Evolutionary Biology: Darwinian sex roles confirmed across the animal kingdom

Science Advances

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2016, Pages

  Janicke, Tim ^a   Häderer, Ines K ^b   Lajeunesse, Marc J ^c   Anthes, Nils ^b  

^a CENTRE D ECOLOGIE FONCTIONNELLE ET EVOLUTIVE   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMALS;

ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS; ANIMAL KINGDOM; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; PARENTAL CARE; SEX DIFFERENCE; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SEXUAL SELECTION;

BIOLOGY;

ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; MALE; PHYLOGENY; REPRODUCTIVE FITNESS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENETIC FITNESS; MALE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHYLOGENY; SELECTION, GENETIC; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

EID: 84964974495     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23752548     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1500983     Document Type: Article

References (222)

1. A. H. Eagly, W. Wood, The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. Am. Psychol. 54, 408-423 (1999).
2. E. H. Morrow, The evolution of sex differences in disease. Biol. Sex Differ. 6, 5 (2015).
3. M. Andersson, Sexual selection, in Monographs in Behavior and Ecology, J. R. Krebs, T. Clutton-Brock, Eds. (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1994).
4. J. Knight, Sexual stereotypes. Nature 415, 254-256 (2002).
5. C. R. Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (John Murray, London, 1871).
6. A. J. Bateman, Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2, 349-368 (1948).
7. S. J. Arnold, Bateman's principles and the measurement of sexual selection in plants and animals. Am. Nat. 144, S126-S149 (1994).
8. G. A. Parker, T. R. Birkhead, Polyandry: The history of a revolution. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 368, 20120335 (2013).
9. D. A. Dewsbury, The Darwin-Bateman paradigm in historical context. Integr. Comp. Biol. 45, 831-837 (2005).
10. R. L. Trivers, in Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, B. Campbell, Ed. (Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, 1972), pp. 136-179.
11. D. C. Queller, Why do females care more than males Proc. R. Soc. B. Biol. Sci. 264, 1555-1557 (1997).
12. H. Kokko, M. D. Jennions, Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. J. Evol. Biol. 21, 919-948 (2008).
13. H. Kokko, H. Klug, M. D. Jennions, Unifying cornerstones of sexual selection: Operational sex ratio, Bateman gradient and the scope for competitive investment. Ecol. Lett. 15, 1340-1351 (2012).
14. A. V. Hedrick, E. J. Temeles, The evolution of sexual dimorphism in animals: Hypotheses and tests. Trends Ecol. Evol. 4, 136-138 (1989).
15. G. A. Parker, The sexual cascade and the rise of pre-ejaculatory (Darwinian) sexual selection, sex roles, and sexual conflict. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 6, a017509 (2014).
16. B. F. Snyder, P. A. Gowaty, A reappraisal of Bateman's classic study of intrasexual selection. Evolution 61, 2457-2468 (2007).
17. P. A. Gowaty, Y.-K. Kim, W. W. Anderson, No evidence of sexual selection in a repetition of Bateman's classic study of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109, 11740-11745 (2012).
18. Z. Tang-Martinez, in Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior, M. D. Breed, J. Moore, Eds. (Academic Press, Oxford, 2010), pp. 166-176.
19. G. Arnqvist, T. Nilsson, The evolution of polyandry: Multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim. Behav. 60, 145-164 (2000).
20. D. A. Dewsbury, Ejaculate cost and male choice. Am. Nat. 119, 601-610 (1982).
21. Z. Tang-Martínez, Repetition of Bateman challenges the paradigm. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109, 11476-11477 (2012).
22. S. P. Hubbell, L. K. Johnson, Environmental variance in lifetime mating success, mate choice, and sexual selection. Am. Nat. 130, 91-112 (1987).
23. P. A. Gowaty, S. P. Hubbell, Reproductive decisions under ecological constraints: It's about time. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 106, 10017-10024 (2009).
24. J. Roughgarden, in Current Perspectives on Sexual Selection. What's Left After Darwin, T. Hoquet, Ed. (Springer, Dordrecht, 2015), pp. 85-102.
25. K. B. Mobley, in Animal Behaviour: How and Why Animals Do the Things They Do, K. Yasukawa, Ed. (Praeger, Santa Barbara, 2014), pp. 99-144.
26. D. J. Hosken, C. M. House, Sexual selection. Curr. Biol. 21, R62-R65 (2011).
27. A. G. Jones, On the opportunity for sexual selection, the Bateman gradient and the maximum intensity of sexual selection. Evolution 63, 1673-1684 (2009).
28. T. R. Birkhead, T. Pizzari, Postcopulatory sexual selection. Nat. Rev. Genet. 3, 262-273 (2002).
29. W. J. Sutherland, Chance can produce a sex difference in variance in mating success and explain Bateman's data. Anim. Behav. 33, 1349-1352 (1985).
30. H. Klug, J. Heuschele, M. D. Jennions, H. Kokko, The mismeasurement of sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 447-462 (2010).
31. A. H. Krakauer, M. S. Webster, E. H. Duval, A. G. Jones, S. M. Shuster, The opportunity for sexual selection: Not mismeasured, just misunderstood. J. Evol. Biol. 24, 2064-2071 (2011).
32. A. G. Jones, G. Rosenqvist, A. Berglund, S. J. Arnold, J. C. Avise, The Bateman gradient and the cause of sexual selection in a sex-role-reversed pipefish. Proc. Biol. Sci. 267, 677-680 (2000).
33. S. T. Emlen, P. H. Wrege, Size dimorphism, intrasexual competition, and sexual selection in Wattled Jacana (Jacana jacana), a sex-role-reversed shorebird in Panama. Auk 121, 391-403 (2004).
34. L. Schärer, L. Rowe, G. Arnqvist, Anisogamy, chance and the evolution of sex roles. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 260-264 (2012).
35. T. Clutton-Brock, Sexual selection in females. Anim. Behav. 77, 3-11 (2009).
36. M. Ah-King, S. Nylin, Sex in an evolutionary perspective: Just another reaction norm. Evol. Biol. 37, 234-246 (2010).
37. L. Schrer, T. Janicke, S. A. Ramm, Sexual conflict in hermaphrodites. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 7, a017673 (2015).
38. T. Janicke, P. David, E. Chapuis, Environment-dependent sexual selection: Bateman's parameters under varying levels of food availability. Am. Nat. 185, 756-768 (2015).
39. S. C. Mills, A. Grapputo, E. Koskela, T. Mappes, Quantitative measure of sexual selection with respect to the operational sex ratio: A comparison of selection indices. Proc. Biol. Sci. 274, 143-150 (2007).
40. M. D. Jennions, H. Kokko, H. Klug, The opportunity to be misled in studies of sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 25, 591-598 (2012).
41. E. D. Ketterson, P. G. Parker, S. A. Raouf, V. Nolan Jr., C. Ziegenfus, C. H. Chandler, in Avian Reproductive Tactics: Female and Male Perspectives, P. G. Parker, N. T. Burley, Eds. (Allen Press, Lawrence, KS, 1998), pp. 81-101.
42. N. M. Gerlach, J. W. McGlothlin, P. G. Parker, E. D. Ketterson, Reinterpreting Bateman gradients: Multiple mating and selection in both sexes of a songbird species. Behav. Ecol. 23, 1078-1088 (2012).
43. M. D. Jennions, H. Kokko, in Evolutionary Behavioural Ecology, D. F. Westneat, C. W. Fox, Eds. (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2010), pp. 343-364.
44. D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D. G. Altman; PRISMA Group, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLOS Med. 6, e1000097 (2009).
45. H. Kokko, M. D. Jennions, Describing mate choice in a biased world: Comments on Edward and Dougherty & Shuker. Behav. Ecol. 26, 320-321 (2015).
46. L. R. Dougherty, D. M. Shuker, The effect of experimental design on the measurement of mate choice: A meta-analysis. Behav. Ecol. 26, 311-319 (2015).
47. P. D. Lorch, Using upper limits of "Bateman gradients" to estimate the opportunity for sexual selection. Integr. Comp. Biol. 45, 924-930 (2005).
48. M. E. Hauber, Fame, fortune, and fitness at the Academy Awards. J. Ethol. 25, 201-204 (2007).
49. J. M. Collet, R. F. Dean, K. Worley, D. S. Richardson, T. Pizzari, The measure and significance of Bateman's principles. Proc. Biol. Sci. 281, 20132973 (2014).
50. B. Pélissié, P. Jarne, P. David, Sexual selection without sexual dimorphism: Bateman gradients in a simultaneous hermaphrodite. Evolution 66, 66-81 (2012).
51. K. B. Mobley, A. G. Jones, Overcoming statistical bias to estimate genetic mating systems in open populations: A comparison of Bateman's principles between the sexes in a sex-rolereversed pipefish. Evolution 67, 646-660 (2013).
52. A. G. Jones, BATEMANATER: A computer program to estimate and bootstrap mating system variables based on Bateman's principles. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 15, 1396-1402 (2015).
53. B. A. Levine, C. F. Smith, G. W. Schuett, M. R. Douglas, M. A. Davis, M. E. Douglas, Bateman-Trivers in the 21st century: Sexual selection in a North American pitviper. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 114, 436-445 (2015).
54. A. Cockburn, Prevalence of different modes of parental care in birds. Proc. Biol. Sci. 273, 1375-1383 (2006).
55. R. Shine, Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual dimorphism: A review of the evidence. Q. Rev. Biol. 64, 419-461 (1989).
56. R. M. Cox, S. L. Skelly, H. B. John-Alder, A comparative test of adaptive hypotheses for sexual size dimorphism in lizards. Evolution 57, 1653-1669 (2003).
57. S. Nakagawa, R. Poulin, K. Mengersen, K. Reinhold, L. Engqvist, M. Lagisz, A. M. Senior, Meta-analysis of variation: Ecological and evolutionary applications and beyond. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 143-152 (2015).
58. L. Hedges, I. Olkin, Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis (Academic Press, New York, 1985).
59. M. J. Lajeunesse, in Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution, J. Koricheva, J. Gurevitch, K. Mengersen, Eds. (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2013), pp. 195-206.
60. M. J. Lajeunesse, M. S. Rosenberg, M. D. Jennions, in Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution, J. Koricheva, J. Gurevitch, K. Mengersen, Eds. (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2013), pp. 284-299.
61. S. B. Hedges, J. Dudley, S. Kumar, TimeTree: A public knowledge-base of divergence times among organisms. Bioinformatics 22, 2971-2972 (2006).
62. P. Jarne, P. David, J.-P. Pointier, J. M. Koene, in The Evolution of Primary Sexual Characters in Animals, J. L. Leonard, A. Córdoba-Aguilar, Eds. (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2010), pp. 173-196.
63. J. Swaegers, S. B. Janssens, S. Ferreira, P. C. Watts, J. Mergeay, M. A. McPeek, R. Stoks, Ecological and evolutionary drivers of range size in Coenagrion damselflies. J. Evol. Biol. 27, 2386-2395 (2014).
64. M. Li, Y. Tian, Y. Zhao, W. Bu, Higher level phylogeny and the first divergence time estimation of heteroptera (Insecta: Hemiptera) based on multiple genes. PLOS One 7, e32152 (2012).
65. G. J. Kergoat, B. P. Le Ru, G. Genson, C. Cruaud, A. Couloux, A. Delobel, Phylogenetics, species boundaries and timing of resource tracking in a highly specialized group of seed beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 59, 746-760 (2011).
66. Y.-H. Lee, Molecular phylogenies and divergence times of sea urchin species of Strongylocentrotidae, Mol. Biol. Evol. 20, 1211-1221 (2003).
67. R. Betancur, R. R. E. Broughton, E. O. Wiley, K. Carpenter, J. A. López, C. Li, N. I. Holcroft, D. Arcila, M. Sanciangco, J. C. Cureton II, F. Zhang, T. Buser, M. A. Campbell, J. A. Ballesteros, A. Roa-Varon, S. Willis, W. C. Borden, T. Rowley, P. C. Reneau, D. J. Hough, G. Lu, T. Grande, G. Arratia, G. Ortí, The tree of life and a new classification of bony fishes. PLOS Curr. 5, ecurrents. tol. 53ba26640df0ccaee75bb165c8c26288 (2013).
68. P. R. Teske, L. B. Beheregaray, Evolution of seahorses' upright posture was linked to Oligocene expansion of seagrass habitats. Biol. Lett. 5, 521-523 (2009).
69. S. V. Shedko, I. L. Miroshnichenko, G. A. Nemkova, Phylogeny of salmonids (Salmoniformes: Salmonidae) and its molecular dating: Analysis of nuclear RAG1 gene. Russ. J. Genet. 48, 575-579 (2012).
70. R. A. Pyron, J. J. Wiens, A large-scale phylogeny of Amphibia including over 2800 species, and a revised classification of extant frogs, salamanders, and caecilians. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 61, 543-583 (2011).
71. S. Carranza, E. N. Arnold, F. Amat, DNA phylogeny of Lacerta (Iberolacerta) and other lacertine lizards (Reptilia: Lacertidae): Did competition cause long-term mountain restriction Syst. Biodivers. 2, 57-77 (2004).
72. N. Lartillot, F. Delsuc, Joint reconstruction of divergence times and life-history evolution in placental mammals using a phylogenetic covariance model. Evolution 66, 1773-1787 (2012).
73. R. G. Harrison, S. M. Bogdanowicz, R. S. Hoffmann, E. Yensen, P. W. Sherman, Phylogeny and evolutionary history of the ground squirrels (Rodentia: Marmotinae). J. Mamm. Evol. 10, 249-276 (2003).
74. C. O. Webb, D. D. Ackerly, S. W. Kembel, Phylocom: Software for the analysis of phylogenetic community structure and trait evolution. Bioinformatics 24, 2098-2100 (2008).
75. W. Viechtbauer, Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 36, 1-48 (2010).
76. M. J. Lajeunesse, Meta-analysis and the comparative phylogenetic method. Am. Nat. 174, 369-381 (2009).
77. M. H. Graham, Confronting multicollinearity in ecological multiple regressions. Ecology 84, 2809-2815 (2003).
78. R. R. Sokal, F. J. Rohlf, Biometry: The Principles and Practise of Statistics in Biological Research (W. H. Freeman and Co., New York, ed. 4, 2012), p. 937.
79. C. B. Begg, M. Mazumdar, Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50, 1088-1101 (1994).
80. S. Nakagawa, E. S. A. Santos, Methodological issues and advances in biological meta-analysis. Evol. Ecol. 26, 1253-1274 (2012).
81. K. E. Munroe, J. L. Koprowski, Sociality, Bateman's gradients, and the polygynandrous genetic mating system of round-tailed ground squirrels (Xerospermophilus tereticaudus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 1811-1824 (2011).
82. K. A. Ernest, M. A. Mares, Spermophilus tereticaudus. Mamm. Species 274, 1-9 (1987).
83. P. H. Jones, J. L. Van Zant, F. S. Dobson, Variation in reproductive success of male and female Columbian ground squirrels (Urocitellus columbianus). Can. J. Zool. 90, 736-743 (2012).
84. C. L. Elliott, J. T. Flinders, Spermophilus columbianus. Mamm. Species 372, 1-9 (1991).
85. P. Bergeron, P.-O. Montiglio, D. Reále, M. M. Humphries, D. Garant, Bateman gradients in a promiscuous mating system. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 66, 1125-1130 (2012).
86. L. Elliott, Social Behavior and Foraging Ecology of the Eastern Chipmunk (Tamias striatus) in the Adirondack Mountains (Smithsonian Contributions in Zoology, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 1978).
87. D. P. Snyder, Tamias striatus. Mamm. Species 168, 1-8 (1982).
88. A. I. Schulte-Hostedde, J. S. Millar, H. L. Gibbs, Sexual selection and mating patterns in a mammal with female-biased sexual size dimorphism. Behav. Ecol. 15, 351-356 (2004).
89. D. A. Sutton, Tamias amoenus. Mamm. Species 390, 1-8 (1992).
90. D. O. Ribble, Lifetime reproductive success and its correlates in the monogamous rodent, Peromyscus californicus. J. Anim. Ecol. 61, 457-468 (1992).
91. D. J. Gubernick, J. R. Alberts, The biparental care system of the California mouse, Peromyscus californicus. J. Comp. Psychol. 101, 169-177 (1987).
92. J. F. Merritt, Peromyscus californicus. Mamm. Species 85, 1-6 (1978).
93. T. J. Horne, H. Ylonen, Female bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus) prefer dominant males; but what if there is no choice Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 38, 401-405 (1996).
94. K. J. Nutt, Genetic reconstruction of breeding patterns in gundis (Rodentia: Ctenodactylidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61, 1651-1663 (2007).
95. K. J. Nutt, Philopatry of both sexes leads to the formation of multimale, multifemale groups in Ctenodactylus gundi (Rodentia: Ctenodactylidae). J. Mammal. 86, 961-968 (2005).
96. M. Jokela, A. Rotkirch, I. J. Rickard, J. Pettay, V. Lummaa, Serial monogamy increases reproductive success in men but not in women. Behav. Ecol. 21, 906-912 (2010).
97. A. F. Dixson, Sexual Selection and the Origins of Human Mating Systems (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2009).
98. A. Courtiol, J. E. Pettay, M. Jokela, A. Rotkirch, V. Lummaa, Natural and sexual selection in a monogamous historical human population. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109, 8044-8049 (2012).
99. M. Borgerhoff Mulder, Serial monogamy as polygyny or polyandry: Marriage in the Tanzanian Pimbwe. Hum. Nat. 20, 130-150 (2009).
100. J. A. Moorad, D. E. L. Promislow, K. R. Smith, M. J. Wade, Mating system change reduces the strength of sexual selection in an American frontier population of the 19th century. Evol. Hum. Behav. 32, 147-155 (2011).
101. J. Byers, S. Dunn, Bateman in nature: Predation on offspring reduces the potential for sexual selection. Science 338, 802-804 (2012).
102. B. W. O'Gara, Antilocapra americana. Mamm. Species 90, 1-7 (1987).
103. B. E. Byers, H. L. Mays Jr., I. R. K. Stewart, D. F. Westneat, Extrapair paternity increases variability in male reproductive success in the chestnut-sided warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica), a socially monogamous songbird. Auk 121, 788-795 (2004).
104. L. A. Whittingham, P. O. Dunn, Effects of extra-pair and within-pair reproductive success on the opportunity for selection in birds. Behav. Ecol. 16, 138-144 (2005).
105. K. A. Peterson, K. J. Thusius, L. A. Whittingham, P. O. Dunn, Allocation of male parental care in relation to paternity within and among broods of the common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas). Ethology 107, 573-586 (2001).
106. G. Ritchison, The flight songs of common yellowthroats: Description and causation. Condor 93, 12-18 (1991).
107. B. E. Woolfenden, L. H. Gibbs, S. G. Sealy, High opportunity for sexual selection in both sexes of an obligate brood parasitic bird, the brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 52, 417-425 (2002).
108. K. J. McGraw, E. A. Mackillop, J. Dale, M. E. Hauber, Different colors reveal different information: How nutritional stress affects the expression of melanin-A nd structurally based ornamental plumage. J. Exp. Biol. 205, 3747-3755 (2002).
109. M. J. West, A. P. King, D. H. Eastzer, Validating the female bioassay of cowbird song: Relating differences in song potency to mating success. Anim. Behav. 29, 490-501 (1981).
110. D. M. O'Neal, D. G. Reichard, K. Pavilis, E. D. Ketterson, Experimentally-elevated testosterone, female parental care, and reproductive success in a songbird, the Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis). Horm. Behav. 54, 571-578 (2008).
111. J. A. Hill, D. A. Enstrom, E. D. Ketterson, V. Nolan Jr., C. Ziegenfus, Mate choice based on static versus dynamic secondary sexual traits in the dark-eyed junco. Behav. Ecol. 10, 91-96 (1999).
112. A. Poesel, H. L. Gibbs, D. A. Nelson, Extrapair fertilizations and the potential for sexual selection in a socially monogamous songbird. Auk 128, 770-776 (2011).
113. C. J. Norment, Patterns of nestling feeding in Harris's Sparrows, Zonotrichia querula and White-crowned Sparrows, Z. leucophrys, in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Can. Field Nat. 117, 203-208 (2003).
114. S. L. Balenger, L. S. Johnson, H. L. Mays Jr., B. S. Masters, Extra-pair paternity in the socially monogamous mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides and its effect on the potential for sexual selection. J. Avian Biol. 40, 173-180 (2009).
115. L. S. Johnson, J. L. Brubaker, E. Ostlind, S. L. Balenger, Effect of altitude on male parental expenditure in Mountain Bluebirds (Sialia currucoides): Are higher-altitude males more attentive fathers J. Ornithol. 148, 9-16 (2007).
116. V. Garciá-Navas, E. S. Ferrer, J. Bueno-Enciso, R. Barrientos, J. José Sanz, J. Ortego, Extrapair paternity in Mediterranean blue tits: Socioecological factors and the opportunity for sexual selection. Behav. Ecol. 25, 228-238 (2014).
117. E. Schlicht, B. Kempenaers, Extrapair paternity in the blue tit (Parus caeruleus): Female choice, male characteristics, and offspring quality. Evolution 67, 1420-1434 (2013).
118. S. Andersson, J. Örnborg, M. Andersson, Ultraviolet sexual dimorphism and assortative mating in blue tits. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 265, 445-450 (1998).
119. V. Amrhein, L. E. Johannessen, L. Kristiansen, T. Slagsvold, Reproductive strategy and singing activity: Blue tit and great tit compared. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62, 1633-1641 (2008).
120. U. Glutz von Blotzheim, K. Bauer, Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas. Band 13/1 (Aula-Verlag, Wiesbaden, 1993).
121. L. A. Whittingham, J. T. Lifjeld, Extra-pair fertilizations increase the opportunity for sexual selection in the monogamous House Martin Delichon urbica. J. Avian Biol. 26, 283-288 (1995).
122. U. Glutz von Blotzheim, K. Bauer, Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas. Band 10/1 (Aula-Verlag, Wiesbaden, 1985).
123. L. K. Walker, J. G. Ewen, P. Brekke, R. M. Kilner, Sexually selected dichromatism in the hihi Notiomystis cincta: Multiple colours for multiple receivers. J. Evol. Biol. 27, 1522-1535 (2014).
124. M. Low, The energetic cost of mate guarding is correlated with territorial intrusions in the New Zealand stitchbird. Behav. Ecol. 17, 270-276 (2006).
125. J. Collet, D. S. Richardson, K. Worley, T. Pizzari, Sexual selection and the differential effect of polyandry. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109, 8641-8645 (2012).
126. T. Pizzari, Food, vigilance, and sperm: The role of male direct benefits in the evolution of female preference in a polygamous bird. Behav. Ecol. 14, 593-601 (2003).
127. J. D. Ligon, R. Kimball, M. Merola-Zwartjes, Mate choice by female red junglefowl: The issues of multiple ornaments and fluctuating asymmetry. Anim. Behav. 55, 41-50 (1998).
128. A. H. Krakauer, Sexual selection and the genetic mating system of Wild Turkeys. Condor 110, 1-12 (2008).
129. S. J. Arnold, M. J. Wade, On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: Applications. Evolution 38, 720-734 (1984).
130. R. L. Trivers, Sexual selection and resource-accruing abilities in Anolis garmani. Evolution 30, 253-269 (1976).
131. M. R. Prosser, P. J. Weatherhead, H. L. Gibbs, G. P. Brown, Genetic analysis of the mating system and opportunity for sexual selection in northern water snakes (Nerodia sipedon). Behav. Ecol. 13, 800-807 (2002).
132. K. J. Kissner, P. J. Weatherhead, H. L. Gibbs, Experimental assessment of ecological and phenotypic factors affecting male mating success and polyandry in northern watersnakes, Nerodia sipedon. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 59, 207-214 (2005).
133. R. C. Stebbins, A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston, 2003), p. 560.
134. P. J. Weatherhead, F. E. Barry, G. P. Brown, M. R. L. Forbes, Sex ratios, mating behavior and sexual size dimorphism of the northern water snake, Nerodia sipedon. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 36, 301-311 (1995).
135. G. W. Schuett, Fighting dynamics of male copperheads, Agkistrodon contortrix (Serpentes, Viperidae): Stress-induced inhibition of sexual behavior in losers. Zoo Biol. 15, 209-221 (1996).
136. G. W. Schuett, J. C. Gillingham, Courtship and mating of the copperhead, Agkistrodon contortrix. Copeia, 374-381 (1988).
137. P. S. Fitze, J.-F. Le Galliard, Inconsistency between different measures of sexual selection. Am. Nat. 178, 256-268 (2011).
138. E. Vercken, J. Clobert, Ventral colour polymorphism correlates with alternative behavioural patterns in female common lizards (Lacerta vivipara). Ecoscience 15, 320-326 (2008).
139. L. Gvozdík, R. Van Damme, Evolutionary maintenance of sexual dimorphism in head size in the lizard Zootoca vivipara: A test of two hypotheses. J. Zool. 259, 7-13 (2003).
140. K. Huyghe, R. Van Damme, K. Breugelmans, A. Herrel, B. Vanhooydonck, Z. Tadi, T. Backeljau, Parentage analyses suggest female promiscuity and a disadvantage for athletic males in the colour-polymorphic lizard Podarcis melisellensis. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 68, 1357-1366 (2014).
141. R. N. Williams, J. A. DeWoody, Reproductive success and sexual selection in wild eastern tiger salamanders (Ambystoma t. tigrinum). Evol. Biol. 36, 201-213 (2009).
142. R. A. Nussbaum, E. D. J. Brodie, R. M. Storm, Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific Northwest (University Press of Idaho, Moscow, ID, 1983).
143. R. N. Williams, D. Gopurenko, K. R. Kemp, B. Williams, J. A. DeWoody, Breeding chronology, sexual dimorphism, and genetic diversity of congeneric ambystomatid salamanders. J. Herpetol. 43, 438-449 (2009).
144. D. Gopurenko, R. N. Williams, C. R. McCormick, J. A. DeWoody, Insights into the mating habits of the tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum) as revealed by genetic parentage analyses. Mol. Ecol. 15, 1917-1928 (2006).
145. D. Gopurenko, R. N. Williams, J. A. DeWoody, Reproductive and mating success in the small-mouthed salamander (Ambystoma texanum) estimated via microsatellite parentage analysis. Evol. Biol. 34, 130-139 (2007).
146. D. A. Croshaw, Quantifying sexual selection: A comparison of competing indices with mating system data from a terrestrially breeding salamander. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 99, 73-83 (2010).
147. A. G. Jones, J. R. Arguello, S. J. Arnold, 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 (2004).
148. L. R. Pokhrel, I. Karsai, M. K. Hamed, T. F. Laughlin, Dorsal body pigmentation and sexual dimorphism in the marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum). Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 25, 214-226 (2013).
149. A. G. Jones, J. R. Arguello, S. J. Arnold, Validation of Bateman's principles: A genetic study of sexual selection and mating patterns in the rough-skinned newt. Proc. Biol. Sci. 269, 2533-2539 (2002).
150. C. R. Propper, Courtship in the rough-skinned newt Taricha granulosa. Anim. Behav. 41, 547-554 (1991).
151. L. D. Houck, S. J. Arnold, R. A. Thisted, A statistical study of mate choice: Sexual selection in a plethodontid salamander (Desmognathus ochrophaeus). Evolution 39, 370-386 (1985).
152. D. C. Forester, The adaptiveness of parental care in Desmognathus ochrophaeus (Urodela: Plethodontidae). Copeia 1979, 332-341 (1979).
153. T. Broquet, J. Jaquiéry, N. Perrin, Opportunity for sexual selection and effective population size in the lek-breeding European treefrog (Hyla arborea). Evolution 63, 674-683 (2009).
154. K. D. Wells, The Ecology and Behavior of Amphibians (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2007).
155. D. Gomez, C. Richardson, T. Lengagne, S. Plenet, P. Joly, J.-P. Léna, M. Théry, The role of nocturnal vision in mate choice: Females prefer conspicuous males in the European tree frog (Hyla arborea). Proc. Biol. Sci. 276, 2351-2358 (2009).
156. D. Gomez, C. Richardson, M. Théry, T. Lengagne, J.-P. Lena, S. Plénet, P. Joly, Multimodal signals in male European treefrog (Hyla arborea) and the influence of population isolation on signal expression. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 103, 633-647 (2011).
157. E. Ursprung, M. Ringler, R. Jehle, W. Hödl, Strong male/male competition allows for nonchoosy females: High levels of polygynandry in a territorial frog with paternal care. Mol. Ecol. 20, 1759-1771 (2011).
158. E. Ringler, M. Ringler, R. Jehle, W. Hödl, The female perspective of mating in A. femoralis, a territorial frog with paternal care-a spatial and genetic analysis. PLOS One 7, e40237 (2012).
159. L. O. Rodríguez, W. E. Duellman, Guide to the Frogs of the Iquitos Region, Amazonian Peru (University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, 1994).
160. T. Aronsen, A. Berglund, K. B. Mobley, I. I. Ratikainen, G. Rosenqvist, Sex ratio and density affect sexual selection in a sex-role reversed fish. Evolution 67, 3243-3257 (2013).
161. A. G. Jones, G. Rosenqvist, A. Berglund, J. C. Avise, 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 (2005).
162. C. Partridge, A. Boettcher, A. G. Jones, The role of courtship behavior and size in mate preference in the sex-role-reversed Gulf pipefish, Syngnathus scovelli. Ethology 119, 692-701 (2013).
163. A. Berglund, G. Rosenqvist, Male pipefish prefer ornamented females. Anim. Behav. 61, 345-350 (2001).
164. E. Rose, K. A. Paczolt, A. G. Jones, The contributions of premating and postmating selection episodes to total selection in sex-role-reversed Gulf pipefish. Am. Nat. 182, 410-420 (2013).
165. E. Rose, K. A. Paczolt, A. G. Jones, The effects of synthetic estrogen exposure on premating and postmating episodes of selection in sex-role-reversed Gulf pipefish. Evol. Appl. 6, 1160-1170 (2013).
166. A. G. Jones, J. C. Avise, Mating systems and sexual selection in male-pregnant pipefishes and seahorses: Insights from microsatellite-based studies of maternity. J. Hered. 92, 150-158 (2001).
167. K. B. Mobley, C. M. Small, A. G. Jones, The genetics and genomics of Syngnathidae: Pipefishes, seahorses and seadragons. J. Fish Biol. 78, 1624-1646 (2011).
168. C. Kvarnemo, G. I. Moore, A. G. Jones, Sexually selected females in the monogamous Western Australian seahorse. Proc. Biol. Sci. 274, 521-525 (2007).
169. C. Kvarnemo, G. I. Moore, A. G. Jones, W. S. Nelson, J. C. Avise, Monogamous pair bonds and mate switching in the Western Australian seahorse Hippocampus subelongatus. J. Evol. Biol. 13, 882-888 (2000).
170. O. Rios-Cardenas, Patterns of parental investment and sexual selection in teleost fishes: Do they support Bateman's principles Integr. Comp. Biol. 45, 885-894 (2005).
171. A. Tatarenkov, C. I. M. Healey, G. F. Grether, J. C. Avise, Pronounced reproductive skew in a natural population of green swordtails, Xiphophorus helleri. Mol. Ecol. 17, 4522-4534 (2008).
172. L. S. Blumer, A bibliography and categorization of bony fishes exhibiting parental care. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 75, 1-22 (1982).
173. A. L. Basolo, B. C. Trainor, The conformation of a female preference for a composite male trait in green swordtails. Anim. Behav. 63, 469-474 (2002).
174. S. A. Becher, A. E. Magurran, Multiple mating and reproductive skew in Trinidadian guppies. Proc. Biol. Sci. 271, 1009-1014 (2004).
175. R. E. Thibault, R. J. Schultz, Reproductive adaptations among viviparous fishes (Cyprinodontiformes: Poeciliidae). Evolution 32, 320-333 (1978).
176. A. E. Magurran, Evolutionary Ecology: The Trinidadian Guppy (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2005).
177. D. Serbezov, L. Bernatchez, E. M. Olsen, L. A. Vøllestad, 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, 3193-3205 (2010).
178. C. Tentelier, M. Larrieu, J.-C. Aymes, J. Labonne, Male antagonistic behaviour after spawning suggests paternal care in brown trout, Salmo trutta. Ecol. Freshw. Fish 20, 580-587 (2011).
179. E. Petersson, T. Järvi, Reproductive behaviour of sea trout (Salmo trutta)-The consequences of sea-ranching. Behaviour 134, 1-22 (1997).
180. E. Petersson, T. Järvi, Both contest and scramble competition affect the growth performance of brown trout, Salmo trutta, parr of wild and of sea-ranched origins. Environ. Biol. Fishes 59, 211-218 (2000).
181. D. Garant, J. J. Dodson, L. Bernatchez, A genetic evaluation of mating system and determinants of individual reproductive success in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L. ). J. Hered. 92, 137-145 (2001).
182. T. F. Næsje, L. P. Hansen, T. Järvi, Sexual dimorphism in the adipose fin of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. J. Fish Biol. 33, 955-956 (1988).
183. M. Kottelat, J. Freyhof, Handbook of European Freshwater Fishes (Publications Kottelat, Cornol, 2007).
184. L. Marie-Orleach, J.-M. Roussel, J. Bugeon, J. Tremblay, D. Ombredane, G. Evanno, Melaninbased coloration of sneaker male Atlantic salmon is linked to viability and emergence timing of their offspring. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 111, 126-135 (2014).
185. D. R. Levitan, Gamete traits influence the variance in reproductive success, the intensity of sexual selection, and the outcome of sexual conflict among congeneric sea urchins. Evolution 62, 1305-1316 (2008).
186. J. J. Gonor, Sex ratio and hermaphroditism in Oregon intertidal populations of the echinoid Strongylocentrotus purpuratus. Mar. Biol. 19, 278-280 (1973).
187. K. Fritzsche, G. Arnqvist, Homage to Bateman: Sex roles predict sex differences in sexual selection. Evolution 67, 1926-1936 (2013).
188. J. L. Dickinson, Determinants of paternity in the milkweed leaf beetle. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 23, 9-19 (1988).
189. D. M. Windsor, J. C. Choe, in Novel Aspects of the Biology of Chrysomelidae, P. H. Jolivet, M. L. Cox, E. Petitpierre, Eds. (Springer Science+Business Media, Berlin, 1994), pp. 111-117.
190. D. K. McLain, R. D. Boromisa, Male choice, fighting ability, assortative mating and the intensity of sexual selection in the milkweed longhorn beetle, Tetraopes tetraophthalmus (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 20, 239-246 (1987).
191. W. S. Lawrence, Male choice and competition in Tetraopes tetraophthalmus: Effects of local sex ratio variation. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 18, 289-296 (1986).
192. D. E. McCauley, An estimate of the relative opportunities for natural and sexual selection in a population of milkweed beetles. Evolution 37, 701-707 (1983).
193. A. Bjork, S. Pitnick, Intensity of sexual selection along the anisogamy-isogamy continuum. Nature 441, 742-745 (2006).
194. A. Hoikkala, J. Lumme, Genetic control of the difference in male courtship sound between Drosophila virilis and D. lummei. Behav. Genet. 14, 257-268 (1984).
195. R. R. Snook, N. A. Gidaszewski, T. Chapman, L. W. Simmons, Sexual selection and the evolution of secondary sexual traits: Sex comb evolution in Drosophila. J. Evol. Biol. 26, 912-918 (2013).
196. H. T. Spieth, Courtship behavior in Drosophila. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 19, 385-405 (1974).
197. N. Luck, D. Joly, Sexual selection and mating advantages in the giant sperm species, Drosophila bifurca. J. Insect Sci. 5, 10 (2005).
198. A. Kopp, I. Duncan, S. B. Carroll, Genetic control and evolution of sexually dimorphic characters in Drosophila. Nature 408, 553-559 (2000).
199. T. A. Markow, Perspective: Female remating, operational sex ratio, and the arena of sexual selection in Drosophila species. Evolution 56, 1725-1734 (2002).
200. D. C. Droney, Sexual selection in a lekking Hawaiian Drosophila: The roles of male competition and female choice in male mating success. Anim. Behav. 44, 1007-1020 (1992).
201. A. T. Markov, P. M. O'Grady, Drosophila: A Guide to Species Identification and Use (Elsevier, London, 2006).
202. R. J. Hodosh, J. M. Ringo, F. T. McAndrew, Density and lek displays in Drosophila grimshawi (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Z. Tierpsychol. 49, 164-172 (1979).
203. M.-C. Gagnon, P. Duchesne, J. Turgeon, Sexual conflict in Gerris gillettei (Insecta: Hemiptera): Influence of effective mating rate and morphology on reproductive success. Can. J. Zool. 90, 1297-1306 (2012).
204. G. Arnqvist, in The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids, C. Choe, B. J. Crespi, Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1997), pp. 146-163.
205. T. Nishida, Measurement of the opportunity for natural and sexual selection in a breeding population of the coreid bug (Colpula lativentris). Res. Popul. Ecol. 29, 271-289 (1987).
206. T. Nishida, Spatial relationships between mate acquisition probability and aggregation size in a gregarious coreid bug, (Colpula lativentris): A case of the ideal free distribution under perceptual constraints. Res. Popul. Ecol. 35, 45-56 (1993).
207. R. Rodriguez-Munõz, A. Bretman, J. Slate, C. A. Walling, T. Tregenza, Natural and sexual selection in a wild insect population. Science 328, 1269-1272 (2010).
208. J. W. Y. Wong, J. Meunier, M. Kölliker, The evolution of parental care in insects: The roles of ecology, life history and the social environment. Ecol. Entomol. 38, 123-137 (2013).
209. K. Harz, The Orthoptera of Europe (Springer Science+Business Media, Dordrecht, 1969).
210. M. J. Banks, D. J. Thompson, Lifetime mating success in the damselfly Coenagrion puella. Anim. Behav. 33, 1175-1183 (1985).
211. S. N. Gorb, Visual cues in mate recognition by males of the damselfly, Coenagrion puella (L. ) (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). J. Insect Behav. 11, 73-92 (1998).
212. J. E. Hafernik Jr., R. W. Garrison, Mating success and survival rate in a population of damselflies: Results at variance with theory Am. Nat. 128, 353-365 (1986).
213. A. Córdoba-Aguilar, A. Cordero-Rivera, in Dragonflies and Damselflies: Model Organisms for Ecological and Evolutionary Research, A. Córdoba-Aguilar, Ed. (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2008), pp. 189-202.
214. O. M. Fincke, Lifetime mating success in a natural population of the damselfly, Enallagma hageni (Walsh) (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 10, 293-302 (1982).
215. O. M. Fincke, Lifetime reproductive success and the opportunity for selection in a nonterritorial damselfly (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Evolution 40, 791-803 (1986).
216. F. S. Barreto, J. C. Avise, Quantitative measures of sexual selection reveal no evidence for sex-role reversal in a sea spider with prolonged paternal care. Proc. Biol. Sci. 277, 2951-2956 (2010).
217. B. A. Bain, F. R. Govedich, Courtship and mating behavior in the Pycnogonida (Chelicerata: Class Pycnogonida): A summary. Invertebr. Reprod. Dev. 46, 63-79 (2004).
218. M. C. B. Andrade, M. M. Kasumovic, Terminal investment strategies and male mate choice: Extreme tests of Bateman. Integr. Comp. Biol. 45, 838-847 (2005).
219. T. J. Hawkeswood, Spiders of Australia: An Introduction to Their Classification, Biology and Distribution (Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2003).
220. L. M. Forster, The stereotyped behavior of sexual cannibalism in Latrodectus hasselti Thorell (Araneae, Theridiidae), the Australian Redback Spider. Aust. J. Zool. 40, 1-11 (1992).
221. N. Pongratz, N. K. Michiels, High multiple paternity and low last-male sperm precedence in a hermaphroditic planarian flatworm: Consequences for reciprocity patterns. Mol. Ecol. 12, 1425-1433 (2003).
222. N. Anthes, P. David, J. R. Auld, J. N. A. Hoffer, P. Jarne, J. M. Koene, H. Kokko, M. C. Lorenzi, B. Pélissié, D. Sprenger, A. Staikou, L. Schärer, Bateman gradients in hermaphrodites: An extended approach to quantify sexual selection. Am. Nat. 176, 249-263 (2010).