Inequality of opportunity: measuring the potential for sexual selection

被引:0
|
作者
Fairbairn, DJ [1 ]
Wilby, AE
机构
[1] Univ Calif Riverside, Dept Biol, Riverside, CA 92521 USA
[2] Concordia Univ, Dept Biol, Montreal, PQ H3G 1M8, Canada
关键词
mating success; Morisita's index of dispersion; opportunity for selection; relative fitness; resource monopolization; sexual selection; Tenebrio molitor;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
The opportunity for selection (I) is defined as the variance in relative fitness and sets the upper limit for the intensity of selection on any given trait. For Poisson or binomial fitness variables such as mating success or survival, I is mathematically dependent upon both mean fitness and sample size. Covariation with both mean mating success ((x) over bar) and the number of individuals competing for mates (n) is typical of most indices of inequality (i.e. indices of spatial dispersion, resource monopolization and reproductive skew) and confounds comparisons among populations. Several standardized indices of inequality have been developed that remove the confounding influence of (x) over bar and n. We assessed the utility of these standardized indices as measures of the potential for sexual selection on male mealworm beetles. Specifically, we compared the opportunity for sexual selection (I-s) with the index of resource monopolization (Q), Morisita's index (I-delta) and the standardized Morisita index (I-p). We estimated male mating success from repeated scan samples in two separate experiments. Experiment I comprised nine treatments with all combinations of 10, 20 or 30 males and females, replicated three times for a total of 27 populations. Experiment 2 consisted of five populations with 10 males and 10, 20, 25, 30 or 35 females respectively. As expected, we found I-s to be negatively correlated with mean mating success and positively correlated with both number of males and sex ratio. In contrast, the indices of inequality increased as the sex ratio moved away from 1:1 in either direction, and reached maximum values at strongly female-biased sex ratios. We hypothesize that this concave relationship reflects a shift in the relative importance of female choice and male-male competition at female-biased versus male-biased sex ratios. We compare the properties of all four indices and recommend Morisita's index as the best estimator of the potential for sexual selection.
引用
收藏
页码:667 / 686
页数:20
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparing measures of breeding inequality and opportunity for selection with sexual selection on a quantitative character in bighorn rams
    Martin, A. M.
    Festa-Bianchet, M.
    Coltman, D. W.
    Pelletier, F.
    JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, 2015, 28 (01) : 223 - 230
  • [2] Measuring Inequality of Opportunity: Does Inequality Index Matter?
    Ibragimova, Zulfiya
    Frants, Marina
    STATISTIKA-STATISTICS AND ECONOMY JOURNAL, 2021, 101 (01) : 66 - 90
  • [3] Measuring opportunity inequality with monetary transfers
    Laurence Kranich
    The Journal of Economic Inequality, 2009, 7 : 371 - 385
  • [4] Measuring Inequality of Opportunity with Latent Variables
    Juarez, Florian Wendelspiess Chavez
    JOURNAL OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND CAPABILITIES, 2015, 16 (01) : 106 - 121
  • [5] Measuring of Inequality of Opportunity: Parametric Approach
    Pauhofova, Iveta
    Bukharbaeva, Liliya
    Ibragimova, Zulfiya
    Frants, Marina
    EKONOMICKY CASOPIS, 2020, 68 (05): : 455 - 476
  • [6] Measuring opportunity inequality with monetary transfers
    Kranich, Laurence
    JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC INEQUALITY, 2009, 7 (04): : 371 - 385
  • [7] ON PARTITIONING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SEXUAL SELECTION
    SHEN, JM
    JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY, 1991, 153 (03) : 441 - 444
  • [8] Sexual coercion and the opportunity for sexual selection in guppies
    Head, ML
    Brooks, R
    ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR, 2006, 71 : 515 - 522
  • [9] Measuring sexual selection
    Mackenzie, A.
    Reynolds, J.D.
    Sutherland, W.J.
    Widemo, F.
    Owens, I.P.F.
    Nature, 1995, 376 (6540):
  • [10] Accounting for the spouse when measuring inequality of opportunity
    Peichl, Andreas
    Ungerer, Martin
    SOCIAL CHOICE AND WELFARE, 2016, 47 (03) : 607 - 631