SEx ratio and density affect sexual selection in a sex-role reversed fish

Evolution

Volumn 67, Issue 11, 2013, Pages 3243-3257

  Aronsen, Tonje ^a   Berglund, Anders ^b   Mobley, Kenyon B ^c   Ratikainen, Irja I ^a   Rosenqvist, Gunilla ^a,d  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY   (Germany)

^d GOTLAND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Bateman's principles; Intrasexual competition; Mating system; Operational sex ratio; Syngnathus typhle

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; FEMALE; FISH; GENETIC DIFFERENTIATION; MALE; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; SEX RATIO; SEXUAL SELECTION;

SYNGNATHUS TYPHLE;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BATEMAN'S PRINCIPLES; FEMALE; INTRASEXUAL COMPETITION; MALE; MATE CHOICE; MATING SYSTEM; OPERATIONAL SEX RATIO; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DENSITY; SEX RATIO; SMEGMAMORPHA; SWEDEN; SYNGNATHUS TYPHLE;

BATEMAN'S PRINCIPLES; INTRASEXUAL COMPETITION; MATING SYSTEM; OPERATIONAL SEX RATIO; SYNGNATHUS TYPHLE;

ANIMALS; FEMALE; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; POPULATION DENSITY; SEX RATIO; SMEGMAMORPHA; SWEDEN;

EID: 84886292965     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/evo.12201     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Ahnesjö, I. 1992. Consequences of male brood care-weight and number of newborn in a sex-role reversed pipefish. Funct. Ecol. 6:274-281.
2. Ahnesjö, I.. 1995. Temperature affects male and female potential reproductive rates differently in the sex-role reversed pipefish, Syngnathus typhle. Behav. Ecol. 6:229-233.
3. Arnold, S. J., and D. Duvall 1994. Animal mating systems: a synthesis based on selection theory. Am. Nat. 143:317-348.
4. Arnold, S. J., and M. J. Wade 1984. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection-theory. Evolution 38:709-719.
5. Arnqvist, G. 1992. The effects of operational sex-ratio on the relative mating success of extreme male phenotypes in the water strider Gerris-odontogaster (Zett) (Heteroptera, Gerridae). Anim. Behav. 43:681-683.
6. Aronsen, T., K. B. Mobley, A. Berglund, J. Sundin, A. M. Billing, and G. Rosenqvist 2013. The operational sex ratio and density influence spatial relationships between breeding pipefish. Behav. Ecol. 24:888-897.
7. Bateman, A. J. 1948. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349-368.
8. Berglund, A. 1994. The operational sex-ratio influences choosiness in a pipefish. Behav. Ecol. 5:254-258.
9. Berglund, A.. 1995. Many mates make male pipefish choosy. Behaviour 132:213-218.
10. Berglund, A., and G. Rosenqvist 1993. Selective males and ardent females in pipefishes. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 32:331-336.
11. Berglund, A., and G. Rosenqvist 2001. Male pipefish prefer dominant over attractive females. Behav. Ecol. 12:402-406.
12. Berglund, A., and G. Rosenqvist 2009. An intimidating ornament in a female pipefish. Behav. Ecol. 20:54-59.
13. Berglund, A., G. Rosenqvist, and I. Svensson 1986a. Mate choice, fecundity and sexual dimorphism in 2 pipefish species (Syngnathidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 19:301-307.
14. Berglund, A., G. Rosenqvist, and I. Svensson 1986b. Reversed sex-roles and parental energy investment in zygotes of 2 pipefish (Syngnathidae) species. Mar. Ecol.-Prog. Ser. 29:209-215.
15. Berglund, A., G. Rosenqvist, and I. Svensson 1988. Multiple matings and paternal brood care in the pipefish Syngnathus typhle. Oikos 51:184-188.
16. Berglund, A., G. Rosenqvist, and I. Svensson 1989. Reproductive success of females limited by males in 2 pipefish species. Am. Nat. 133:506-516.
17. Berglund, A., M. S. Widemo, and G. Rosenqvist 2005. Sex role reversal revisited: choosy females and ornamented, competitive males in a pipefish. Behav. Ecol. 16:649-655.
18. Carrillo, J., A. Danielson-Francois, E. Siemann, and L. Meffert 2012. Male-biased sex ratio increases female egg laying and fitness in the housefly, Musca domestica. J. Ethol. 30:247-254.
19. Clark, L., and J. W. A. Grant 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.
20. Conner, J. 1989. Density dependent sexual selection in the fungus beetle, Bolitotherus cornutus. Evolution 43:1378-1386.
21. Croshaw, D. A. 2010. Quantifying sexual selection: a comparison of competing indices with mating system data from a terrestrially breeding salamander. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 99:73-83.
22. Crow, J. F. 1958. Some possibilities for measuring selection intensities in man. Am. Anthropol. 60:1-13.
23. de Jong, K., E. Forsgren, H. Sandvik, and T. Amundsen 2012. Measuring mating competition correctly: available evidence supports operational sex ratio theory. Behav. Ecol. 23:1170-1177.
24. Emlen, S. T., and L. W. Oring 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215-223.
25. Enders, M. M. 1993. The effect of male size and operational sex-ratio on male mating success in the common spider-mite, Tetranychus-Urticae Koch (Acari, Tetranychidae). Anim. Behav. 46:835-846.
26. Fairbairn, D. J., and A. E. Wilby 2001. Inequality of opportunity: measuring the potential for sexual selection. Evol. Ecol. Res. 3:667-686.
27. Fitze, P. S., and J. F. Le Galliard 2008. Operational sex ratio, sexual conflict and the intensity of sexual selection. Ecol. Lett. 11:432-439.
28. Forsgren, E., T. Amundsen, A. A. Borg, and J. Bjelvenmark 2004. Unusually dynamic sex roles in a fish. Nature 429:551-554.
29. Grant, J. W. A., and P. E. Foam 2002. Effect of operational sex ratio on female-female versus male-male competitive aggression. Can. J. Zool. 80:2242-2246.
30. Gwynne, D. T. 1984. Sexual selection and sexual differences in mormon crickets (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae, Anabrus-Simplex). Evolution 38:1011-1022.
31. Gwynne, D. T.. 1990. Testing parental investment and the control of sexual selection in katydids-the operational sex-ratio. Am. Nat. 136:474-484.
32. Gwynne, D. T., and L. W. Simmons 1990. Experimental reversal of courtship roles in an insect. Nature 346:172-174.
33. Head, M. L., A. K. Lindholm, and R. Brooks 2008. Operational sex ratio and density do not affect directional selection on male sexual ornaments and behavior. Evolution 62:135-144.
34. Höglund, J. 1989. Pairing and spawning patterns in the common toad, Bufo bufo: the effects of sex-ratios and the time available for male-male competition. Anim. Behav. 38:423-429.
35. Jennions, M. D., H. Kokko, and H. Klug 2012. The opportunity to be misled in studies of sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 25:591-598.
36. Jirotkul, M. 1999a. Operational sex ratio influences female preference and male-male competition in guppies. Anim. Behav. 58:287-294.
37. Jirotkul, M.. 1999b. Population density influences male-male competition in guppies. Anim. Behav. 58:1169-1175.
38. Jones, A. G. 2009. On the opportunity for sexual selection, the Bateman gradient and the maximum intensity of sexual selection. Evolution 63:1673-1684.
39. Jones, A. G., E. Rosenqvist, A. Berglund, and J. C. Avise 1999a. Clustered microsatellite mutations in the pipefish Syngnathus typhle. Genetics 152:1057-1063.
40. Jones, A. G., E. Rosenqvist, A. Berglund, and J. C. Avise 1999b. The genetic mating system of a sex-role-reversed pipefish (Syngnathus typhle): a molecular inquiry. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 46:357-365.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. Kalinowski, S. T., M. L. Taper, and T. C. Marshall 2007. Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol. Ecol. 16:1099-1106.
44. Klemme, I., H. Ylonen, and J. A. Eccard 2007. Reproductive success of male bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus): the effect of operational sex ratio and body size. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61:1911-1918.
45. Klug, H., J. Heuschele, M. D. Jennions, and H. Kokko 2010. The mismeasurement of sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 23:447-462.
46. Knell, R. J., and J. C. Pomfret 2008. Crowding, sex ratio and horn evolution in a South African beetle community. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 275:315-321.
47. Kokko, H., and M. D. Jennions 2008. Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. J. Evol. Biol. 21:919-948.
48. Kokko, H., and P. Monaghan 2001. Predicting the direction of sexual selection. Ecol. Lett. 4:159-165.
49. Kokko, H., and D. J. Rankin 2006. Lonely hearts or sex in the city? Density-dependent effects in mating systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 361:319-334.
50. Kokko, H., H. Klug, and M. D. Jennions 2012. Unifying cornerstones of sexual selection: operational sex ratio, Bateman gradient and the scope for competitive investment. Ecol. Lett. 15:1340-1351.
51. 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.
52. Krupa, J. J., and A. Sih 1993. Experimental studies on water strider mating dynamics-spatial variation in density and sex ratio. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 33:107-120.
53. Kvarnemo, C., and I. Ahnesjö 1996. The dynamics of operational sex ratios and competition for mates. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:404-408.
54. Kvarnemo, C., E. Forsgren, and C. Magnhagen 1995. Effects of sex ratio on intra- and inter-sexual behaviour in sand gobies. Anim. Behav. 50:1455-1461.
55. Lande, R., and S. J. Arnold 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37:1210-1226.
56. Marshall, T. C., J. Slate, L. E. B. Kruuk, and J. M. Pemberton 1998. Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Mol. Ecol. 7:639-655.
57. McLain, D. K. 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.
58. Mills, S. C., and J. D. Reynolds 2003. Operational sex ratio and alternative reproductive behaviours in the European bitterling, Rhodeus sericeus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 54:98-104.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. Mobley, K. B., C. Kvarnemo, I. Ahnesjo, C. Partridge, A. Berglund, and A. G. Jones 2011. The effect of maternal body size on embryo survivorship in the broods of pregnant male pipefish. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65:1169-1177.
62. 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.
63. Olsson, M., E. Wapstra, T. Schwartz, T. Madsen, B. Ujvari, and T. Uller 2011. In hot pursuit: fluctuating mating system and sexual selection in sand lizards. Evolution 65:574-583.
64. Paczolt, K. A., and A. G. Jones 2010. Post-copulatory sexual selection and sexual conflict in the evolution of male pregnancy. Nature 464:401-405.
65. Partridge, C., I. Ahnesjo, C. Kvarnemo, K. B. Mobley, A. Berglund, and A. G. Jones 2009. The effect of perceived female parasite load on post-copulatory male choice in a sex-role-reversed pipefish. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63:345-354.
66. Phil, L., S. Baden, N. Kautsky, P. Rönnbäck, T. Søderqvist, M. Troell, and H. Wennhage 2006. Shift in fish assemblage structure due to loss of seagrass Zostera marina habitats in Sweden. Estuar Coast Shelf S 67:123-132.
67. R Development Core Team. 2011. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
68. Rispoli, V. F., and A. B. Wilson 2008. Sexual size dimorphism predicts the frequency of multiple mating in the sex-role reversed pipefish Syngnathus typhle. J. Evol. Biol. 21:30-38.
69. Rosenqvist, G. 1993. Sex role reversal in a pipefish. Mar. Behav. Physiol. 23:219-230.
70. Rowe, L., G. Arnqvist, A. Sih, and J. Krupa 1994. Sexual conflict and the evolutionary ecology of mating patterns-water striders as a model system. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9:289-293.
71. Sagebakken, G., I. Ahnesjo, K. B. Mobley, I. Braga Goncalves, and C. Kvarnemo 2010. Brooding fathers, not siblings, take up nutrients from embryos. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 277:971-977.
72. Sagebakken, G., I. Ahnesjo, I. Braga Goncalves, and C. Kvarnemo 2011. Multiply mated males show higher embryo survival in a paternally caring fish. Behav. Ecol. 22:625-629.
73. Sandvik, M., G. Rosenqvist, and A. Berglund 2000. Male and female mate choice affects offspring quality in a sex-role-reversed pipefish. Proc. R. Soc. B-Bio. Sci. 267:2151-2155.
74. Shuster, S. M., and M. J. Wade 2003. Mating systems and strategies. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton NJ.
75. Soucy, S., and J. Travis 2003. Multiple paternity and population genetic structure in natural populations of the poeciliid fish, Heterandria formosa. J. Evol. Biol. 16:1328-1336.
76. Souroukis, K., and W. H. Cade 1993. Reproductive competition and selection on male traits at varying sex ratios in the field cricket, Gryllus pennsylvanicus. Behaviour 126:45-62.
77. Sutherland, W. J. 1985. Chance can produce a sex difference in variance in mating success and explain Batemans data. Anim. Behav. 33:1349-1352.
78. Tomkins, J. L., and G. S. Brown 2004. Population density drives the local evolution of a threshold dimorphism. Nature 431:1099-1103.
79. Trivers, R. L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. Pp. 136-179 in B. Cambell, ed. Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971. Heineman, Lond.
80. Vincent, A., I. Ahnesjö, and A. Berglund 1994. Operational sex ratios and behavioral sex differences in a pipefish population. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 34:435-442.
81. Wacker, S., K. Mobley, E. Forsgren, L. C. Myhre, K. de Jong, and T. Amundsen 2013. Operational sex ratio but not density affects sexual selection in a fish. Evolution 67:1937-1949.
82. Wade, M. J. 1979. Sexual selection and variance in reproductive success. Am. Nat. 114:742-747.
83. Wade, M. J., and S. J. Arnold 1980. The intensity of sexual selection in relation to male sexual behavior, female choice, and sperm precedence. Anim. Behav. 28:446-461.
84. Wade, M. J., and S. M. Shuster 2004. Sexual selection: harem size and the variance in male reproductive success. Am. Nat. 164:E83-E89.
85. Walsh, P. S., D. A. Metzger, and R. Higuchi 1991. Chelex-100 as a medium for simple extraction of DNA for PCR-based typing from forensic material. Biotechniques 10:506-513.
86. Warner, R. R., and S. G. Hoffman 1980. Population-density and the economics of territorial defense in a coral-reef fish. Ecology 61:772-780.
87. Weir, L. K., J. W. A. Grant, and J. A. Hutchings 2011. The influence of operational sex ratio on the intensity of competition for mates. Am. Nat. 177:167-176.
88. Zeh, D. W. 1987. Aggression, density, and sexual dimorphism in chernetid Pseudoscorpions (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida). Evolution 41:1072-1087.