Literature DB >> 15304645

Sexual selection explains Rensch's rule of size dimorphism in shorebirds.

Tamás Székely1, Robert P Freckleton, John D Reynolds.   

Abstract

Sexual size dimorphism shows a remarkably widespread relationship to body size in the animal kingdom: within lineages, it decreases with size when females are the larger sex, but it increases with size when males are the larger sex. Here we demonstrate that this pattern, termed Rensch's rule, exists in shorebirds and allies (Charadriides), and it is determined by two components of sexual selection: the intensity of sexual selection acting on males and the agility of the males' display. These effects are interactive so that the effect of sexual selection on size dimorphism depends on male agility. As a control, we also examine dimorphism in bill length, which is a functionally selected trait. As such, dimorphism in bill length neither exhibits Rensch's rule nor is associated with sexual selection and display. Our results show that variation among taxa in the direction and magnitude of sexual size dimorphism, as manifested as Rensch's rule, can be explained by the interaction between the form and strength of sexual selection acting on each sex in relation to body size.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15304645      PMCID: PMC514460          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0404503101

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  10 in total

Review 1.  Statistics of sexual size dimorphism.

Authors:  R J Smith
Journal:  J Hum Evol       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.895

2.  Sexual size dimorphism in shorebirds, gulls, and alcids: the influence of sexual and natural selection.

Authors:  T Székely; J D Reynolds; J Figuerola
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 3.694

3.  Genetic similarity between mates and extra-pair parentage in three species of shorebirds.

Authors:  Donald Blomqvist; Malte Andersson; Clemens Küpper; Innes C Cuthill; János Kis; Richard B Lanctot; Brett K Sandercock; Tamás Székely; Johan Wallander; Bart Kempenaers
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2002-10-10       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Perspective: female remating, operational sex ratio, and the arena of sexual selection in Drosophila species.

Authors:  Therese Ann Markow
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.694

Review 5.  Extra pair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific variation and adaptive function.

Authors:  Simon C Griffith; Ian P F Owens; Katherine A Thuman
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 6.185

6.  Extreme reversed sexual size dimorphism in the extinct New Zealand moa Dinornis.

Authors:  Michael Bunce; Trevor H Worthy; Tom Ford; Will Hoppitt; Eske Willerslev; Alexei Drummond; Alan Cooper
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2003-09-11       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Parasites as a viability cost of sexual selection in natural populations of mammals.

Authors:  Sarah L Moore; Kenneth Wilson
Journal:  Science       Date:  2002-09-20       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence.

Authors:  R P Freckleton; P H Harvey; M Pagel
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.926

9.  Sexual dimorphism in physiological performance of whiptail lizards (genus Cnemidophorus).

Authors:  A J Cullum
Journal:  Physiol Zool       Date:  1998 Sep-Oct

10.  Male aerial display and reversed sexual size dimorphism in the dunlin

Authors: 
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 2.844

  10 in total
  37 in total

1.  Inverse Rensch's rule in a frog with female-biased sexual size dimorphism.

Authors:  Wen Bo Liao; Wei Chen
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2012-04-17

2.  Comparative analyses of the influence of developmental mode on phenotypic diversification rates in shorebirds.

Authors:  Gavin H Thomas; Robert P Freckleton; Tamás Székely
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2006-07-07       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Limited male incubation ability and the evolution of egg size in shorebirds.

Authors:  Terje Lislevand; Gavin H Thomas
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2006-06-22       Impact factor: 3.703

4.  Sexual selection explains sex-specific growth plasticity and positive allometry for sexual size dimorphism in a reef fish.

Authors:  Stefan P W Walker; Mark I McCormick
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2009-06-24       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  The evolution of sexual dimorphism in New Zealand giant moa (Dinornis) and other ratites.

Authors:  Valérie A Olson; Samuel T Turvey
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 6.  Genetic architecture of the dog: sexual size dimorphism and functional morphology.

Authors:  Karl G Lark; Kevin Chase; Nathan B Sutter
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2006-08-24       Impact factor: 11.639

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

Authors:  Wen Bo Liao; Wen Chao Liu; Juha Merilä
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2014-11-19       Impact factor: 3.225

8.  Unusual allometry for sexual size dimorphism in a cichlid where males are extremely larger than females.

Authors:  Kazutaka Ota; Masanori Kohda; Tetsu Sato
Journal:  J Biosci       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.826

9.  Sex in the city: sexual selection and urban colonization in passerines.

Authors:  Maider Iglesias-Carrasco; David A Duchêne; Megan L Head; Anders P Møller; Kristal Cain
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2019-09-04       Impact factor: 3.703

10.  Interaction between the X chromosome and an autosome regulates size sexual dimorphism in Portuguese Water Dogs.

Authors:  Kevin Chase; David R Carrier; Frederick R Adler; Elaine A Ostrander; Karl G Lark
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 9.043

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.