Skip to main content

An Ecological Theory of Sexual Dimorphism in Animals

Acta Biotheoretica volume 46, pages 23–35 (1998)Cite this 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

REFERENCES

  • 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 

  • Andersson, M. (1982). Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature 299: 818-820.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, M. (1986). Evotution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and inating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution 40: 804-816.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arak, A. (1983). Sexual selection by male-male competition in natterjack toad choruses. Nature 306: 181-210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, S.J. and M.J. Wade (1984). On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: applications. Evolution 38: 720-734.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.)

  • Bateman, A.J. (1948). Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2: 349-368.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Breden, F. and G. Stoner (1987). Male predation risk determines female preference in the Trinidad guppy. Nature 329: 831-833.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London, John Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Dunbar, R.I.M. (1984). Reproductive Decisions: An Economic Analysis of Gelada Baboon Social Strategies. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emlen, J.T. and L.W. Oring (1977). Ecology, sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197: 215-223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endler, J.A. (1978). A predator's view of animal color patterns. Evolutionary Biology 11: 319-364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endler, J.A. (1980). Natural selection on color patterns in Poecilia reticulata. Evolution 34: 76-91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endler, J.A. (1982). Convergent and divergent effects of natural selection on color patterns in two fish faunas. Evolution 36: 178-188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endler, J.A. (1983). Natural and sexual selection on color patterns in poeciliid fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 9: 173-190.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Fisher, R.A. (1915). The evolution of sexual preference. Eugenics Review 7: 184-192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R.A. (1958). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, 2d revised edition. New York, Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Geist, V. (1966). The evolution of horn-like organs. Behaviour 27: 175-214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geist, V. (1971). Mountain Sheep. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geist, V. (1974). On fighting strategies in animal combat. Nature 250: 354.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gorsuch, D.M. (1934). Life history of the Gambel quail in Arizona. University of Arizona Bulletin 5 (Biological Scientific Bulletin No. 2).

  • Haas, R. (1976). Sexual selection in Nothobranchius guentheri (Pisces: Cyprinodontidae). Evolution 30: 614-622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, T.R. (1983). The study of mate choice. In: P. Bateson, ed., Mate Choice, pp. 3-32. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W.D. and M. Zuk (1982). Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218: 384-387.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Heisler, I.L. (1985). Quantitative genetic models of female choice based upon “arbitrary” male characters. Heredity 55: 187-198.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hrdy, S.B. (1977). The langurs of Abu: Female and Male Strategies of Reproduction. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Iwasa, Y., A. Pomiankowski and S. Nee (1991). The evolution of costly mate preferences. II The “handicap” principle. Evolution 45: 1431-1442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaissling, K.E. (1971). Insect olfaction. In: L. Beidler, ed., Handbook of Sensory Physiology, Vol. 4. Chemical Senses. New York, Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, M. (1982). Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36: 1-12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, M. (1986). The handicap mechanism of sexual selection does not work. American Naturalist 127: 222-240.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Krebs, J.R. and N.B. Davies (1992). An Introduction to Behavioral Ecology. London, Blackwell Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lande, R. (1980). Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34: 292-305.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lande, R. and S.J. Arnold (1985). Evolution of mating preference and sexual dimorphism. Journal of Theoretical Biology 117: 651-664.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeBoeuf, B.J. (1972). Sexual behaviour in the Northern Elephant Seal Mirounga angustirostris. Behaviour 41: 1-26.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeBoeuf, B.J. (1974). Male-male competition and reproductive success in elephant seals. American Zoologist 14: 163-176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, J.E. and S.R. Wing (1983). Nocturnal acrical predation of fireflies by light-seeking fireflies. Science 222: 634-635.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Maynard Smith, J. (1976). Sexual selection and the handicap principle. Journal of Theoretical Biology 57: 239-242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J. (1978). The handicap principle a comment. Journal of Theoretical Biology 70: 251-252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J. (1985). (Mini Review) Sexual selection, handicaps and true fitness. Journal of Theoretical Biology 115: 1-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J. (1991). Theories of sexual selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 6: 146-151.

    Google Scholar 

  • McHugh, T. (1958). Social behavior of the American buffalo (Bison bison bison). Zoologica 43: 1-42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Møller, A.P. (1990). Fluctuating asymmetry in male sexual ornaments may reliably reveal male quality. Auimal Behaviour 40: 1185-1187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, J. and C. Krebs (1971). Sex ratios in open and closed vole populations: demographic implications. American Naturalist 105: 325-344.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Donald, P. (1962). The theory of sexual selection. Heredity 17: 541-552.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Donald, P. (1977). Theoretical aspects of sexual selection. Theoretical Population Biology 12: 298-334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orians, G. (1969). On the evolution of mating systems in birds and animals. American Naturalist 103: 589-603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G.A. (1978). Evolution of competitive male searching. Annual Review of Entomology 23: 173-196.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Parker, G.A. (1983). Mate quality and mating decisions. In: P. Bateson, ed., Mate Choice, pp. 141-166. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Real, L. (1990). Search theory and mate choice. I. Models of single-sex discrimination. The American Naturalist. 136: 376-405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M.J. (1985). The Túngara Frog: A Study of Sexual Selection and Communication. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Schaller, G.B. (1972). The Serengeti Lion. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seger, J. and R. Trivers (1986). Asymmetry in the evolution of female mating preferences. Nature 319: 771-773.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selander, R.K. (1965). On mating systems and sexual selection. American Naturalist 99: 129-141.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Silverman, H.B. and M.J. Dunbar (1980). Aggressive tusk use by the narwhat Monodon monoceros L. Nature 284: 57-58.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychology 20: 410-433.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Verner, J. and M. Willson (1966). The influence of habitats on mating systems of North American passerine birds. Ecology 47: 143-147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walther, F.R. (1969). Flight behaviour and avoidance of predators in Thomsons' gazelle (Gazella thomsoni Guenther 1884). Behaviour 34: 184-221.

    Google Scholar 

  • West-Eberhard, M.J. (1979). Sexual selection, social competition and evolution. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 123: 222-234.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Williams, G.C. (1966). Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Evolotiorary Thought. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection — a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 53: 205-214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahavi, A. (1977). The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). Journal of Theoretical Biology 67: 603-605.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, University of Mississippi, University, MS, 38677

    Joseph N. Abraham

  2. Health Information Management, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, 70504

    Joseph N. Abraham

Authors
  1. Joseph N. Abraham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Abraham, J.N. An Ecological Theory of Sexual Dimorphism in Animals. Acta Biotheor 46, 23–35 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1000847803272

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1000847803272

Keywords

  • Population Size
  • Sexual Dimorphism
  • Intraspecific Competition
  • Ecological Theory
  • Mate Location