Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patterns of sexual size dimorphism in cattle breeds support Rensch’s rule

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Evolutionary Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rensch’s rule describes the pattern of sexual size dimorphism (SSD) claiming that in taxa where males are the larger sex, larger species generally exhibit higher male to female body size ratios. Agreement with Rensch’s rule is manifested by the slope of the allometric relationship between male and female body size exceeding one. In this paper we have tested the hypothesis that recent rapid evolutionary changes of body size accompanying domestication process and morphological radiation of domestic breeds follow Rensch’s rule. We have analyzed literature data on adult body size of males and females in domestic cows, yaks, buffaloes and other bovines (315, 12, 24 and 2 breeds, respectively) and compared it with SSD in 18 wild species/subspecies of the subfamily Bovinae. Male to female body mass ratio in domestic cows (1.48) was fairly comparable to that found in other species of domestic and wild bovines except domestic buffaloes (1.19). In cows we have demonstrated clear positive allometry of male to female body mass ratio (slope 1.21) predicted by Rensch’s rule, however, no such clear relationship was found when body mass was replaced by shoulder height. These findings are in agreement with those we have previously reported in other livestock species, goats and sheep.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abouheif E, Fairbairn DJ (1997) A comparative analysis of allometry for sexual size dimorphism: assessing Rensch’s rule. Am Nat 149:540–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackerly DD (2000) Taxon sampling, correlated evolution, and independent contrasts. Evolution 54:1480–1492

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander RD, Hoogland JL, Howard RD, Noonan KM, Sherman PW (1979) Sexual dimorphism and breeding systems in pinnipeds, ungulates, primates, and humans. In: Chagnon NA, Irons W (eds) Evolutionary biology and human social behavior: an anthropological perspective. North Situate, Duxbury, pp 402–435

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Beja-Pereira A, Caramelli D, Lalueza-Fox C, Vernesi C, Ferrand N, Casoli A, Goyache F, Royo LJ, Conti S, Lari M, Martini A, Ouragh L, Magid A, Atash A, Attila Zsolnaii A, Boscato P, Triantaphylidis C, Ploumi K, Sineo L, Mallegni F, Taberlet P, Erhardt G, Sampietro L, Bertranpetit J, Barbujani G, Luikart G, Bertorelle G (2006) The origin of European cattle: evidence from modern and ancient DNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 123:8113–8118

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blanckenhorn WU (2005) Behavioral causes and consequences of sexual size dimorphism. Ethology 111:977–1916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanckenhorn WU, Stillwell RC, Young KA, Fox CW, Ashton KG (2006) When Rensch meets bergmann: does sexual size dimorphism change systematically with latitude. Evolution 60:2004–2011

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bohonak AJ, van der Linde K (2004) RMA software for reduced major axis regression for Java Version 1.21. http://www.kimvdlinde.com/professional/programming/statistics.html (Accessed April 2009)

  • Bruford MW, Bradley DG, Luikart G (2003) DNA markers reveal the complexity of livestock domestication. Nat Rev 4:900–910

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Colwell RK (2000) Rensch’s rule crosses the line: convergent allometry of sexual size dimorphism in hummingbirds and flower mites. Am Nat 156:495–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox RM, Butler MA, John-Alder HB (2007) The evolution of sexual size dimorphism in reptiles. In: Fairbairn D, Székely T, Blanckenhorn W (eds) Sex, size and gender roles. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 38–49

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dale J, Dunn PO, Figuerola J, Lislevand T, Székely T, Whittingham LA (2007) Sexual selection explains Rensch’s rule of allometry for sexual size dimorphism. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:2971–2979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin C (1871) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis CM, Roth VL (2008) The evolution of sexual size dimorphism in cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus, Leporidae). Biol J Linn Soc 95:141–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estes RD (1992) The behavior guide to African mammals. University of California Press Ltd, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairbairn DJ (1997) Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 28:659–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairbairn DJ, Székely T, Blanckenhorn W (2007) Sex, size and gender roles. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Felsenstein J (1985) Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 125:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garland T, Harvey PH, Ives AR (1992) Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst Biol 41:18–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Glucksmann A (1974) Sexual dimorphism in mammals. Biol Rev 49:423–475

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hassanin A, Ropiquet A (2004) Molecular phylogeny of the tribe Bovini (Bovidae, Bovinae) and the taxonomic status of the Kouprey, Bos sauveli Urbain 1937. Mol Phylogenet Evol 33:896–907

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hassanin A, Ropiquet A (2007) Resolving a zoological mystery: the kouprey is a real species. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:2849–2855

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández Fernández M, Vrba ES (2005) A complete estimate of the phylogenetic relationships in Ruminantia: a dated species-level supertree of the extant ruminants. Biol Rev 80:269–302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jarman PJ (1983) Mating system and sexual dimorphism in large, terrestrial, mammalian herbivores. Biol Rev 58:485–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon J (1997) The kingdon field guide to African mammals. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Komers PE, Messier F, Gates CC (1992) Search or relax: a case of bachelor wood bison. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:195–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krasińska M, Krasiński ZA (2002) Body mass and measurements of the European bison during postnatal development. Acta Theriol 47:85–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratochvíl L, Frynta D (2002) Body size, male combat and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in eublepharid lizards (Squamata: Eublepharidae). Biol J Linn Soc 76:303–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratochvíl L, Frynta D (2007) Phylogenetic analysis of sexual dimorphism in eye-lid geckos (Eublepharidae): the effects of male combat, courtship behaviour, egg size, and body size. In: Fairbairn D, Székely T, Blanckenhorn W (eds) Sex, size and gender roles. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 154–162

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kühn R, Ludt C, Manhart H, Peters J, Neumair E, Rottmann O (2005) Close genetic relationship of early Neolithic cattle from Ziegelberg (Freising, Germany) with modern breeds. J Anim Breed Gen 122(Suppl. 1):36–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenfors P, Tullberg BS (2006) Lowering sample size in comparative analyses can indicate a correlation where there is none: example from Rensch’s rule in primates. J Evol Biol 19:1346–1351

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenfors P, Gittleman JL, Jones KE (2007) Sexual dimorphism in mammals. In: Fairbairn D, Székely T, Blanckenhorn W (eds) Sex, size and gender roles. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 16–26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Loftus RT, MacHugh DE, Bradley DG, Sharp PM, Cunningham P (1994) Evidence for two independent domestications of cattle. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:2757–2761

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lovich JE, Gibbons JW (1992) A review of techniques for quantifying sexual size dimorphism. Growth Dev Aging 56:269–281

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maher CR, Byers JA (1987) Age-related changes in reproductive effort of male bison. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21:91–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martins EP (2004) COMPARE, Version 4.6b. http://compare.bio.indiana.edu

  • McArdle BH (1988) The structural relationship: regression in biology. Can J Zool 66:2329–2339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijman IJ, van Boxtel DCJ, van Cann LM, Marnoch Y, Cuppen E, Lenstra JA (2008) Phylogeny of Y chromosomes from bovine species. Cladistics 24:723–726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-Barbería FJ, Gordon IJ, Pagel M (2002) The origins of sexual dimorphism in body size in ungulates. Evolution 56:1276–1285

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Polák J, Frynta D (2009) Sexual size dimorphism in domestic goats, sheep and their wild relatives. Biol J Linn Soc 98:872–883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter V (2007) Cattle. A handbook to the breeds of the world. The Crowood Press Ltd, Wiltshire

    Google Scholar 

  • Rensch B (1950) Die Abhangigkeit der relativen Sexualdifferenz von der Korpergrosse. Bonn Zool Beitr 1:58–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Rensch B (1959) Evolution above the species level. Methuen and Co. Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Roden C, Vervaecke H, Mommens G, van Elsacker L (2003) Reproductive success of bison bulls (Bison bison bison) in semi-natural conditions. Anim Repr Sci 79:33–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sambraus HH (1992) A colour atlas of livestock breeds. Wolfe Publishing Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith RJ, Cheverud JM (2002) Scaling of sexual dimorphism in body mass: a phylogenetic analysis of Rensch’s rule in Primates. Int J Primatol 23:1095–1135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • StatSoft Inc (2001) STATISTICA, version 6.0. http://www.statsoft.com

  • Stephens PR, Wiens J (2009) Evolution of sexual size dimorphisms in emydid turtles: ecological dimorphism, Rensch’s rule, and sympatric divergence. Evolution 63–4:910–925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart-Fox D (2009) A test of Rensch’s rule in dwarf chameleons (Bradypodion spp.), a group with female-biased sexual size dimorphism. Evol Ecol 23:425–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutter NB, Mosher DS, Gray MM, Ostrander EA (2008) Morphometrics within dog breeds are highly reproducible and dispute Rensch’s rule. Mamm Genome 19:713–723

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Székely T, Lislevand T, Figuerola J (2007) Sexual size dimorphism in birds. In: Fairbairn D, Székely T, Blanckenhorn W (eds) Sex, size and gender roles. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 27–37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vohradský F (1999) Místní plemena domácích zvířat tropů a subtropů. Academia, Praha

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb TJ, Freckleton RP (2007) Only half right: species with female-biased dimorphism consistently break Rensch’s rule. Plos One 9:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Weckerley FW (1998) Sexual-size dimorphism: influence of mass and mating systems in the most dimorphic mammals. J Mammal 79:33–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West-Eberhard MJ (2003) Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson DE, Reeder DAM (eds) (2005) Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference, 3rd edn. The Johns Hopkins University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff JO (1998) Breeding strategies, mate choice, and reproductive success in American bison. Oikos 83:529–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The project was supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Academy of Sciences (project No. IAA6111410). The personal costs of J.P. were covered from the grant No. 206-05-H012 provided by the Czech Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague, Viničná 7, 12844, Praha 2, Czech Republic

    Jakub Polák & Daniel Frynta

Authors
  1. Jakub Polák
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Frynta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Frynta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Polák, J., Frynta, D. Patterns of sexual size dimorphism in cattle breeds support Rensch’s rule. Evol Ecol 24, 1255–1266 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-010-9354-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-010-9354-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation