Comparing measures of breeding inequality and opportunity for selection with sexual selection on a quantitative character in bighorn rams

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 223-230

  Martin, A M ^a,b   Festa Bianchet, M ^a   Coltman, D W ^c   Pelletier, F ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE SHERBROOKE   (Canada)

^b Chaires de recherche du Canada   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Opportunity for sexual selection; Quantitative characters; Selection differential; Selection intensity; Sexual selection; Skew index

Indexed keywords

HORN; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SEXUAL SELECTION; SHEEP; SKEWNESS;

OVIS CANADENSIS;

MICROSATELLITE DNA;

ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; ANIMAL; BIGHORN SHEEP; BODY SIZE; CANADA; COMPARATIVE STUDY; GENETIC SELECTION; HORN; MALE; MATE CHOICE; PHYSIOLOGY; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS;

ALBERTA; ANIMALS; BODY SIZE; HORNS; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MICROSATELLITE REPEATS; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; SELECTION, GENETIC; SHEEP, BIGHORN;

EID: 84922657095     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12558     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
2. Arnold, S.J. 1994. Bateman's principles and the measurement of sexual selection in plants and animals. Am. Nat. 144: S126-S149.
3. Arnold, S.J. & Wade, M.J. 1984. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: theory. Evolution 38: 709-719.
4. Coltman, D.W., Bancroft, D.R., Robertson, A., Smith, J.A., Clutton-Brock, T.H. & Pemberton, J.M. 1999. Male reproductive success in a promiscuous mammal: behavioural estimates compared with genetic paternity. Mol. Ecol. 8: 1199-1209.
5. Coltman, D.W., Festa-Bianchet, M., Jorgenson, J.T. & Strobeck, C. 2002. Age-dependent sexual selection in bighorn rams. Proc. R. Soc. B 269: 165-172.
6. Coltman, D.W., O'Donoghue, P., Hogg, J.T. & Festa-Bianchet, M. 2005. Selection and genetic (co)variance in bighorn sheep. Evolution 59: 1372-1382.
7. Crow, J.F. 1958. Some possibilities for measuring selection intensities in man. Hum. Biol. 30: 1-13.
8. Darwin, C. 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Murray, J, London, UK.
9. Downhower, J.F., Blumer, L.S. & Brown, L. 1987. Opportunity for selection: an appropriate measure for evaluating variation in the potential for selection? Evolution 41: 1395-1400.
10. Fairbairn, D.J. & Wilby, A.E. 2001. Inequality of opportunity: measuring the potential for sexual selection. Evol. Ecol. Res. 3: 667-686.
11. Festa-Bianchet, M., King, W.J., Jorgenson, J.T., Smith, K.G. & Wishart, W.D. 1996. The development of sexual dimorphism: seasonal and lifetime mass changes in bighorn sheep. Can. J. Zool. 74: 330-342.
12. Festa-Bianchet, M., Jorgenson, J.T. & Réale, D. 2000. Early development, adult mass, and reproductive success in bighorn sheep. Behav. Ecol. 11: 633-639.
13. Fisher, R.A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
14. Fitze, P.S. & Le Galliard, J.-F. 2008. Operational sex ratio, sexual conflict and the intensity of sexual selection. Ecol. Lett. 11: 432-439.
15. Fitze, P.S. & Le Galliard, J.-F. 2011. Inconsistency between different measures of sexual selection. Am. Nat. 178: 256-268.
16. Gowaty, P.A., Kim, Y.-K. & Anderson, W.W. 2012. No evidence of sexual selection in a repetition of Bateman's classic study of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109: 11740-11745.
17. Hereford, J., Hansen, T.F. & Houle, D. 2004. Comparing strengths of directional selection: how strong is strong? Evolution 58: 2133-2143.
18. Hogg, J.T. 1984. Mating in bighorn sheep: multiple creative male strategies. Science 225: 526-529.
19. Hogg, J.T. 1987. Intrasexual competition and mate choice in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Ethology 75: 119-144.
20. Hogg, J.T. & Forbes, S.H. 1997. Mating in bighorn sheep: frequent male reproduction via a high-risk "unconventional" tactic. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 41: 33-48.
21. Husson, F., Josse, J., Le, S. & Mazet, J. 2013. FactoMineR: Multivariate Exploratory Data Analysis and Data Mining with R.
22. Jennions, M.D., Kokko, H. & Klug, H. 2012. The opportunity to be misled in studies of sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 25: 591-598.
23. Jones, A.G. 2009. On the opportunity for sexual selection, the Bateman gradient and the maximum intensity of sexual selection. Evolution 63: 1673-1684.
24. Jones, A.G., Arguello, J.R. & Arnold, S.J. 2002. Validation of Bateman's principles: a genetic study of sexual selection and mating patterns in the rough-skinned newt. Proc. R. Soc. B 269: 2533-2539.
25. Jones, A.G., Arguello, J.R. & Arnold, S.J. 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.
26. Jones, A.G., Rosenqvist, G., Berglund, A. & Avise, J.C. 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.
27. Jorgenson, J.T., Festa-Bianchet, M. & Wishart, W.D. 1993. Harvesting bighorn ewes: consequences for population-size and trophy ram production. J. Wildl. Manage. 57: 429-435.
28. Keller, L. & Krieger, M.J.B. 1996. Mating success in male birds. Nature 380: 208-209.
29. Keller, L. & Vargo, E.L. 1993. Reproductive structure and reproductive roles in colonies of eusocial insects. In: Queen Number and Sociality in Insects, (L. Keller, ed.), pp. 16-44. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
30. Klug, H., Heuschele, J., Jennions, M.D. & Kokko, H. 2010. The mismeasurement of sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 23: 447-462.
31. Koening, W.D. & Albano, S.S. 1986. On the measurement of sexual selection. Am. Nat. 127: 403-409.
32. Kokko, H. & Lindström, J. 1997. Measuring the mating skew. Am. Nat. 149: 794-799.
33. Kokko, H., Mackenzie, A., Reynolds, J.D., Lindström, J. & Sutherland, W.J. 1999. Measures of inequality are not equal. Am. Nat. 72: 358-382.
34. Kokko, H., Klug, H. & Jennions, M.D. 2012. Unifying cornerstones of sexual selection: operational sex ratio, Bateman gradient and the scope for competitive investment. Ecol. Lett. 15: 1340-1351.
35. Krakauer, A.H., Webster, M.S., Duval, E.H., Jones, A.G. & Shuster, S.M. 2011. The opportunity for sexual selection: not mismeasured, just misunderstood. J. Evol. Biol. 24: 2064-2071.
36. Lande, R. & Arnold, S.J. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37: 1210-1226.
37. Marshall, T.C., Slate, J., Kruuk, L.E.B. & Pemberton, J.M. 1998. Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Mol. Ecol. 7: 639-655.
38. Martin, J.G.A. & Pelletier, F. 2011. Measuring growth patterns in the field: effects of sampling regime and methods on standardized estimates. Can. J. Zool. 89: 529-537.
39. Martin, A.M., Presseault-Gauvin, H., Festa-Bianchet, M. & Pelletier, F. 2013. Male mating competitiveness and age-dependent relationship between testosterone and social rank in bighorn sheep. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 67: 919-928.
40. Martin, A.M., Festa-Bianchet, M., Coltman, D.W. & Pelletier, F. 2014. Sexually antagonistic association between paternal phenotype and offspring viability reinforces total selection on a sexually selected trait. Biol. Lett. 10: 20140043.
41. Mills, S.C., Grapputo, A., Koskela, E. & Mappes, T. 2007. Quantitative measure of sexual selection with respect to the operational sex ratio: a comparison of selection indices. Proc. R. Soc. B 274: 143-150.
42. Morisita, M. 1962. Iσ-Index, a measure of dispersion of individuals. Res. Popul. Ecol. 4: 1-7.
43. Nonacs, P. 2000. Measuring and using skew in the study of social behavior and evolution. Am. Nat. 156: 577-589.
44. Nonacs, P. 2003. Measuring the reliability of skew indices: is there one best index? Anim. Behav. 65: 615-627.
45. Pamilo, P. & Crozier, R.H. 1996. Reproductive skew simplified. Oikos 75: 533-535.
46. Pelletier, F. 2005. Foraging time of rutting bighorn rams varies with individual behavior, not mating tactic. Behav. Ecol. 16: 280-285.
47. Pelletier, F. & Coulson, T. 2012. A new metric to calculate the opportunity for selection on quantitative characters. Evol. Ecol. Res. 14: 729-742.
48. Pelletier, F. & Festa-Bianchet, M. 2006. Sexual selection and social rank in bighorn rams. Anim. Behav. 71: 649-655.
49. Price, G.R. 1970. Selection and covariance. Nature 227: 520-521.
50. R Development Core Team 2011. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. URL http://www.R-project.org/.
51. Reeve, H.K. & Ratnieks, F.L.W. 1993. Queen-queen conflicts in polygynous societies: mutual tolerance and reproductive skew. In: Queen Number and Sociality in Insects, (L. Keller, ed.), pp. 45-85. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
52. Ruzzante, D.E., Hamilton, D.C., Kramer, D.L. & Grant, J.W.A. 1996. Scaling of the variance and the quantification of resource monopolization. Behav. Ecol. 7: 199-207.
53. Sutherland, W.J. 1985. Chance can produce a sex difference in variance in mating success and explain Bateman's data Source. Anim. Behav. 33: 1349-1352.
54. Tsuji, K. & Tsuji, N. 1998. Indices of reproductive skew depend on average reproductive success. Evol. Ecol. 12: 141-152.
55. Vanpé, C., Kjellander, P., Galan, M., Cosson, J.F., Aulagnier, S., Liberg, O. et al. 2007. Mating system, sexual dimorphism, and the opportunity for sexual selection in a territorial ungulate. Behav. Ecol. 19: 309-316.
56. Wade, M.J. 1979. Sexual selection and variance in reproductive success. Am. Nat. 114: 742-747.