scholarly journals Was facial width-to-height ratio subject to sexual selection pressures? A life course approach

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. e0240284
Author(s):  
Carolyn R. Hodges-Simeon ◽  
Graham Albert ◽  
George B. Richardson ◽  
Timothy S. McHale ◽  
Seth M. Weinberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Relative Elongation ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Multivariate Techniques ◽  
Facial Morphology ◽  
Facial Growth ◽  
Height Ratio ◽  
Lower Face ◽  
Males And Females

Sexual selection researchers have traditionally focused on adult sex differences; however, the schedule and pattern of sex-specific ontogeny can provide insights unobtainable from an exclusive focus on adults. Recently, it has been debated whether facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR; bi-zygomatic breadth divided by midface height) is a human secondary sexual characteristic (SSC). Here, we review current evidence, then address this debate using ontogenetic evidence, which has been under-explored in fWHR research. Facial measurements were collected from 3D surface images of males and females aged 3 to 40 (Study 1; US European-descent, n = 2449), and from 2D photographs of males and females aged 7 to 21 (Study 2; Bolivian Tsimane, n = 179), which were used to calculate three fWHR variants (which we call fWHRnasion, fWHRstomion, and fWHRbrow) and two other common facial masculinity ratios (facial width-to-lower-face-height ratio, fWHRlower, and cheekbone prominence). We test whether the observed pattern of facial development exhibits patterns indicative of SSCs, i.e., differential adolescent growth in either male or female facial morphology leading to an adult sex difference. Results showed that only fWHRlower exhibited both adult sex differences as well as the classic pattern of ontogeny for SSCs—greater lower-face growth in male adolescents relative to females. fWHRbrow was significantly wider among both pre- and post-pubertal males in the Bolivian Tsimane sample; post-hoc analyses revealed that the effect was driven by large sex differences in brow height, with females having higher placed brows than males across ages. In both samples, all fWHR measures were inversely associated with age; that is, human facial growth is characterized by greater relative elongation in the mid-face and lower face relative to facial width. This trend continues even into middle adulthood. BMI was also a positive predictor of most of the ratios across ages, with greater BMI associated with wider faces. Researchers collecting data on fWHR should target fWHRlower and fWHRbrow and should control for both age and BMI. Researchers should also compare ratio approaches with multivariate techniques, such as geometric morphometrics, to examine whether the latter have greater utility for understanding the evolution of facial sexual dimorphism.

scholarly journals Was facial width-to-height ratio subject to sexual selection pressures? A life course approach

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn R. Hodges-Simeon ◽  
Graham Albert ◽  
George B. Richardson ◽  
Timothy S. McHale ◽  
Seth M. Weinberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Facial Morphology ◽  
Facial Growth ◽  
Height Ratio ◽  
Lower Face ◽  
Male Adolescents ◽  
Classic Pattern ◽  
Facial Development

AbstractSexual selection researchers have traditionally focused on adult sex differences; however, the schedule and pattern of sex-specific ontogeny can provide insights unobtainable from an exclusive focus on adults. Recently, it has been debated whether facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR; bi-zygomatic breadth divided by midface height) is a human secondary sexual characteristic (SSC). Here, we review current evidence, then address this debate using ontogenetic evidence, which has been under-explored in fWHR research. Facial measurements collected from males and females aged 3 to 40 (Study 1; US, n=2449), and 7 to 21 (Study 2; Bolivia, n=179) were used to calculate three fWHR variants (which we call fWHRnasion, fWHRstomion, and fWHRbrow) and two other common facial masculinity ratios (facial width-to-lower-face-height ratio, fWHRlower, and cheekbone prominence). We test whether the observed pattern of facial development exhibits patterns indicative of SSCs, i.e. differential adolescent growth in either male or female facial morphology leading to an adult sex difference. Results showed that only fWHRlower exhibited both adult sex differences as well as the classic pattern of ontogeny for SSCs—greater lower-face growth in male adolescents relative to females. fWHRbrow was significantly wider among both pre- and post-pubertal males in the 2D sample; post-hoc analyses revealed that the effect was driven by large sex differences in brow height, with females having higher placed brows than males across ages. In both samples, all fWHR measures were inversely associated with age; that is, human facial growth is characterized by greater relative growth in the mid-face and lower face relative to facial width. This trend continues even into middle adulthood. BMI was also a positive predictor of most of the ratios across ages, with greater BMI associated with wider faces. Researchers collecting data on fWHR should target fWHRlower and fWHRbrow and should control for both age and BMI.

scholarly journals Does sexual selection explain human sex differences in aggression?

2009 ◽  
Vol 32 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 249-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Archer
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Physical Aggression ◽  
Role Theory ◽  
Social Roles ◽  
Social Role ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Reproductive Competition ◽  
Threat Displays ◽  
Males And Females

AbstractI argue that the magnitude and nature of sex differences in aggression, their development, causation, and variability, can be better explained by sexual selection than by the alternative biosocial version of social role theory. Thus, sex differences in physical aggression increase with the degree of risk, occur early in life, peak in young adulthood, and are likely to be mediated by greater male impulsiveness, and greater female fear of physical danger. Male variability in physical aggression is consistent with an alternative life history perspective, and context-dependent variability with responses to reproductive competition, although some variability follows the internal and external influences of social roles. Other sex differences, in variance in reproductive output, threat displays, size and strength, maturation rates, and mortality and conception rates, all indicate that male aggression is part of a sexually selected adaptive complex. Physical aggression between partners can be explained using different evolutionary principles, arising from the conflicts of interest between males and females entering a reproductive alliance, combined with variability following differences in societal gender roles. In this case, social roles are particularly important since they enable both the relatively equality in physical aggression between partners from Western nations, and the considerable cross-national variability, to be explained.

The Sexual Brain

2021 ◽  
pp. 81-108
Author(s):  
Susan D. Healy
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Brain Size ◽  
Female Mate Choice ◽  
Brain Regions ◽  
Good Evidence ◽  
The Other ◽  
Female Mate ◽  
Males And Females ◽  
Hippocampal Structure

Morphological and behavioural differences between the sexes are ubiquitous across the animal kingdom. There is also good evidence for differences in some brain regions between males and females, in humans, some rodents, and many songbirds. I look at the data for sex differences in cognition, of which there are some that show differences in spatial cognition and in hippocampal structure, at least some of which may be explained by variation in hormone levels. The thesis of The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller considerably increased interest in using sexual selection to explain variation in brain size. From female mate choice, male–male competition, sperm competition, mating strategy, to parental care, there are some data that appear to support selection acting on one species rather than the other in sexually a selected manner but I conclude that the data are not generally supportive of the Sexual Brain Hypothesis.

scholarly journals Sexual selection in females across the animal tree of life

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salom&eacute Fromonteil ◽  
Lennart Winkler ◽  
Lucas Marie-Orleach ◽  
Tim Janicke
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Sexual Reproduction ◽  
Tree Of Life ◽  
Selection Theory ◽  
Sexual Selection Theory ◽  
Males And Females

The pioneers of sexual selection theory proposed that males are generally "eager" whereas females are rather "coy" with respect to mating. This male-centred perspective on sexual selection continues to permeate our perception of sex differences across disciplines. Despite an increased awareness that females also compete for mating partners, we still tend to consider sexual selection in females a rare peculiarity. Here we present meta-analytic evidence from 72 species across a broad range of animal taxa to show that sexual selection in females is widespread and should be considered the norm rather than the exception. Thereby, our results extend our general understanding of sexual reproduction and may contribute to a more balanced perspective of how sexual selection operates in both males and females.

Why do sexes differ in lifespan extension? Sex-specific pathways of aging and underlying mechanisms for dimorphic responses

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 247-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Garratt
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Lifespan Extension ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Hormone Production ◽  
Female Life History ◽  
Underlying Causes ◽  
Males And Females ◽  
Underlying Mechanisms ◽  
Mtor Signalling

Males and females typically have different lifespans and frequently differ in their responses to anti-aging interventions. These sex-specific responses are documented in mice and Drosophila species, in addition to other organisms where interventions have been tested. While the prevalence of sex-specific responses to anti-aging interventions is now recognised, the underlying causes remain poorly understood. This review first summarises the main pathways and interventions that lead to sex-specific lifespan responses, including the growth-hormone/insulin-like growth factor 1 (GH-IGF1) axis, mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) signalling, and nutritional and pharmacological interventions. After summarising current evidence, several different potential causes for sex-specific responses are discussed. These include sex-differences in xenobiotic metabolism, differing disease susceptibility, sex-specific hormone production and chromosomes, and the relative importance of different signalling pathways in the control of male and female life-history. Understanding why sex-differences in lifespan-extension occur should provide a greater understanding of the mechanisms that regulate the aging process in each sex, and will be crucial for understanding the full implications of these treatments if they are translated to humans.

scholarly journals Artificial selection reveals sex differences in the genetic basis of sexual attractiveness

2018 ◽  
Vol 115 (21) ◽  
pp. 5498-5503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas P. Gosden ◽  
Adam J. Reddiex ◽  
Stephen F. Chenoweth
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Female Choice ◽  
Artificial Selection ◽  
Mating Success ◽  
Male Mating ◽  
Male Choice ◽  
Trait Evolution ◽  
Males And Females ◽  
Mutual Choice

Mutual mate choice occurs when males and females base mating decisions on shared traits. Despite increased awareness, the extent to which mutual choice drives phenotypic change remains poorly understood. When preferences in both sexes target the same traits, it is unclear how evolution will proceed and whether responses to sexual selection from male choice will match or oppose responses to female choice. Answering this question is challenging, as it requires understanding, genetic relationships between the traits targeted by choice, mating success, and, ultimately, fitness for both sexes. Addressing this, we applied artificial selection to the cuticular hydrocarbons of the fly Drosophila serrata that are targeted by mutual choice and tracked evolutionary changes in males and females alongside changes in mating success. After 10 generations, significant trait evolution occurred in both sexes, but intriguingly there were major sex differences in the associated fitness consequences. Sexually selected trait evolution in males led to a genetically based increase in male mating success. By contrast, although trait evolution also occurred in females, there was no change in mating success. Our results suggest that phenotypic sexual selection on females from male choice is environmentally, rather than genetically, generated. Thus, compared with female choice, male choice is at best a weak driver of signal trait evolution in this species. Instead, the evolution of apparent female ornamentation seems more likely due to a correlated response to sexual selection on males and possibly other forms of natural selection.

scholarly journals No sex differences in adult telomere length across vertebrates: a meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. 200548
Author(s):  
Florentin Remot ◽  
Victor Ronget ◽  
Hannah Froy ◽  
Benjamin Rey ◽  
Jean-Michel Gaillard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Telomere Length ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mammalian Species ◽  
Reptile Species ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
Males And Females ◽  
Heterogametic Sex ◽  
Meta Analyses

In many mammalian species, females live on average longer than males. In humans, women have consistently longer telomeres than men, and this has led to speculation that sex differences in telomere length (TL) could play a role in sex differences in longevity. To address the generality and drivers of patterns of sex differences in TL across vertebrates, we performed meta-analyses across 51 species. We tested two main evolutionary hypotheses proposed to explain sex differences in TL, namely the heterogametic sex disadvantage and the sexual selection hypotheses. We found no support for consistent sex differences in TL between males and females among mammal, bird, fish and reptile species. This absence of sex differences in TL across different classes of vertebrates does not support the heterogametic sex disadvantage hypothesis. Likewise, the absence of any negative effect of sexual size dimorphism on male TL suggests that sexual selection is not likely to mediate the magnitude of sex differences in TL across vertebrates. Finally, the comparative analyses we conducted did not detect any association between sex differences in TL and sex differences in longevity, which does not support the idea that sex differences in TL could explain the observed sex differences in longevity.

scholarly journals Degree of anisogamy is unrelated to the intensity of sexual selection

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Judit Mokos ◽  
István Scheuring ◽  
András Liker ◽  
Robert P. Freckleton ◽  
Tamás Székely
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Life History ◽  
Parental Care ◽  
Sex Roles ◽  
Sexual Size Dimorphism ◽  
Ecological Factors ◽  
Size Dimorphism ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Males And Females

AbstractMales and females often display different behaviours and, in the context of reproduction, these behaviours are labelled sex roles. The Darwin–Bateman paradigm argues that the root of these differences is anisogamy (i.e., differences in size and/or function of gametes between the sexes) that leads to biased sexual selection, and sex differences in parental care and body size. This evolutionary cascade, however, is contentious since some of the underpinning assumptions have been questioned. Here we investigate the relationships between anisogamy, sexual size dimorphism, sex difference in parental care and intensity of sexual selection using phylogenetic comparative analyses of 64 species from a wide range of animal taxa. The results question the first step of the Darwin–Bateman paradigm, as the extent of anisogamy does not appear to predict the intensity of sexual selection. The only significant predictor of sexual selection is the relative inputs of males and females into the care of offspring. We propose that ecological factors, life-history and demography have more substantial impacts on contemporary sex roles than the differences of gametic investments between the sexes.

Reproductive behavior

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Olzer ◽  
Rebecca L. Ehrlich ◽  
Justa L. Heinen-Kay ◽  
Jessie Tanner ◽  
Marlene Zuk
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Sexual Conflict ◽  
Female Choice ◽  
Reproductive Behavior ◽  
Mating Systems ◽  
Insect Behavior ◽  
Sequential Approach ◽  
Evolutionary Mechanisms ◽  
Anatomy And Physiology ◽  
Males And Females

Sex and reproduction lie at the heart of studies of insect behavior. We begin by providing a brief overview of insect anatomy and physiology, followed by an introduction to the overarching themes of parental investment, sexual selection, and mating systems. We then take a sequential approach to illustrate the diversity of phenomena and concepts behind insect reproductive behavior from pre-copulatory mate signalling through copulatory sperm transfer, mating positions, and sexual conflict, to post-copulatory sperm competition, and cryptic female choice. We provide an overview of the evolutionary mechanisms driving reproductive behavior. These events are linked by the economic defendability of mates or resources, and how these are allocated in each sex. Under the framework of economic defendability, the reader can better understand how sexual antagonistic behaviors arise as the result of competing optimal fitness strategies between males and females.

scholarly journals Sex Difference in Self-Reported Sexual Functioning Among Frail Older Adults

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 313-313
Author(s):  
Brianne Olivieri-Mui ◽  
Sandra Shi ◽  
Ellen McCarthy ◽  
Dae Kim
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Function ◽  
Older Adult ◽  
Sexual Functioning ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Adult Males ◽  
Males And Females

Abstract Frailty may differentially impact how older adult males and females perceive sexual functioning, an important part of well-being. We assessed the level of frailty (robust, pre-frail, frail) for anyone with data on 11 sexual functioning questions asked in wave 2 of the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project, 2010-2011 (n=2060). Questions covered five domains: overall sexual function (OSF), sexual function anxiety (SFA), changes in sexual function (CSF), erectile/vaginal dysfunction (EVD), and masturbation. Logistic regression identified sex differences in frailty and reporting worse sexual functioning. Linear regression predicted the number of domains reported as worse. Among males (n=1057), pre-frailty meant higher odds of reporting SFA (OR 1.8 95%CI 1.2-6.6), CSF (OR 1.7 95%CI 1.1-2.7), and EVD (OR 1.5 95%CI 1.0-2.2). Among females (n=1003), there was no difference in reporting by frailty. Females were more likely to report worse OSF (Robust: OR 7.4, 95%CI 4.8-11.4; Pre-frail: OR 6.2, 95%CI 3.9-9.9; Frail: OR 3.4 95%CI 1.7-6.6), but less likely to report SFA (Robust OR .3, 95%CI .2-.5; Pre-frail OR .2, 95%CI .1-.3; Frail OR .2 95%CI .1-.3). Pre-frail and frail females reported fewer domains as worse (Pre-frail coefficient -0.21 SE 0.09, Frail -0.43 SE 0.14). As frailty worsened, males reported more domains as worse (Pre-frail 0.24 SE 0.07, Frail 0.29 SE 0.08). Self-reported sexual functioning differs by sex at all levels of frailty, and reporting by males, but not females, changes with frailty. Providers should be aware that sexual functioning is of importance to both sexes despite varying degrees of frailty.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document