Relative Parental Expenditure, Potential Reproductive Rates, and the Control of Sexual Selection in Katydids

1995 ◽  
Vol 145 (5) ◽  
pp. 797-808 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. W. Simmons



2009 ◽  
Vol 32 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 279-280
Author(s):  
Steven J. C. Gaulin

AbstractWith respect to aggressiveness it is not enough to say that humans are “like other mammals.” We resemble only those species where males have higher maximum reproductive rates than females. In such species males evolve a set of hormonally mediated competitive traits via sexual selection. Because humans match the predictions of this general evolutionary model, attempts to (re)explain men's aggressiveness in sociological terms are superfluous and misleading.



Nature ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 351 (6321) ◽  
pp. 58-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. H. Glutton-Brock ◽  
A. C. J. Vincent


Behaviour ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 132 (11-12) ◽  
pp. 861-874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sigal Balshine-Earn ◽  
Brendan J. Mcandrew

AbstractIn the animal kingdom most species follow standard sex roles: males compete more intensely for mates and females exert greater mate choice. Recent theory suggests that the direction of sexual selection is the outcome of sexual differences in potential reproductive rates (PRRs): the sex with the higher PRR will compete for mates and the sex with the lower PRR will be most selective. This study tests the theory experimentally by examining competition for mates and mate choice in the black-chinned tilapia, Sarotherodon melanotheron, a paternal mouth brooding cichlid. In this species, the PRR of males is lower than that of females. In laboratory competition trials, females were more aggressive: they bit, chased and initiated mouth fights more often than males. Dominant females were also much better at monopolising potential mates compared to dominant males. A second experiment confirmed that males were choosy for size, preferring large partners over small ones, while females did not discriminate for size. Therefore, the prediction of sex role reversal (competitive females and discriminating males) is confirmed.



The Auk ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 121 (2) ◽  
pp. 391-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen T. Emlen ◽  
Peter H. Wrege

AbstractWe studied sexual size dimorphism, intrasexual competition, and sexual selection in an individually marked population of Wattled Jacanas (Jacana jacana) in the Republic of Panama. Males are the sole incubators of eggs (28-day incubation) and primary providers of chick care (50–60 days). Females were 48% heavier than, and behaviorally dominant over, males. Females also showed greater development of secondary sexual characters (fleshy facial ornamentation and wing spurs) than males. Both sexes defended territories throughout the year against same-sex conspecifics. Competition for territorial space was intense, and many individuals of both sexes did not become breeders. Resident females further competed with one another to accumulate multiple mates, resulting in a mating system of simultaneous polyandry. Female and male residents (territory holders) were larger, heavier, and more ornamented than adult floaters of the same sex. Larger and heavier females also had more mates than smaller females. Body size was thus a critical predictor of success in intrasexual competition for territories (both sexes) and for mates (females). Three measures of sexual selection—(1) sex difference in the opportunity for sexual selection, (2) female-to-male ratio of potential reproductive rates, and (3) operational sex ratio—each indicated that sexual selection is currently operating more strongly on females than on males (female-to-male ratios ranged from 1.43:1 to 2.22:1). Values of 1.61:1 and 1.43:1 represent the first published quantitative estimates of the opportunity for sexual selection for any sex-role-reversed bird. Our study supports the theory that when increased parental care entails reduced opportunities for future reproduction, asymmetries in parental care behaviors of the sexes can influence the intensity of competition for mates and the direction and strength of sexual selection.



1992 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 437-456 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. H. Clutton-Brock ◽  
G. A. Parker


Behaviour ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 132 (13-14) ◽  
pp. 915-933 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Smith ◽  
D.A. Fletcher ◽  
F.G. Whriskey ◽  
R.J. Wootton


1998 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christer Wiklund ◽  
Arja Kaitala ◽  
Nina Wedell






Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document