Acta Biotheoretica

, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 23–35 | Cite as

An Ecological Theory of Sexual Dimorphism in Animals

  • Joseph N. Abraham
Article

Abstract

Both male ornamentation and male combat result in increased male mortality. Because population sizes are limited by a carrying capacity, increased age-specific adult male mortality will result in decreased age-specific adult female mortality, as well as decreased juvenile mortality. As intersexual competition is one form of intraspecific competition, through choosing to mate with ornamented and/or combative males, females in polygamous systems reduce intraspecific competition. Because average male fitness must exactly equal average female fitness, male fitness will paradoxically rise with increasing male mortality. This theory also offers new perspectives on peripheral problems to sexual theory, such as mate location, resource guarding, leks, harems, and others.

Keywords

Population Size Sexual Dimorphism Intraspecific Competition Ecological Theory Mate Location 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Alexander, R.D. and G. Borgia (1979). On the origin and basis of the male-female phenomenon. In: M. Blum and N. Blum, eds., Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects, pp. 417-440. New York, Academin Press.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, M. (1982). Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature 299: 818-820.Google Scholar
  3. Andersson, M. (1986). Evotution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and inating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution 40: 804-816.Google Scholar
  4. Arak, A. (1983). Sexual selection by male-male competition in natterjack toad choruses. Nature 306: 181-210.Google Scholar
  5. Arnold, S.J. and M.J. Wade (1984). On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: applications. Evolution 38: 720-734.Google Scholar
  6. Bannikov, A.G., L.V. Zhirnov, L.S. Lebedeva and A.A. Fandeey (1967). Biology of the Saiga, Jerusalem, Israel Program for Scientific Translations. (Translated from the Russian: 1961. Biologiya Saigaka, Izdatel'stvo Sel'skokhozyaistvennoi Literatury, Zhurnalov i Plakatov, Moscow.)Google Scholar
  7. Bateman, A.J. (1948). Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2: 349-368.Google Scholar
  8. Beer, J.R., L.D. Frenzel and C.F. MacLeod (1958). Sex ratios of some Minnesota rodents. American Midland Naturalist 59: 518-524.Google Scholar
  9. Borgia, G. (1979). Sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. In: M. Blum and N. Blum, eds., Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects, pp. 19-80. New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bradbury, J.W. and N.B. Davies (1987). Relative roles of intra-and intersexual selection. In: J.W. Bradbury and M.B. Andersson, eds., Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives, pp. 143-163. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  11. Breden, F. and G. Stoner (1987). Male predation risk determines female preference in the Trinidad guppy. Nature 329: 831-833.Google Scholar
  12. Clutton Brock, T.H., P.H. Harvey and B. Rudder (1977). Sexual dimorphism, socionumic sex ratio and body weight in primates. Nature 269: 797-800.Google Scholar
  13. Clutton-Brock, T.H., S.D. Albon, R.M. Gibson and F.E. Guinness (1979). The logical stag: adaptive aspects of fighting in Red Deer (Cervus elaphus L.). Animal Behavior 27: 211-225.Google Scholar
  14. Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London, John Murray.Google Scholar
  15. Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. 2nd ed., rev. (1898). New York, D. Appleton and Co.Google Scholar
  16. Davis, G.W.F. and P. O'Donald (1976). Sexual selection for a handicap: A critical analysis of Zahavi's model. Journal of Theoretical Biology 57: 345.Google Scholar
  17. Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. de Vos, A., P. Brokx and V. Geist (1967). A review of social behavior of the North American cervids during the reproductive period. The American Midland Naturalist 77: 390-417.Google Scholar
  19. Droney, D.C. (1992). Sexual selection in a lekking Hawaiian Drosophila: the roles of male competition and female choice in male mating success. Animal Behaviour 44: 1007-1020.Google Scholar
  20. Dunbar, R.I.M. (1984). Reproductive Decisions: An Economic Analysis of Gelada Baboon Social Strategies. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Emlen, J.T. and L.W. Oring (1977). Ecology, sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197: 215-223.Google Scholar
  22. Endler, J.A. (1978). A predator's view of animal color patterns. Evolutionary Biology 11: 319-364.Google Scholar
  23. Endler, J.A. (1980). Natural selection on color patterns in Poecilia reticulata. Evolution 34: 76-91.Google Scholar
  24. Endler, J.A. (1982). Convergent and divergent effects of natural selection on color patterns in two fish faunas. Evolution 36: 178-188.Google Scholar
  25. Endler, J.A. (1983). Natural and sexual selection on color patterns in poeciliid fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 9: 173-190.Google Scholar
  26. Estes, R.D. and J. Goddard (1967). Prey selection and hunting behavior of the African wild dog. Journal of Wildlife Management 31: 52-70.Google Scholar
  27. Fisher, R.A. (1915). The evolution of sexual preference. Eugenics Review 7: 184-192.Google Scholar
  28. Fisher, R.A. (1958). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, 2d revised edition. New York, Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Froehlich, J.W., R.W. Thorington, Jr. and J.S. Otis (1981). The demography of Howler Monkeys (Alouatta palliata) on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. International Journal of Primatology 2: 207-236.Google Scholar
  30. Geist, V. (1966). The evolution of horn-like organs. Behaviour 27: 175-214.Google Scholar
  31. Geist, V. (1971). Mountain Sheep. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Geist, V. (1974). On fighting strategies in animal combat. Nature 250: 354.Google Scholar
  33. Gibson, R.M. (1990). Relationships between blood parasites, mating success and phenotypic cues in male sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus. American Zoologist 30: 271-278.Google Scholar
  34. Gorsuch, D.M. (1934). Life history of the Gambel quail in Arizona. University of Arizona Bulletin 5 (Biological Scientific Bulletin No. 2).Google Scholar
  35. Haas, R. (1976). Sexual selection in Nothobranchius guentheri (Pisces: Cyprinodontidae). Evolution 30: 614-622.Google Scholar
  36. Halliday, T.R. (1983). The study of mate choice. In: P. Bateson, ed., Mate Choice, pp. 3-32. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hamilton, W.D. and M. Zuk (1982). Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218: 384-387.Google Scholar
  38. Hammerstein, P. and G.A. Parker (1987). Sexual selection: games between the sexes. In: J.W. Bradbury and M.B. Andersson, eds., Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives, pp. 119-142. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  39. Haskins, C.P., E.F. Haskins, J.J.A. McLaughlin and R.E. Hewitt (1961). Polymorphisms and population structure in Lebistes reticulatus an ecological study. In: W.F. Blair, ed., Vertebrate Speciation, pp. 329-395. Austin, Univ. Texas Press.Google Scholar
  40. Hausfater, G., H.C. Gerhardt and G.M. Klump (1990). Parasites and mate choice in gray treefrogs, Hyla versicolor. American Zoologist 30: 299-311.Google Scholar
  41. Heisler, I.L. (1985). Quantitative genetic models of female choice based upon “arbitrary” male characters. Heredity 55: 187-198.Google Scholar
  42. Höglund, J., J.A. Kålås and P. Fiske (1992). The costs of secondary sexual characters in the lekking great snipe (Gallinago media). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 30: 309-315.Google Scholar
  43. Hrdy, S.B. (1977). The langurs of Abu: Female and Male Strategies of Reproduction. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Huxley, J.S. (1938). Darwin's theory of sexual selection and the data subsumed by it, in the light of recent research. American Naturalist 72: 416-433.Google Scholar
  45. Iwasa, Y., A. Pomiankowski and S. Nee (1991). The evolution of costly mate preferences. II The “handicap” principle. Evolution 45: 1431-1442.Google Scholar
  46. Kaissling, K.E. (1971). Insect olfaction. In: L. Beidler, ed., Handbook of Sensory Physiology, Vol. 4. Chemical Senses. New York, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  47. Kirkpatrick, M. (1982). Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36: 1-12.Google Scholar
  48. Kirkpatrick, M. (1986). The handicap mechanism of sexual selection does not work. American Naturalist 127: 222-240.Google Scholar
  49. Kirkpatrick, M. (1987). The evolutionary forces acting on female mating preferences in polygynous animals. In: J.W. Bradbury and M.B. Andersson, eds., Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives, pp. 119-142. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  50. Kodric-Brown, A. and J.H. Brown (1984). Truth in advertising: the kinds of traits favored by sexual selection. American Naturalist 124: 309-23.Google Scholar
  51. Krebs, J.R. and N.B. Davies (1992). An Introduction to Behavioral Ecology. London, Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
  52. Kruijt, J.P. and J.A. Hogan (1967). Social behavior on the lek in Black Grouse, Lyrurus tetrix tetrix (L.) Ardea 55: 203-240.Google Scholar
  53. Lande, R. (1980). Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34: 292-305.Google Scholar
  54. Lande, R. (1981). Models of speciation by sexual selection of polygenic traits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 78: 3721-3725.Google Scholar
  55. Lande, R. and S.J. Arnold (1985). Evolution of mating preference and sexual dimorphism. Journal of Theoretical Biology 117: 651-664.Google Scholar
  56. LeBoeuf, B.J. (1972). Sexual behaviour in the Northern Elephant Seal Mirounga angustirostris. Behaviour 41: 1-26.Google Scholar
  57. LeBoeuf, B.J. (1974). Male-male competition and reproductive success in elephant seals. American Zoologist 14: 163-176.Google Scholar
  58. Lloyd, J.E. and S.R. Wing (1983). Nocturnal acrical predation of fireflies by light-seeking fireflies. Science 222: 634-635.Google Scholar
  59. Mackenzie, A., J.D. Reynolds and V.J. Brown (1995). Variation in male mating success on leks. The American Naturalist 145: 633-652.Google Scholar
  60. Malthus, T. (1798). Essay on the Principle of Population as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society, with Remarks on the Speculations of Mr. Godwin, M. Condorcet, and Other Writers.Google Scholar
  61. Maynard Smith, J. (1976). Sexual selection and the handicap principle. Journal of Theoretical Biology 57: 239-242.Google Scholar
  62. Maynard Smith, J. (1978). The handicap principle a comment. Journal of Theoretical Biology 70: 251-252.Google Scholar
  63. Maynard Smith, J. (1985). (Mini Review) Sexual selection, handicaps and true fitness. Journal of Theoretical Biology 115: 1-8.Google Scholar
  64. Maynard Smith, J. (1991). Theories of sexual selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 6: 146-151.Google Scholar
  65. McHugh, T. (1958). Social behavior of the American buffalo (Bison bison bison). Zoologica 43: 1-42.Google Scholar
  66. Møller, A.P. (1990). Fluctuating asymmetry in male sexual ornaments may reliably reveal male quality. Auimal Behaviour 40: 1185-1187.Google Scholar
  67. Myers, J. and C. Krebs (1971). Sex ratios in open and closed vole populations: demographic implications. American Naturalist 105: 325-344.Google Scholar
  68. O'Donald, P. (1962). The theory of sexual selection. Heredity 17: 541-552.Google Scholar
  69. O'Donald, P. (1977). Theoretical aspects of sexual selection. Theoretical Population Biology 12: 298-334.Google Scholar
  70. Orians, G. (1969). On the evolution of mating systems in birds and animals. American Naturalist 103: 589-603.Google Scholar
  71. Parker, G.A. (1978). Evolution of competitive male searching. Annual Review of Entomology 23: 173-196.Google Scholar
  72. Parker, G.A. (1979). Sexual selection and sexual confliet. In: M. Blum and N. Blum, eds., Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects, pp. 123-176. New York, Academic Press. pp123-176.Google Scholar
  73. Parker, G.A. (1983). Mate quality and mating decisions. In: P. Bateson, ed., Mate Choice, pp. 141-166. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Pomiankowski, A. and Y. Iwasa (1993). Evolution of multiple sexual preferences by Fisher's runaway process of sexual selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London 253: 173-181.Google Scholar
  75. Pomiankowski, A., Y. Iwasa and S. Ncc (1991). The evolution of costly mate preferences. I. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution 45: 1422-1430.Google Scholar
  76. Poulton, E.B. (1890). The Colours of Animals: their Meaning and Use, especially considered in the case of Insects. London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co.Google Scholar
  77. Promislow, D.E.L., R. Montgomerie and T.E. Martin (1992). Mortality costs of sexual dimorphism in birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society (London) 250: 143-150.Google Scholar
  78. Real, L. (1990). Search theory and mate choice. I. Models of single-sex discrimination. The American Naturalist. 136: 376-405.Google Scholar
  79. Ryan, M.J. (1985). The Túngara Frog: A Study of Sexual Selection and Communication. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  80. Ryan, M.J. and A.S. Rand (1990). The sensory basis of sexual selection for complex calls in the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus (sexual selection for sensory exploitation). Evolution 44: 305-314.Google Scholar
  81. Ryan, M.J. and A.S. Rand (1993). Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution 47: 647-657.Google Scholar
  82. Schaller, G.B. (1972). The Serengeti Lion. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  83. Seger, J. and R. Trivers (1986). Asymmetry in the evolution of female mating preferences. Nature 319: 771-773.Google Scholar
  84. Selander, R.K. (1965). On mating systems and sexual selection. American Naturalist 99: 129-141.Google Scholar
  85. Selander, R.K. (1972). Sexual selection and dimorphism in birds. In: B. Campbelt, ed., Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, pp. 1871-1971. Chicago, Aldine.Google Scholar
  86. Silverman, H.B. and M.J. Dunbar (1980). Aggressive tusk use by the narwhat Monodon monoceros L. Nature 284: 57-58.Google Scholar
  87. Sorenson, M.W. (1974). A review of aggressive behavior in the tree shrews. In: R.L. Holloway, ed., Primate Aggression, Territoriality and Xenophobia, pp. 13-30. New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  88. Sussman, R.W. and A. Richard (1974). The role of aggression among diurnal prosimians. In: R.L. Holloway, ed., Primate Aggression, Territoriality and Xenophobia, pp. 49-76. New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  89. Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychology 20: 410-433.Google Scholar
  90. Trivers, R.L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In: B. Campbell, ed., Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, pp. 139-179. Chicago, Aldine.Google Scholar
  91. Turner, J.R.G. (1978). Why male butterflies are non-mimetic: natural selection, sexual selection, group selection, modification and sieving. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 10: 385-432.Google Scholar
  92. Verner, J. and M. Willson (1966). The influence of habitats on mating systems of North American passerine birds. Ecology 47: 143-147.Google Scholar
  93. Walther, F.R. (1969). Flight behaviour and avoidance of predators in Thomsons' gazelle (Gazella thomsoni Guenther 1884). Behaviour 34: 184-221.Google Scholar
  94. West-Eberhard, M.J. (1979). Sexual selection, social competition and evolution. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 123: 222-234.Google Scholar
  95. Wilkinson, P.F. and C.C. Shank (1976). Rutting-fight mortality among musk oxen on Banks Island, Northwest Territories, Canada. Animal Behavior 24: 756-758.Google Scholar
  96. Williams, G.C. (1966). Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Evolotiorary Thought. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Wood, D.H. (1970). An ecological study of Antechinus stuartii (Marsupialia) in a Southeast Queensland rain forest. Australian Journal of Zoology 18: 185-207.Google Scholar
  98. Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection — a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 53: 205-214.Google Scholar
  99. Zahavi, A. (1977). The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). Journal of Theoretical Biology 67: 603-605.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph N. Abraham
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of Mississippi, University
  2. 2.Health Information ManagementUniversity of Southwestern LouisianaLafayette

Personalised recommendations