Andrew meets Rensch: sexual size dimorphism and the inverse of Rensch’s rule in Andrew’s toad (Bufo andrewsi)

Oecologia

Volumn 177, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 389-399

  Liao, Wen Bo ^a,b   Liu, Wen Chao ^a   Merilä, Juha ^b  

^a CHINA WEST NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Andrew s toad; Fecundity selection; Rensch s rule; Sexual selection; Sexual size dimorphism

Indexed keywords

ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; ANIMAL; BODY SIZE; BUFONIDAE; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; FERTILITY; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETICS; MALE; PHENOTYPE; PHYSIOLOGY; REPRODUCTION; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; BODY SIZE; BUFONIDAE; FEMALE; FERTILITY; MALE; PHENOTYPE; REPRODUCTION; SELECTION, GENETIC; SEX CHARACTERISTICS;

EID: 84924314226     PISSN: 00298549     EISSN: 14321939     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-014-3147-8     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Abouheif E, Fairbairn DJ (1997) A comparative analysis of allometry for sexual size dimorphism: assessing Rensch’s rule. Am Nat 149:540–562
2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton
3. Angilletta MJ, Dunham AE (2003) The temperature-size rule in ectotherms: simple evolutionary explanations may not be general. Am Nat 162:332–342
4. Arak A (1988) Sexual size dimorphism in body size: a model and a test. Evolution 42:820–825
5. Berven KA (1982) The genetic basis of altitudinal variation in the wood frog Rana sylvatica. I. An experimental analysis of life history traits. Evolution 36:962–983
6. Blanckenhorn WU, Dixon AFG, Fairbairn DJ, Foellmer MW, Gibert P, van der Linde K, Meier R, Nylin S, Pitnick S, Schoff C, Signorelli M, Teder T, Wiklund C (2007) Proximate causes of Rensch’s rule: does sexual size dimorphism in arthropods result from sex differences in developmental time? Am Nat 169:245–257
7. Ceballos CP, Valenzuela N (2011) The role of sex-specific plasticity in shaping sexual dimorphism in a long-lived vertebrate, the snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina. Evol Biol 38:163–181
8. Ceballos CP, Adams DC, Iverson JB, Valenzuela N (2013) Phylogenetic patterns of sexual size dimorphism in turtles and their implications for Rensch’s rule. Evol Biol 40:194–208
9. Clutton-Brock TH, Harvey PH, Rudder B (1977) Sexual dimorphism, socioeconomic sex ratio and body weight in primates. Nature 269:797–800
10. Cox RM, Kelly SL, John-Adler HB (2003) A comparative test of adaptive hypotheses for sexual size dimorphism in lizards. Evolution 57:1653–1669
11. Dale J, Dunn PO, Figuerola J, Lislevand T, Székely T, Whittingham LA (2007) Sexual selection explains Rensch’s rule of allometry for sexual size dimorphism. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:2971–2979
12. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. Murray, London
13. De Lisle SP, Rowe L (2013) Correlated evolution of allometry and sexual dimorphism across higher taxa. Am Nat 182:630–639
14. Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223
15. Fairbairn DJ (1997) Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females. Ann Rev Ecol Sys 28:659–687
16. Fairbairn DJ (2005) Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: Testing two hypotheses for Rensch’s rule in the water strider Aquarius remigis. Am Nat 166:S69–S84
17. Fairbairn DJ, Preziosi RF (1994) Sexual selection and the evolution of allometry for sexual size dimorphism in the water strider (Aquarius remigis). Am Nat 144:101–118
18. Fei L, Ye CY (2001) The colour handbook of amphibians of Sichuan. China Forestry, Beijing
19. Frost DR (2013) Amphibian species of the world: an online reference. American Museum of Natural History, New York
20. Frynta D, Baudyšová J, Hradcová P, Faltusová K, Kratochvíl L (2012) Allometry of sexual size dimorphism in domestic dog. PLoS ONE 7:e46125
21. Han X, Fu JZ (2013) Does life history shape sexual size dimorphism in anurans? A comparative analysis. BMC Evol Biol 13:27
22. Hedrick AV, Temeles EJ (1989) The evolution of sexual dimorphism in animals: hypotheses and tests. Trends Ecol Evol 4:136–138
23. Herczeg G, Gonda A, Merilä J (2010) Rensch’s rule inverted female-driven gigantism in nine-spined stickleback Pungitius pungitius. J Anim Ecol 79:581–588
24. Johansson F, Crowley PH, Brodin T (2005) Sexual size dimorphism and sex ratios in dragonflies (Odonata). Biol J Linn Soc 86:507–513
25. Kelly CD, Bussiere LF, Gwynne D (2008) Sexual selection for male mobility in a giant insect with female-biased size dimorphism. Am Nat 172:417–423
26. Kelly CD, Folinsbee EK, Adams CD, Jennions DM (2013) Intraspecific sexual size and shape dimorphism in an Australian freshwater fish differs with respect to a biogeographic barrier and latitude. Evol Biol 40:408–419
27. Kupfer A (2007) Sexual size dimorphism in amphibians: an overview. In: Fairbairn DJ, Blanckenhorn WU, Székely T (eds) Sex, size and gender roles: evolutionary studies of sexual size dimorphism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 50–59
28. Lande R, Arnold ST (1983) The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37:1210–1226
29. Laugen AT, Laurila A, Merilä J (2003) Latitudinal countergradient variation in the common frog (Rana temporaria) developmental rates—evidence for local adaptation. J Evol Biol 16:996–1005
30. Laugen AT, Jönsson I, Laurila A, Söderman F, Merilä J (2005) Do common frogs (Rana temporaria) follow Bermann’s rule? Evol Ecol Res 7:717–731
31. Laurila A, Karttunen S, Merilä J (2002) Adaptive phenotypic plasticity and genetics of larval life histories in two Rana temporaria populations. Evolution 56:617–627
32. Lengkeek W, Didderen K, Cote IM, van der Zee EM, Snook RC, Reynolds JD (2008) Plasticity in sexual size dimorphism and Rensch’s rule in Mediterranean blennies (Blenniidae). Can J Zool 86:1173–1178
33. Liao WB (2009) Elevational variation in the life-history of anurans in a subtropics montane forest of Sichuan, southwestern China. PhD thesis, Wuhan University, Wuhan
34. Liao WB (2013) Evolution of sexual size dimorphism in a frog obeys the inverse of Rensch’s rule. Evol Biol 40:493–499
35. Liao WB, Chen W (2012) Inverse Rensch-rule in a frog with female-biased sexual size dimorphism. Naturwissenschaften 99:427–431
36. Liao WB, Lu X (2009a) Male mate choice in the Andrew’s toad Bufo andrewsi: a preference for larger females. J Ethol 27:413–417
37. Liao WB, Lu X (2009b) Sex recognition by male Andrew’s toad Bufo andrewsi in a subtropical montane region. Behav Proc 82:100–103
38. Liao WB, Lu X (2010a) Age and growth of a subtropical high-elevation torrent frog, Amolopsmantzorum, in western China. J Herpetol 44:172–176
39. Liao WB, Lu X (2010b) Age structure and body size of the Chuanxi tree frog Hyla annectanschuanxiensis from two different elevations in Sichuan (China). Zool Anz 248:255–263
40. Liao WB, Lu X (2011) Proximate mechanisms leading to large male-mating advantage in the Andrew’s toad Bufo andrewsi. Behaviour 148:1087–1102
41. Liao WB, Lu X (2012) Adult body size = f (initial size + growth rate × age): explaining the proximate cause of Bergman’s cline in a toad along altitudinal gradients. Evol Ecol 26:579–590
42. Liao WB, Zeng Y, Zhou CQ, Jehle R (2013) Sexual size dimorphism in anurans fails to obey Rensch’s rule. Front Zool 10:10
43. Lindenfors P, Gittleman JL, Jones KE (2007) Sexual size dimorphism in mammals. In: Fairbairn DJ, Blanckenhorn WU, Székely T (eds) Sex, size and gender roles: evolutionary studies of sexual size dimorphism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 16–26
44. Lu D, Zhou CQ, Liao WB (2014) Pattern of sexual size dimorphism supports the inverse Rensch’s rule in two frog species. Anim Biol 64:87–95
45. Macey JR, Shulte JA II, Larson A, Fang Z, Wang Y, Tuniyev BS, Papenfuss TJ (1998) Phylogenetic relationships of toads in the Bufo bufo species group from the eastern escarpment of the Tibetan Plateau: a case of vicariance and dispersal. Mol Phylogenet Evol 9:80–87
46. Monnet JM, Cherry MI (2002) Sexual size dimorphism in anurans. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2301–2307
47. Morrison FC, Hero JM (2003) Geographic variation in life-history characteristics of amphibians: a review. J Anim Ecol 72:270–279
48. Patrelle C, Hjernquist MB, Laurila A, Söderman F, Jönsson I, Merilä J (2012) Sex differences in age structure, growth rate and body size of common frogs Rana temporaria in the subarctic. Polar Biol 35:1505–1513
49. Polák J, Frynta D (2010) Patterns of sexual size dimorphism in cattle breeds support Rensch’s rule. Evol Ecol 24:1255–1266
50. Raihani G, Székely T, Serrano-Meneses MA, Pitra C, Goriup P (2006) The influence of sexual selection and male agility on sexual size dimorphism in bustards (Otididae). Anim Behav 71:833–838
51. Remeš V, Székely T (2010) Domestic chickens defy Rensch’s rule: sexual size dimorphism in chicken breeds. J Evol Biol 23:2754–2759
52. Rensch B (1950) Die Abhängigkeit der relativen sexualdifferenz von der Körpergröße”. Bonn Zool Beitr 1:58–69
53. Selander RK (1966) Sexual dimorphism and differential niche utilization in birds. Condor 68:113–151
54. Shine R (1979) Sexual selection and sexual dimorphism in the amphibia. Copeia 1979:297–306
55. Smirina EM (1994) Age determination and longevity in Amphibians. Gerontology 40:133–146
56. Smith RJ (1999) Statistics of sexual size dimorphism. J Hum Evol 36:423–459
57. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. Freeman, San Francisco
58. Steele DB, Siepielski AM, McPeek MA (2011) Sexual selection and temporal phenotypic variation in a damselfly population. J Evol Biol 24:1517–1532
59. Stillwell RC, Blanckenhorn WU, Teder T, Davidowitz G, Fox CW (2010) Sex differences in phenotypic plasticity affect variation in sexual size dimorphism in insects: from physiology to evolution. Annu Rev Entomol 55:227–245
60. Stuart-Fox D (2009) A test of Rensch’s rule in dwarf chameleons (Bradypodion spp.), a group with female-biased sexual size dimorphism. Evol Ecol 23:425–433
61. Sutter NB, Mosher DS, Ostrander EA (2008) Morphometrics within dog breeds are highly reproducible and dispute Rensch’s rule. Mamm Genom 19:713–723
62. Székely T, Reynolds JD, Figuerola J (2000) Sexual size dimorphism in shorebirds, gulls and alcids: the influence of sexual and natural selection. Evolution 54:1404–1413
63. Székely T, Freckleton RP, Reynolds JD (2004) Sexual selection explains Rensch’s rule of size dimorphism in shorebirds. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:12224–12227
64. Teder T, Tammaru T (2005) Sexual size dimorphism within species increases with body size in insects. Oikos 108:321–334
65. Walker SPW, McCormick MI (2009) Sexual selection explains sex-specific growth plasticity and positive allometry for sexual size dimorphism in a reef fish. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:3335–3343
66. Wells KD (2007) The Ecology and Behaviour of Amphibians. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
67. Young KA (2005) Life-history variation and allometry for sexual size dimorphism in Pacific salmon and trout. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:167–172
68. Zhang LX, Lu X (2013) Sexual size dimorphism in anurans: ontogenetic determination revealed by an across-species comparison. Evol Biol 40:84–91