Literature DB >> 21635605

The opportunity for sexual selection: not mismeasured, just misunderstood.

A H Krakauer1, M S Webster, E H Duval, A G Jones, S M Shuster.   

Abstract

Evolutionary biologists have developed several indices, such as selection gradients (β) and the opportunity for sexual selection (I(s) ), to quantify the actual and/or potential strength of sexual selection acting in natural or experimental populations. In a recent paper, Klug et al. (J. Evol. Biol.23, 2010, 447) contend that selection gradients are the only legitimate metric for quantifying sexual selection. They argue that I(s) and similar mating-system-based metrics provide unpredictable results, which may be uncorrelated with selection acting on a trait, and should therefore be abandoned. We find this view short-sighted and argue that the choice of metric should be governed by the research question at hand. We describe insights that measures such as the opportunity for selection can provide and also argue that Klug et al. have overstated the problems with this approach while glossing over similar issues with the interpretation of selection gradients. While no metric perfectly characterizes sexual selection in all circumstances, thoughtful application of existing measures has been and continues to be informative in evolutionary studies.
© 2011 The Authors. Journal of Evolutionary Biology © 2011 European Society For Evolutionary Biology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21635605     DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02317.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Evol Biol        ISSN: 1010-061X            Impact factor:   2.411


  27 in total

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

Authors:  Jonathan M Henshaw; Andrew T Kahn; Karoline Fritzsche
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Sexual selection and the differential effect of polyandry.

Authors:  Julie Collet; David S Richardson; Kirsty Worley; Tommaso Pizzari
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-05-16       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Sex roles and sexual selection: lessons from a dynamic model system.

Authors:  Trond Amundsen
Journal:  Curr Zool       Date:  2018-04-26       Impact factor: 2.624

4.  Variance in male lifetime reproductive success and estimation of the degree of polygyny in a primate.

Authors:  Constance Dubuc; Angelina Ruiz-Lambides; Anja Widdig
Journal:  Behav Ecol       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 2.671

Review 5.  Polyandry: the history of a revolution.

Authors:  Geoff A Parker; Tim R Birkhead
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2013-01-21       Impact factor: 6.237

6.  Do extra-group fertilizations increase the potential for sexual selection in male mammals?

Authors:  Kavita Isvaran; Sumithra Sankaran
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 3.703

Review 7.  Not all sex ratios are equal: the Fisher condition, parental care and sexual selection.

Authors:  Michael D Jennions; Lutz Fromhage
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-09-19       Impact factor: 6.237

8.  Sexual selection predicts species richness across the animal kingdom.

Authors:  Tim Janicke; Michael G Ritchie; Edward H Morrow; Lucas Marie-Orleach
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Natural and sexual selection in a monogamous historical human population.

Authors:  Alexandre Courtiol; Jenni E Pettay; Markus Jokela; Anna Rotkirch; Virpi Lummaa
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-04-30       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Multi-level sexual selection: individual and family-level selection for mating success in a historical human population.

Authors:  Jacob A Moorad
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2013-02-08       Impact factor: 3.694

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.