A rigorous comparison of sexual selection indexes via simulations of diverse mating systems

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 113, Issue 3, 2016, Pages E300-E308

  Henshaw, Jonathan M ^a   Kahn, Andrew T ^a   Fritzsche, Karoline ^b  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRAZ   (Austria)

Author keywords

Distributional selection differential; Index of resource monopolization; Morisita index; Opportunity for selection; Selection gradient

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FEMALE; GENETIC TRAIT; LIFE HISTORY; MALE; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MATING; MATING SUCCESS; MATING SYSTEM; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIMULATION; SPECIES; ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; MATE CHOICE; PHYSIOLOGY; REPRODUCTION; SPECIES DIFFERENCE;

ANIMALS; FEMALE; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; REPRODUCTION; SPECIES SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84954564840     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1518067113     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Klug H, Heuschele J, Jennions MD, Kokko H (2010) The mismeasurement of sexual selection. J Evol Biol 23(3):447-462.
2. Krakauer AH, Webster MS, Duval EH, Jones AG, Shuster SM (2011) The opportunity for sexual selection: Not mismeasured, just misunderstood. J Evol Biol 24(9):2064-2071.
3. Fitze PS, Le Galliard J-F (2011) Inconsistency between different measures of sexual selection. Am Nat 178(2):256-268.
4. Doherty PF, Jr, et al. (2003) Sexual selection affects local extinction and turnover in bird communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(10):5858-5862.
5. Seddon N, Merrill RM, Tobias JA (2008) Sexually selected traits predict patterns of species richness in a diverse clade of suboscine birds. Am Nat 171(5):620-631.
6. Kraaijeveld K, Kraaijeveld-Smit FJL, Maan ME (2011) Sexual selection and speciation: The comparative evidence revisited. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 86(2):367-377.
7. Wagner CE, Harmon LJ, Seehausen O (2012) Ecological opportunity and sexual selection together predict adaptive radiation. Nature 487(7407):366-369.
8. Gavrilets S (2014) Is sexual conflict an "engine of speciation"? Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 6(12):a017723.
9. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871-1971, ed Campbell B (Aldine, Chicago), pp 136-179.
10. Shuster SM, Wade MJ (2003) Mating Systems and Strategies (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton).
11. Wade MJ, Arnold SJ (1980) The intensity of sexual selection in relation to male sexual behaviour, female choice, and sperm precedence. Anim Behav 28(2):446-461.
12. Arnold SJ, Duvall D (1994) Animal mating systems: A synthesis based on selection theory. Am Nat 143(2):317-348.
13. Jones AG (2009) On the opportunity for sexual selection, the Bateman gradient and the maximum intensity of sexual selection. Evolution 63(7):1673-1684.
14. Jennions MD, Kokko H, Klug H (2012) The opportunity to be misled in studies of sexual selection. J Evol Biol 25(3):591-598.
15. Lande R, Arnold SJ (1983) The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37(6):1210-1226.
16. Parker GA, Birkhead TR (2013) Polyandry: The history of a revolution. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 368(1613):20120335.
17. Kokko H, Mackenzie A, Reynolds JD, Lindström J, Sutherland WJ (1999) Measures of inequality are not equal. Am Nat 154(3):358-382.
18. Crow JF (1958) Some possibilities for measuring selection intensities in man. Hum Biol 30(1):1-13.
19. Sutherland WJ (1985) Chance can produce a sex difference in variance in mating success and explain Bateman's data. Anim Behav 33:1349-1352.
20. Ruzzante DE, Hamilton DC, Kramer DL, Grant JWA (1996) Scaling of the variance and the quantification of resource monopolization. Behav Ecol 7(2):199-207.
21. Baena ML, Macías-Ordóñez R (2012) Phenology of scramble polygyny in a wild population of chrysomelid beetles: The opportunity for and the strength of sexual selection [corrected]. PLoS One 7(6):e38315.
22. Moura RR, Peixoto PEC (2013) The effect of operational sex ratio on the opportunity for sexual selection: A meta-analysis. Anim Behav 86(4):675-683.
23. Morisita M (1962) I-Index, a measure of dispersion of individuals. Res Popul Ecol 4(1):1-7.
24. Fairbairn DJ, Wilby AE (2001) Inequality of opportunity: Measuring the potential for sexual selection. Evol Ecol Res 3(6):667-686.
25. Lorch PD (2005) Using upper limits of "Bateman gradients" to estimate the opportunity for sexual selection. Integr Comp Biol 45(5):924-930.
26. Mills SC, 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 Biol Sci 274(1606):143-150.
27. Croshaw DA (2010) Quantifying sexual selection: A comparison of competing indices with mating system data from a terrestrially breeding salamander. Biol J Linn Soc 99(1):73-83.
28. Fritzsche K, Arnqvist G (2013) Homage to Bateman: Sex roles predict sex differences in sexual selection. Evolution 67(7):1926-1936.
29. Martin AM, Festa-Bianchet M, Coltman DW, Pelletier F (2015) Comparing measures of breeding inequality and opportunity for selection with sexual selection on a quantitative character in bighorn rams. J Evol Biol 28(1):223-230.
30. Janicke T, David P, Chapuis E (2015) Environment-dependent sexual selection: Bateman's parameters under varying levels of food availability. Am Nat 185(6):756-768.
31. Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness FE, Albon SD (1982) Red Deer: Behavior and Ecology of Two Sexes (Univ of Chicago Press, Chicago).
32. Pemberton JM, Albon SD, Guinness FE, Clutton-Brock TH, Dover GA (1992) Behavioral estimates of male mating success tested by DNA fingerprinting in a polygynous mammal. Behav Ecol 3(1):66-75.
33. Clutton-Brock TH, Lonergan ME (1994) Culling regimes and sex ratio biases in highland red deer. J Appl Ecol 31(3):521-527.
34. Clutton-Brock TH, Rose KE, Guinness FE (1997) Density-related changes in sexual selection in red deer. Proc Biol Sci 264(1387):1509-1516.
35. Bonenfant C, Gaillard J-M, Klein F, Maillard D (2004) Variation in harem size of red deer (Cervus elaphus L.): The effects of adult sex ratio and age-structure. J Zool 264(1):77-85.
36. Malo AF, Roldan ERS, Garde J, Soler AJ, Gomendio M (2005) Antlers honestly advertise sperm production and quality. Proc Biol Sci 272(1559):149-157.
37. Rusch DA, Reeder WG (1978) Population ecology of Alberta red squirrels. Ecology 59(2):400-420.
38. Hurly TA (1987) Male-biased sex ratios in a red squirrel population. Can J Zool 65(5):1284-1286.
39. Vernes K (2004) Breeding biology and seasonal capture success of northern flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) and red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) in Southern New Brunswick. Northeast Nat 11(2):123-136.
40. McAdam AG, Boutin S, Sykes AK, Humphries MM (2007) Life histories of female red squirrels and their contributions to population growth and lifetime fitness. Ecoscience 14(3):362-369.
41. Lane JE, Boutin S, Gunn MR, Slate J, Coltman DW (2008) Female multiple mating and paternity in free-ranging North American red squirrels. Anim Behav 75(6):1927-1937.
42. Lane JE, Boutin S, Gunn MR, Coltman DW (2009) Sexually selected behaviour: Red squirrel males search for reproductive success. J Anim Ecol 78(2):296-304.
43. Coulson JC, Wooller RD (1984) Incubation under natural conditions in the kittiwake gull, Rissa tridactyla. Anim Behav 32(4):1204-1215.
44. Hatch SA, Byrd GV, Irons DB, Hunt GLJ (1993) Status and ecology of kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla and R. brevirostris) in the North Pacific. The Status, Ecology, and Conservation of Marine Birds of the North Pacific, eds Vermeer K, Briggs KT, Morgan KH, Siegel-Causey D (Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario), pp 140-153.
45. Helfenstein F, Danchin E, Wagner RH (2004) Assortative mating and sexual size dimorphism in black-legged kittiwakes. Waterbirds 27(3):350-354.
46. Wagner RH, Helfenstein F, Danchin E (2004) Female choice of young sperm in a genetically monogamous bird. Proc Biol Sci 271(Suppl 4):S134-S137.
47. Takakura K-I (1999) Active female courtship behavior and male nutritional contribution to female fecundity in Bruchidius dorsalis (Fahraeus) ( Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Res Popul Ecol 41(3):269-273.
48. Takakura K-I (2001) Courtship-role-reversal in the bean weevil, Bruchidius dorsalis (Coleoptera: Bruchidae): Interplay between male-male competition and cryptic female choice. Appl Entomol Zool 36(3):311-316.
49. Takakura K-I (2006) Estimation of relative reproductive expenditure in the courtship-role-reversed bean weevil, Bruchidius dorsalis (Fahraeus). J Ethol 24(1):33-36.
50. Salehialavi Y, Fritzsche K, Arnqvist G (2011) The cost of mating and mutual mate choice in 2 role-reversed honey locust beetles. Behav Ecol 22(5):1104-1113.
51. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I (1986) Reversed sex roles and parental energy investment in zygotes of two pipefish (Syngnathidae) species. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 29:209-215.
52. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I (1986) Mate choice, fecundity and sexual dimorphism in two pipefish species (Syngnathidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19(4):301-307.
53. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I (1989) Reproductive success of females limited by males in two pipefish species. Am Nat 133(4):506-516.
54. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G (1990) Male limitation of female reproductive success in a pipefish: Effects of body-size differences. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27(2):129-133.
55. Ahnesjö I (1992) Consequences of male brood care: Weight and number of newborn in a sex-role reversed pipefish. Funct Ecol 6(3):274-281.
56. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G (1993) Selective males and ardent females in pipefishes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32(5):331-336.
57. Ahnesjö I (1996) Apparent resource competition among embryos in the brood pouch of a male pipefish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38(3):167-172.
58. Partridge C, et al. (2009) The effect of perceived female parasite load on post-copulatory male choice in a sex-role-reversed pipefish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63(3):345-354.
59. Mobley KB, Abou Chakra M, Jones AG (2014) No evidence for size-assortative mating in the wild despite mutual mate choice in sex-role-reversed pipefishes. Ecol Evol 4(1):67-78.
60. Gregorius H-R, Gillet EM, Ziehe M (2003) Measuring differences of trait distributions between populations. Biometrical J 8:959-973.
61. Rudnicki R, Zwoleński P (2015) Model of phenotypic evolution in hermaphroditic populations. J Math Biol 70(6):1295-1321.
62. Sefc KM (2011) Mating and parental care in Lake Tanganyika's cichlids. Int J Evol Biol 2011:470875.
63. Barreto FS, Avise JC (2010) Quantitative measures of sexual selection reveal no evidence for sex-role reversal in a sea spider with prolonged paternal care. Proc R Soc B 277(1696):2951-2956.
64. Serbezov D, Bernatchez L, Olsen EM, Vøllestad LA (2010) Mating patterns and determinants of individual reproductive success in brown trout (Salmo trutta) revealed by parentage analysis of an entire stream living population. Mol Ecol 19(15):3193-3205.
65. Pélissié B, Jarne P, David P (2012) Sexual selection without sexual dimorphism: Bateman gradients in a simultaneous hermaphrodite. Evolution 66(1):66-81.
66. Wacker S, Amundsen T, Forsgren E, Mobley KB (2014) Within-season variation in sexual selection in a fish with dynamic sex roles. Mol Ecol 23(14):3587-3599.
67. Mobley KB, Jones AG (2013) Overcoming statistical bias to estimate genetic mating systems in open populations: A comparison of Bateman's principles between the sexes in a sex-role-reversed pipefish. Evolution 67(3):646-660.
68. Jones AG (2015) BATEMANATER: A computer program to estimate and bootstrap mating system variables based on Bateman's principles. Mol Ecol Resour 15(6):1396-1402.
69. Hines AH (1991) Fecundity and reproductive output in nine species of Cancer crabs (Crustacea, Brachyura, Cancridae). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48(2):267-275.
70. Tobias JA, Montgomerie R, Lyon BE (2012) The evolution of female ornaments and weaponry: Social selection, sexual selection and ecological competition. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 367(1600):2274-2293.
71. Cain KE (2014) Mates of competitive females: The relationships between female aggression, mate quality, and parental care. Adv Zool 2014:319567.
72. Webster MS, Pruett-Jones S, Westneat DF, Arnold SJ (1995) Measuring the effects of pairing success, extra-pair copulations and mate quality on the opportunity for sexual selection. Evolution 49(6):1147-1157.
73. Fitzpatrick CL (2015) Expanding sexual selection gradients; a synthetic refinement of sexual selection theory. Ethology 121(3):207-217.
74. Jones AG, Rosenqvist G, Berglund A, Arnold SJ, Avise JC (2000) The Bateman gradient and the cause of sexual selection in a sex-role-reversed pipefish. Proc Biol Sci 267(1444):677-680.
75. Collet JM, Dean RF, Worley K, Richardson DS, Pizzari T (2014) The measure and significance of Bateman's principles. Proc R Soc B 281(1782):2013.2973.
76. Lorch PD, Bussière LF, Gwynne DT (2008) Quantifying the potential for sexual dimorphism using upper limits on Bateman gradients. Behaviour 145(1):1-24.
77. Moorad JA, Wade MJ (2013) Selection gradients, the opportunity for selection, and the coefficient of determination. Am Nat 181(3):291-300.
78. Asmussen S, Glynn PW (2007) Stochastic Simulation: Algorithms and Analysis ( Springer, New York).
79. Kenny DA (1987) Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences ( Little, Brown & Co, Boston).
80. Williams EJ (1959) The comparison of regression variables. J R Stat Soc B 21(2):396-399.
81. Steiger JH (1980) Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychol Bull 87(2):245-251.