Auk 2004, 121:391-403.
23. Fincke O.M. Lifetime reproductive success and the opportunity for selection in a nonterritorial damselfly (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Evolution 1986, 40:791-803.
24. Fitze P.S., Galliard J.F. Operational sex ratio, sexual conflict and the intensity of sexual selection. Ecology Letters 2008, 11:432-439.
25. Fleming I.A., Gross M.R. Breeding competition in a Pacific salmon (coho: Oncorhynchus kisutch): measures of natural and sexual selection. Evolution 1994, 48:637-657.
26. Foellmer M.W., Fairbairn D.J. Spontaneous male death during copulation in an orb-weaving spider. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2003, 270:183-185.
27. Freeman S., Herron J.C. Evolutionary Analysis 2009, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
28. French B.W., Cade W.H. Sexual selection at varying population densities in male field crickets, Gryllus veletis and G.pennsylvanicus. Journal of Insect Behavior 1989, 2:105-121.
29. Fritzsche K., Arnqvist G. Homage to Bateman: sex roles predict sex differences in sexual selection. Evolution 2013, 67:1926-1936.
30. Futuyma D.J. Evolution 2005, Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
31. Galimberti F., Fabiani A., Sanvito S. Opportunity for selection in southern elephant seals (Mirounga leonina): the effect of spatial scale of analysis. Journal of Zoology 2002, 256:93-97.
32. Gopurenko D., Williams R.N., McCormick C.R., DeWoody J.A. Insights into the mating habits of the tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum) as revealed by genetic parentage analyses. Molecular Ecology 2006, 15:1917-1928.
33. Gopurenko D., Williams R.N., McCormick C.R., DeWoody J.A. Reproductive and mating success in the small-mouthed salamander (Ambystoma texanum) estimated via microsatellite parentage analysis. Evolutionary Biology 2007, 34:130-139.
34. Hafernik J.E., Garrison R.W. Mating success and survival rate in a population of damselflies: results at variance with theory?. American Naturalist 1986, 128:353-365.
35. Head M.L., Lindholm A.K., Brooks R. Operational sex ratio and density do not affect directional selection on male sexual ornaments and behavior. Evolution 2008, 62:135-144.
36. Houck L.D., Arnold S.J., Thisted R.A. Astatistical study of mate choice: sexual selection in a plethodontid salamander (Desmognathus ochrophaeus). Evolution 1985, 39:370-386.
37. Hulbert S. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecological Monographs 1984, 54:187-211.
38. Jennions M.D., Kokko H., Klug H. The opportunity to be misled in studies of sexual selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2012, 25:591-598.
39. Jirotkul M. Operational sex ratio influences female preference and male-male competition in guppies. Animal Behaviour 1999, 58:287-294.
40. Jirotkul M. Operational sex ratio influences the opportunity for sexual selection in guppies. Journal of Fish Biology 2000, 56:739-741.
41. Jones A.G., Arguello J.R., Arnold S.J. Validation of Bateman's principles: a genetic study of sexual selection and mating patterns in the rough-skinned newt. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2002, 269:2533-2539.
42. Jones A.G., Arguello J.R., Arnold S.J. Molecular parentage analysis in experimental newt populations: the response of mating system measures to variation in the operational sex ratio. American Naturalist 2004, 164:444-456.
43. Jones A.G., Rosenqvist G., Berglund A., Avise J.C. The measurement of sexual selection using Bateman's principles: an experimental test in the sex-role-reversed pipefish Syngnathus typhle. Integrative and Comparative Biology 2005, 45:874-884.
44. Klemme I., Ylönen H., Eccard J.A. Reproductive success of male bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus): the effect of operational sex ratio and body size. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2007, 61:1911-1918.
45. Klug H., Heuschele J., Jennions M.D., Kokko H. The mismeasurement of sexual selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2010, 23:447-462.
46. Kokko H., Klug H., Jennions M.D. Unifying cornerstones of sexual selection: operational sex ratio, Bateman gradient and the scope for competitive investment. Ecology Letters 2012, 11:1340-1351.
47. Kraaijeveld K., Kraaijeveld-Smit D.J.L., Maan M.E. Sexual selection and speciation: the comparative evidence revisited. Biological Review 2011, 86:367-377.
48. Krakauer A.H., Webster M.S., DuVal E.H., Jones A.G., Shuster S.M. The opportunity for selection: not mismeasured, just misunderstood. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2011, 24:2064-2071.
49. Kvarnemo C., Moore G.I., Jones A.G. Sexually selected females in the monogamous western Australian seahorse. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2007, 274:521-525.
50. Lorenzi M.C., Sella G. Ameasure of sexual selection in hermaphroditic animals: parentage skew and the opportunity for selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2008, 21:827-833.
51. McCauley D.E. An estimate of the relative opportunities for natural and sexual selection in a population of milkweed beetles. Evolution 1983, 37:701-707.
52. McDonald D.B. Cooperation under sexual selection: age-graded changes in a lekking bird. American Naturalist 1989, 134:709-730.
53. McLain D.K. Resource patchiness and variation in the intensity of sexual selection in a resource defending polygynous insect species. Oikos 1986, 47:19-25.
54. McLain D.K., Boromisa R.D. Male choice, fighting ability, assortative mating and the intensity of sexual selection in the milkweed longhorn beetle, Tetraopes tetraophthalmus (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1987, 20:239-246.
55. Maness T.J., Anderson D.J. Serial monogamy and sex ratio bias in Nazca boobies. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2007, 274:2047-2054.
56. Mendoza-Cuenca L., Macías-Ordóñez R. Female asynchrony may drive disruptive sexual selection on male mating phenotypes in a Heliconius butterfly. Behavioral Ecology 2009, 21:144-152.
57. Mills S.J., Reynolds J.D. Operational sex ratio and alternative reproductive behaviours in the European bitterling, Rhodeus sericeus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2003, 54:98-104.
58. Mills S.C., Grapputo A., Koskela E., Mappes T. Quantitative measure of sexual selection with respect to the operational sex ratio: a comparison of selection indices. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2007, 274:143-150.
59. Mobley K.B., Jones A.G. Geographical variation in the mating system of the dusky pipefish (Syngnathus floridae). Molecular Ecology 2007, 16:2596-2606.
60. Mobley K.B., Jones A.G. Environmental, demographic, and genetic mating system variation among five geographically distinct dusky pipefish (Syngnathus floridae) populations. Molecular Ecology 2009, 18:1476-1490.
61. Møller A.P., Ninni P. Sperm competition and sexual selection: a meta-analysis of paternity studies of birds. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1998, 43:345-358.
62. Munroe K.E., Koprowski J.L. Sociality, Bateman's gradients, and the polygynandrous genetic mating system of round-tailed ground squirrels (Xerospermophilus tereticaudus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2011, 65:1811-1824.
63. Nishida T. Measurement of the opportunity for natural and sexual selection in a breeding population of the coreid bug (Colpula lativentris). Researches on Population Ecology 1987, 29:271-289.
64. Price T.D. Sexual selection on body size, territory and plumage variables in a population of Darwin's finches. Evolution 1984, 38:327-341.
65. Pröhl H. Population differences in female resource abundance, adult sex ratio, and male mating success in Dendrobates pumilio. Behavioral Ecology 2002, 13:175-181.
66. Pröhl H. Clutch loss affects the operational sex ratio in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2005, 58:310-315.
67. Pröhl H., Hödl W. Parental investment, potential reproductive rates, and mating system in the strawberry dart-poison frog, Dendrobates pumilio. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1999, 46:215-220.
68. R Development Core Team R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing 2012, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
69. Reichard M., Ondracková M., Bryjová A., Smith C., Bryja J. Breeding resource distribution affects selection gradients on male phenotypic traits: experimental study on lifetime reproductive success in the bitterling fish (Rhodeus amarus). Evolution 2009, 63:377-390.
70. Richardson D.S., Burke T. Extrapair paternity and variance in reproductive success related to breeding density in Bullock's orioles. Animal Behaviour 2001, 62:519-525.
71. Ridley M. Evolution 2004, Blackwell, Oxford. 3rd edn.
72. Rossiter S.J., Ransome R.D., Faulkes C.G., Dawson D.A., Jones G. Long-term paternity skew and the opportunity for selection in a mammal with reversed sexual size dimorphism. Molecular Ecology 2006, 15:3035-3043.
73. Ruby D.E. Male breeding success and differential access to females in Anolis carolinensis. Herpetologica 1984, 40:272-280.
74. Schulte-Hostedde A.I., Millar J.S., Gibbs H.L. Sexual selection and mating patterns in a mammal with female-biased sexual size dimorphism. Behavioral Ecology 2004, 15:351-356.
75. Serbezov D., Bernatchez L., Olsen E.M., Vollestad L.A. Mating patterns and determinants of individual reproductive success in brown trout (Salmo trutta) revealed by parentage analysis of an entire stream living population. Molecular Ecology 2010, 19:3193-3205.
76. Shuster S.M. Sexual selection and mating system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 2009, 106:10009-10016.
77. Shuster S.M., Wade M.J. Female copying and sexual selection in a marine isopod crustacean, Paracerceis sculpta. Animal Behaviour 1991, 41:1071-1078.
78. Shuster S.M., Wade M.J. Equal mating success among male reproductive strategies in a marine isopod. Nature 1991, 350:606-610.
79. Shuster S.M., Wade M.J. Mating Systems and Strategies 2003, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
80. Snedden W.A. Lifetime mating success in male sagebrush crickets: sexual selection constrained by a virgin male mating advantage. Animal Behaviour 1996, 51:1119-1125.
81. Sogabe A., Yanagisawa Y. Sex-role reversal of a monogamous pipefish without higher potential reproductive rate in females. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2007, 274:2959-2963.
82. Souroukis K., Cade W.H. Reproductive competition and selection on male traits at varying sex ratios in the field cricket, Gryllus pennsylvanicus. Behaviour 1993, 126:45-62.
83. Spence R., Jordan W.C., Smith C. Genetic analysis of male reproductive success in relation to density in the zebrafish, Danio rerio. Frontiers in Zoology 2006, 3:1-6.
84. Sullivan B.K., Hinshaw S.H. Female choice and selection on male calling behaviour in the grey treefrog Hyla versicolor. Animal Behaviour 1992, 44:733-744.
85. Svensson B.G. Swarming behavior, sexual dimorphism, and female reproductive status in the sex role-reversed dance fly species Rhamphomyia marginata. Journal of Insect Behavior 1997, 10:783-804.
86. Townsend D.S., Stewart M.M. Reproductive ecology of the Puerto Rican frog Eleutherodactylus coqui. Journal of Herpetology 1994, 28:34-40.
87. Ursprung E., Ringler M., Jehle R., Höld W. Strong male/male competition allows for nonchoosy females: high levels of polygynandry in a territorial frog with paternal care. Molecular Ecology 2011, 20:1759-1771.
88. Vanpé C. Mating systems and sexual selection in ungulates: new insights from a territorial species with low sexual size dimorphism: the European roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) 2007, Ph.D. thesis, University of Paul Sabatier.
89. Wade M.J. Sexual selection and variance in reproductive success. American Naturalist 1979, 114:742-747.
90. Wagner W.E., Sullivan B.K. Chorus organization in the Gulf Coast toad (Bufo valliceps): male and female behavior and the opportunity for sexual selection. Copeia 1992, 1992:647-658.
91. Whittingham L.A., Lifjeld J.T. Extra-pair fertilizations increase the opportunity for sexual selection in the monogamous house martin Delichon urbica. Journal of Avian Biology 1995, 26:283-288.
92. Weir L.K., Grant J.W.A., Hutchings J.A. The influence of operational sex ratio on the intensity of competition for mates. American Naturalist 2011, 177:167-176.
93. Williams R.N., DeWoody J.A. Reproductive success and sexual selection in wild eastern tiger salamanders (Ambystoma t. tigrinum). Evolutionary Biology 2009, 36:201-213.
94. Woolfenden B.E., Gibbs H.L., Sealy S.G. High opportunity for sexual selection in both sexes of an obligate parasitic bird, the brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2002, 52:417-425.