An ecomorphological analysis of the determinants of mating success

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Volumn 110, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 658-664

  Huyghe, Katleen ^a   San Jose, Luis M ^b   Peñalver Alcázar, Miguel ^c,d   Fitze, Patrick S ^b,c,d,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^c INSTITUTO PIRENAICO DE ECOLOGÍA   (Spain)

^d MUSEO NACIONAL DE CIENCIAS NATURALES   (Spain)

^e FUNDACIÓN ARAID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Lacertidae; Lizards; Mating behaviour; Morphometrics; Sexual selection; Whole animal performance

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; LIZARD; MALE; MATING BEHAVIOR; MATING SUCCESS; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMALIA; LACERTIDAE; SQUAMATA; ZOOTOCA VIVIPARA;

EID: 84885861627     PISSN: 00244066     EISSN: 10958312     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bij.12140     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection and mate choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2. Bateman PW, Fleming PA. 2009. To cut a long tail short: a review of lizard caudal autotomy studies carried out over the last 20 years. Journal of Zoology 277: 1-14.
3. Bauwens D, Verheyen RF. 1985. The timing of reproduction in the lizard Lacerta vivipara: differences between individual females. Journal of Herpetology 19: 353-364.
4. Braña F. 1996. Sexual dimorphism in Lacertid lizards: male head vs female abdomen increase? Oikos 75: 511-523.
5. Byers J, Hebets E, Podos J. 2010. Female mate choice based upon male motor performance. Animal Behaviour 79: 771-778.
6. Darwin CR. 1871. The descent of men and selection in relation to sex. London: Murray.
7. Fitze PS, Cote J, Martínez-Rica JP, Clobert J. 2007. Determinants of male fitness: disentangling intra- and intersexual selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 21: 246-255.
8. Fitze PS, Le Galliard J-F. 2008. Operational sex-ratio, sexual conflict and the intensity of sexual selection. Ecology Letters 11: 432-439.
9. Fitze PS, Le Galliard J-F, Federici P, Richard M, Clobert J. 2005. Conflict over multiple-partner mating between males and females of the polygynandrous common lizards. Evolution 59: 2451-2459.
10. Fox SF, Heger NA, Delay LS. 1990. Social cost of tail loss in Uta stansburiana: lizard tails as status-signalling badges. Animal Behaviour 39: 549-554.
11. Gvoždik L, Van Damme R. 2003. Evolutionary maintenance of sexual dimorphism in head size in the lizard Zootoca vivipara: a test of two hypotheses. Journal of Zoology 259: 7-13.
12. Herczeg G, Kovács T, Tóth T, Török J, Korsós Z, Merilä J. 2004. Tail loss and thermoregulation in the common lizard Zootoca vivipara. Die Naturwissenschaften 91: 485-488.
13. Herrel A, de Grauw E, Lemos-Espinal JA. 2001a. Head shape and bite performance in xenosaurid lizards. Journal of Experimental Zoology 290: 101-107.
14. Herrel A, Spithoven L, Van Damme R, De Vree F. 1999. Sexual dimorphism of head size in Gallotia galloti: testing the niche divergence hypothesis by functional analyses. Functional Ecology 13: 289-297.
15. Herrel A, Van Damme R, Vanhooydonck B, De Vree F. 2001b. The implications of bite performance for diet in two species of lacertid lizards. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79: 662-670.
16. Heulin B. 1988. Observations sur l'organisaton de la reproduction et sur les comportements sexuals et agonistiques chez Lacerta vivipara. Vie milieu 38: 177-187.
17. Hofmann S, Henle K. 2006. Male reproductive success and intrasexual selection in the common lizard determined by DNA-microsatellites. Journal of Herpetology 40: 1-6.
18. Huyghe K, Herrel A, Adriaens D, Tadić Z, Van Damme R. 2009. It is all in the head: morphological basis for differences in bite force among colour morphs of the dalmatian wall lizard. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 96: 13-22.
19. Irschick DJ, Herrel A, Vanhooydonck B, Van Damme R. 2007. A functional approach to sexual selection. Functional Ecology 21: 621-626.
20. Irschick DJ, Meyers JJ, Husak JF, Le Galliard J-F. 2008. How does selection operate on whole-organism functional performance capacities? A review and synthesis. Evolutionary Ecology Research 10: 177-196.
21. Kaiser BW, Mushinsky HR. 1994. Tail loss and dominance in captive adult male Anolis sagrei. Journal of Herpetology 28: 342-346.
22. Kokko H, Monaghan P. 2001. Predicting the direction of sexual selection. Ecology Letters 4: 159-165.
23. Kvarnemo C, Ahnesjö I. 1996. The dynamics of operational sex ratios and competition for mates. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 404-408.
24. Lande R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34: 292-305.
25. Le Galliard J-F, Cote J, Fitze PS. 2008. Lifetime and intergenerational fitness consequences of harmful male interactions for female lizards. Ecology 89: 56-64.
26. Le Galliard J-F, Ferrière R. 2008. Evolution of maximal endurance capacity: natural and sexual selection across age classes in a lizard. Evolutionary Ecology Research 10: 157-176.
27. Le Galliard J-F, Fitze PS, Ferrière R, Clobert J. 2005. Sex ratio bias, male aggression, and population collapse in lizards. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102: 18231-18236.
28. Martín J, Salvador A. 1993. Tail loss reduces mating success in the Iberian rock-lizard, Lacerta monticola. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 32: 185-189.
29. Martín J, Salvador A. 1997. Effects of tail loss on the time-budgets, movements, and spacing patterns of Iberian rock lizards, Lacerta monticola. Herpetologica 53: 117-125.
30. Massot M, Clobert J, Pilorge J, Lecomte T, Barbault R. 1992. Density dependence in the common lizard: demographic consequences of a density manipulation. Ecology 73: 1742-1756.
31. Olsson M, Madsen T, Ujvari B, Wapstra E. 2004. Fecundity and MHC affects ejaculation tactics and paternity bias in sand lizards. Evolution 58: 906-909.
32. Oppliger A, Clobert J. 1997. Reduced tail regeneration in the common lizard, Lacerta vivipara, parasitized by blood parasites. Functional Ecology 11: 625-655.
33. Richard M, Lecomte J, de Fraipont M, Clobert J. 2005. Age-specific mating strategies and reproductive senescence. Molecular Ecology 14: 3147-3155.
34. Salvador A, Díaz JA, Veiga JP, Bloor P, Brown RP. 2008. Correlates of reproductive success in male lizards of the alpine species Iberolacerta cyreni. Behavioral Ecology 19: 169-176.
35. Seehausen O, Terai Y, Magalhaes I, Carleton KL, Mrosso HDJ, Miyagi R, van der Sluijs I, Schneider MV, Maan ME, Tachida H, Imai H, Okada N. 2008. Speciation through sensory drive in cichlid fish. Nature 455: 620-627.
36. Shine R. 1989. Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual size dirmorphism: a review of the evidence. Quarterly Review of Biology 64: 419-461.
37. Tokarz RR. 1995. Mate choice in lizards: a review. Herpetological Monographs 9: 17-40.
38. Tokarz RR. 1999. Relationship between copulation duration and sperm transfer in the lizard Anolis sagrei. Herpetologica 55: 234-241.
39. Tsuboi M, Gonzalez-Voyer A, Höglund J, Kolm N. 2012. Ecology and mating competition influence sexual dimorphism in Tanganyikan cichlids. Evolutionary Ecology 26: 171-185.
40. Van Damme R, Bauwens D, Verheyen RF. 1986. Selected body temperatures in the lizard Lacerta vivipara: variation within and between populations. Journal of Thermal Biology 11: 219-222.
41. Winquist T, Lemon RE. 1994. Sexual selection and exaggerated male tail length in birds. American Naturalist 143: 95-116.