Sexual size dimorphism in anurans: Roles of mating system and habitat types

Frontiers in Zoology

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Liao, Wen Bo ^a   Zeng, Yu ^a,c   Yang, Jian Dong ^b  

^a CHINA WEST NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b SICHUAN AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^c CHINA THREE GORGES CORPORATION   (China)

Author keywords

Anuran; Habitat type; Mating system; Phylogenetic comparative analysis; Sexual size dimorphism

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA; ANURA;

EID: 84887324219     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17429994     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1742-9994-10-65     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Andersson MB. Sexual Selection 1994, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
2. Shine R. Sexual selection and sexual dimorphism in the Amphibia. Copeia 1979, 1979:297-306.
3. Darwin C. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex 1871, London: John Murray.
4. Fairbairn DJ, Preziosi RF. Sexual selection and the evolution of allometry for sexual size dimorphism in the water strider, Aquarius remigis. Am Nat 1994, 144:101-118.
5. Cox RM, Kelly SL, John-Adler HB. A comparative test of adaptive hypotheses for sexual size dimorphism in lizards. Evolution 2003, 57:1653-1669.
6. Shine R. Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual size dimorphism: a review of the evidence. Q Rev Biol 1989, 64:419-461.
7. Moore SL, Wilson K. Parasites as a viability cost of sexual selection in natural populations of mammals. Science 2002, 297:2015-2018.
8. Geist V, Bayer M. Sexual dimorphism in the Cervidae and its relation to habitat. J Zool 1988, 214:45-53.
9. Butler MA, Schoener TW, Losos JB. The relationship between sexual size dimorphism and habitat use in greater Antillean anolis lizards. Evolution 2000, 54:259-272.
10. Duellman WE, Trueb L. Biology of Amphibians 1986, New York: McGraw-Hill.
11. Byrne PG, Roberts JD. Evolutionary causes and consequences of sequential polyandry in anuran amphibians. Biol Rev 2012, 87:209-228.
12. Monnet JM, Cherry MI. Sexual size dimorphism in anurans. Proc R Soc B 2002, 269:2301-2307.
13. Liao WB, Lu X. Age structure and body size of the Chuanxi tree toad Hyla annectans chuanxiensis from two different elevations (China). Zool Anz 2010, 248:255-263.
14. Liao WB, Zeng Y, Zhou CQ, Jehle R. Sexual size dimorphism in anurans fails to obey Rensch's rule. Front Zool 2013, 10:10.
15. Liao WB. Evolution of sexual size dimorphism in a frog obeys the inverse of Rensch's rule. Evol Biol 2013, 40:293-299.
16. Han X, Fu JZ. Does life history shape sexual size dimorphism in anurans? A comparative analysis. BMC Evol Biol 2013, 13:27.
17. Blanckenhorn WF. Behavioral causes and consequences of sexual size dimorphism. Ethology 2005, 111:977-1016.
18. Zhang LX, Lu X. Sexual size dimorphism in anurans: ontogenetic determination revealed by an across-species comparison. Evol Biol 2013, 40:84-91.
19. Hettyey A, Roberts JD. Sperm traits in the quacking frog (Crinia georgiana), a species with plastic alternative mating tactics. Beha Ecol Sociobiol 2007, 61:1303-1310.
20. Dale J, Dunn PO, Figuerola J, Lislevand T, Székely T, Whittingham LA. Sexual selection explains Rensch's rule of allometry for sexual size dimorphism. Proc R Soc B 2007, 274:2971-2979.
21. Tsuji H. Reproductive ecology and mating success of male Limnonectes kuhlii, a fanged frog from Taiwan. Herpetologica 2004, 60:155-167.
22. Butler MA, Sawyer SA, Losos JB. Sexual dimorphism and adaptive radiation in Anolis lizards. Nature 2007, 447:202-205.
23. Pagel MD. A method for the analysis of comparative data. J Theor Biol 1992, 156:431-442.
24. Felsenstein J. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 1985, 125:1-15.
25. Harvey PH, Pagel MD. The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology 1991, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Roberts JD, Byrne PG. Polyandry, sperm competition and the evolution of anuran amphibians. Adv Stud Beha 2011, 43:1-53.
27. Lovich JE, Gibbons JW. A review of techniques for quantifying sexual size dimorphism. Grow, Devel Aging: GDA 1992, 56:269-281.
28. Martins EP, Hansen TF. Phylogenies and the comparative method: a general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the anlaysis of interspecific data. Am Nat 1997, 149:646-667.
29. Frost DR, Grant T, Faivovich J, Bain RH, Haas A, Haddad CFB, de Saì RO, Channing A, Wilkinson M, Donnellan SC, Raxworthy CJ, Campbell JA, Blotto BL, Moler P, Drewes RC, Nussbaum RA, Lynch JD, Green DM, Wheeler WC. The amphibian tree of life. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 2006, 297:1-370.
30. Pyron RA, Wiens JJ. A large-scale phylogeny of Amphibia including over 2800 species, and a revised classification of extant frogs, salamanders, and caecilians. MPE 2011, 61:543-583.
31. Garland T, Harvey PH, Ives AR. Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst Biol 1992, 41:18-31.
32. Purvis A, Rambaut A. Comparative-analysis by independent contrasts (CAIC): an Apple-Macintosh application for analyzing comparative data. J Comp Appl Biosci 1995, 11:247-251.