Literature DB >> 12583591

Female-biased sexual size dimorphism in the yellow-pine chipmunk (Tamias amoenus): sex-specific patterns of annual reproductive success and survival.

Albrecht I Schulte-Hostedde1, John S Millar, H Lisle Gibbs.   

Abstract

Sexual size dimorphism is ultimately the result of independent, sex-specific selection on body size. In mammals, male-biased sexual size dimorphism is the predominant pattern, and it is usually attributed to the polygynous mating system prevalent in most mammals. This sole explanation is unsatisfying because selection acts on both sexes simultaneously, therefore any explanation of sexual size dimorphism should explain why one sex is relatively large and the other is small. Using mark-recapture techniques and DNA microsatellite loci to assign parentage, we examined sex-specific patterns of annual reproductive success and survival in the yellow-pine chipmunk (Tamias amoenus), a small mammal with female-biased sexual size dimorphism, to test the hypothesis that the dimorphism was related to sex differences in the relationship between body size and fitness. Chipmunks were monitored and body size components measured over three years in the Kananaskis Valley, Alberta, Canada. Male reproductive success was independent of body size perhaps due to trade-offs in body size associated with behavioral components of male mating success: dominance and running speed. Male survival was consistent with stabilizing selection for overall body size and body size components. The relationship between reproductive success and female body size fluctuated. In two of three years the relationship was positive, whereas in one year the relationship was negative. This may have been the result of differences in environmental conditions among years. Large females require more energy to maintain their soma than small females and may be unable to maintain lactation in the face of challenging environmental conditions. Female survival was positively related to body size, with little evidence for stabilizing selection. Sex differences in the relationship between body size and fitness (reproductive success and survival) were the result of different processes, but were ultimately consistent with female-biased sexual size dimorphism evident in this species.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12583591     DOI: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb00176.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evolution        ISSN: 0014-3820            Impact factor:   3.694


  7 in total

1.  Adult survival selection in relation to multilocus heterozygosity and body size in a tropical bird species, the Zenaida dove, Zenaida aurita.

Authors:  Frank Cézilly; Aurélie Quinard; Sébastien Motreuil; Roger Pradel
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2015-10-03       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Lifetime selection on a hypoallometric size trait in the spotted hyena.

Authors:  Eli M Swanson; Ian Dworkin; Kay E Holekamp
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2011-03-16       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  The costs of risky male behaviour: sex differences in seasonal survival in a small sexually monomorphic primate.

Authors:  Cornelia Kraus; Manfred Eberle; Peter M Kappeler
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2008-07-22       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Temporal variation in selection on male and female traits in wild tree crickets.

Authors:  Kyla Ercit
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 2.912

5.  Integrating growth and survival models for flexible estimation of size-dependent survival in a cryptic, endangered snake.

Authors:  Jonathan P Rose; Richard Kim; Elliot J Schoenig; Patrick C Lien; Brian J Halstead
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-04-06       Impact factor: 2.912

6.  Emigration effects on estimates of age- and sex-specific survival of two sciurids.

Authors:  Matthew J Weldy; Damon B Lesmeister; Clinton W Epps
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-04-23       Impact factor: 3.167

7.  Maternal investment in relation to sex ratio and offspring number in a small mammal - a case for Trivers and Willard theory?

Authors:  Esa Koskela; Tapio Mappes; Tuuli Niskanen; Joanna Rutkowska
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2009-06-22       Impact factor: 5.091

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.