Correlated evolution of allometry and sexual dimorphism across higher taxa

American Naturalist

Volumn 182, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 630-639

  De Lisle, Stephen P ^a   Rowe, Locke ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Amphibian; Evolutionary allometry; Macroevolution; Phenotypic variation; Phylogenetic comparative methods; Rensch's rule; Sex specific selection; Sexual size dimorphism

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; AMPHIBIAN; BODY SIZE; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; MALE; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SEXUAL SELECTION;

AMPHIBIA; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BODY SIZE; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENETICS; HISTOLOGY; MALE; MATE CHOICE; PHENOTYPE; PHYLOGENY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL;

AMPHIBIANS; ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; BODY SIZE; FEMALE; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHENOTYPE; PHYLOGENY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEX CHARACTERISTICS;

EID: 84885192856     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/673282     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Abouheif, E., and D. J. Fairbairn. 1997. A comparative analysis of allometry for sexual size dimorphism. American Naturalist 149: 540-562.
2. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
3. Blanckenhorn, W. U., R. Meier, and T. Teder. 2007. Rensch's rule in insects: patterns among and within species. Pages 60-70 in D. J. Fairbairn, W. U. Blanckenhorn, and T. Székely, eds. Sex, size and gender roles. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
4. Bonduriansky, R. 2011. Sexual selection and sexual conflict as engines of ecological diversification. American Naturalist 178:729-745.
5. Ceballos, C. P., D. C. Adams, J. B. Iverson, and N. Valenzuela. 2013. Phylogenetic patterns of sexual size dimorphism in turtles and their implications for Rensch's rule. Evolutionary Biology 40:194-208.
6. Charnov, E. L., R. Warne, and M. Moses. 2007. Lifetime reproductive effort. American Naturalist 170:E1299-E142.
7. Clutton-Brock, T. H. 1985. Size, sexual dimorphism, and polygyny in primates. Pages 51-60 in W. L. Jungers, ed. Size and scaling in primate biology. Plenum, New York.
8. Clutton-Brock, T. H., P. H. Harvey, and B. Rudder. 1977. Sexual dimorphism, socioeconomic sex ratio and body weight in primates. Nature 269:797-800.
9. Colwell, R. K. 2000. Rensch's rule crosses the line: convergent allometry of sexual size dimorphism in hummingbirds and flower mites. American Naturalist 156:495-510.
10. Cox, R., M. Butler, and H. John-Alder. 2007. The evolution of sexual size dimorphism in reptiles. Pages 38-49 in D. J. Fairbairn, W. U. Blanckenhorn, and T. Székely, eds. Sex, size and gender roles. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
11. Crump, M. L. 1974. Reproductive strategies in tropical anuran communities. Miscellaneous Publication no. 61. Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
12. Dale, J., P. O. Dunn, J. Figuerola, T. Lislevand, T. Székely, and L. A. Whittingham. 2007. Sexual selection explains Rensch's rule of allometry for sexual size dimorphism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 274:2971-2979.
13. Darwin, C. 1871. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. J. Murray, London.
14. De Lisle, S. P., and L. Rowe. 2013. Data from: Correlated evolution of allometry and sexual dimorphism across higher taxa. American Naturalist, Dryad Digital Repository, http://dx.doi.org/10.5061 /dryad.24251.
15. Fairbairn, D. J. 1990. Factors influencing sexual size dimorphism in temperate waterstriders. American Naturalist 136:61-86.
16. Fairbairn, D. J. 1997. Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28:659-678.
17. Fairbairn, D. J., and R. F. Preziosi. 1994. Sexual selection and the evolution of allometry for sexual size dimorphism in the water strider, Aquarius remigis. American Naturalist 144:101-118.
18. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. American Naturalist 125:1-15.
19. Gould, S. J. 1966. Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biological Reviews 41:587-640.
20. Halamkova, L., J. A. I. Schulte, and T. A. Langen. 2013. Patterns of sexual size dimorphism in Chelonia. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 108:396-413.
21. Han, X., and J. Fu. 2013. Does life history shape sexual size dimorphism in anurans? a comparative analysis. BMC Evolutionary Biology 13:27.
22. Harmon, L. J., J. T. Weir, C. D. Brock, R. E. Glor, and W. Challenger. 2008. GEIGER: investigating evolutionary radiations. Bioinformatics 24:129-131.
23. Herczeg, G., A. Gonda, and J. Merilä. 2010. Rensch's rule invertedfemale- driven gigantism in nine-spine stickleback Pungitius pungitius. Journal of Animal Ecology 3:581-588.
24. Kaplan, R. H., and S. N. Salthe. 1979. The allometry of reproduction: an empirical view in salamanders. American Naturalist 113:671-689.
25. Kavanagh, P. H., C. A. Lehnebach, M. J. Shea, and K. C. Burns. 2011. Allometry of sexual size dimorphism in dioecious plants: do plants obey Rensch's rule? American Naturalist 178:596-601.
26. Kingsolver, J. G., and D. W. Pfennig. 2004. Individual-level selection as a cause of Cope's rule of phyletic size increase. Evolution 58: 1608-1612.
27. Kupfer, A. 2007. Sexual size dimorphism in amphibians: an overview. Pages 50-59 in D. J. Fairbairn,W. U. Blanckenhorn, and T. Székely, eds. Sex, size and gender roles. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
28. Lande, R. 1979. Quantitative genetic analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain:body size allometry. Evolution 33:402-416.
29. Lande, R., and M. Kirkpatrick. 1988. Ecological speciation by sexual selection. Journal of Theoretical Biology 133:85-98.
30. Liao, W. B., Y. Zeng, C. Q. Zhou, and R. Jehle. 2013. Sexual size dimorphism in anurans fails to obey Rensch's rule. Frontiers in Zoology 10:10.
31. Lovich, J. E., and J. W. Gibbons. 1992. A review of the techniques for quantifying sexual size dimorphism. Growth, Development, and Ageing 56:269-281.
32. Martins, E. P., and T. F. Hansen. 1997. Phylogenies and the comparative method: a general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data. American Naturalist 149:646-667.
33. Paradis, E. 2012. Analysis of phylogenetics and evolution with R. 2nd ed. Springer, New York.
34. Paradis, E., J. Claude, and K. Strimmer. 2004. APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20:289-290.
35. Price, T., M. Turelli, and M. Slatkin. 1993. Peak shifts produced by correlated response to selection. Evolution 47:280-290.
36. Pyron, R. A. 2011. Divergence time estimation using fossils as terminal taxa and the origins of Lissamphibia. Systematic Biology 60: 466-481.
37. Pyron, R. A., and J. J. Wiens. 2011. A large-scale phylogeny of Amphibia including over 2800 species, and a revised classification of extant frogs, salamanders, and caecilians. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61:543-583.
38. Quader, S., K. Isvaran, R. E. Hale, B. G. Miner, and N. E. Seavy. 2004. Nonlinear relationships and phylogenetically independent contrasts. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17:709-715.
39. Rensch, B. 1950. Die Abhängigkeit der relativen Sexualdifferenz von der Körpergrösse. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 1:58-69.
40. Rensch, B. 1960. Evolution above the species level. Columbia University Press, New York.
41. Revell, L. J. 2012. Phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3:217-223.
42. Rohlf, F. J. 2001. Comparative methods for the analysis of continuous variables: geometric interpretations. Evolution 55:2143-2160.
43. Rohlf, F. J. 2006. A comment on phylogenetic correction. Evolution 60: 1509-1515.
44. Rowe, L., and D. Houle. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 263:1415-1421.
45. Sanderson, M. J. 2002. Estimating absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence times: a penalized likelihood approach.Molecular Biology and Evolution 19:101-109.
46. Serrano-Meneses, M. A., A. Có rdoba-Aguilar, M. Azpilicueta-Amorín, E. González-Soriano, and T. Székely. 2008. Sexual selection, sexual size dimorphism, and Rensch's rule in Odonata. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 21:1259-1273.
47. Shine, R. 1979. Sexual selection and sexual dimorphism in the Amphibia. Copeia 1979:297-306.
48. Shine, R. 1988. The evolution of large body size in females: a critique of Darwin's "fecundity advantage" model. American Naturalist 131:124-131.
49. Sibly, R. M., W. Zuo, A. Kodric-Brown, and J. H. Brown. 2012. Rensch's rule in large herbivorous mammals derived from metabolic scaling. American Naturalist 179:169-177.
50. Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry. 3rd ed. W. H. Freeman, New York.
51. Stephens, P. R., and J. J. Wiens. 2009. Evolution of sexual size dimorphisms in emydid turtles: ecological dimorphism, Rensch's rule, and sympatric divergence. Evolution 63:910-925.
52. Stuart-Fox, D. 2009. A test of Rensch's rule in dwarf chameleons (Bradypodion spp.), a group with female-biased sexual size dimorphism. Evolutionary Ecology 23:425-433.
53. Stumpf, M. P. H., and M. A. Porter. 2012. Critical truths about power laws. Science 335:665-666.
54. Székely, T., R. P. Freckleton, and J. D. Reynolds. 2004. Sexual selection explains Rensch's rule of size dimorphism in shorebirds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 101: 12224-12227.
55. Webb, T. J., and R. P. Freckleton. 2007. Only half right: species with female-biased sexual size dimorphism consistently break Rensch's rule. PLoS ONE 9:e897.
56. Webster, M. S. 1992. Sexual dimorphism, mating system and body size in new world blackbirds (Icterinae). Evolution 46:1621-1641.
57. Wells, K. D. 2007. The ecology and behavior of amphibians. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
58. Williams, G. C. 1966. Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
59. Woolbright, L. L. 1983. Sexual selection and size dimorphism in anuran Amphibia. American Naturalist 121:110-119.
60. Wyman, M. 2013. Genetic considerations in the evolution of sexual dimorphism. PhD diss. University of Toronto.
61. Zamudio, K. R. 1998. The evolution of female-biased sexual size dimorphism: a population-level comparative study in horned lizards (Phrynosoma). Evolution 52:1821-1833.
62. Zeng, Z.-B. 1988. Long-term correlated response, interpopulation covariation, and interspecific allometry. Evolution 42:363-374.