Darwin, C. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. (John Murray, 1871).
Andersson, M. Sexual Selection. (Princeton University Press, 1994).
Shuster, S. & Wade, M. J. Mating Systems and Strategies. (Princeton University Press, 2003).
Gosden, T. P. & Svensson, E. I. Spatial and temporal dynamics in a sexual selection mosaic. Evolution 62, 845–856 (2008).
Google Scholar
Kasumovic, M. M., Bruce, M. J., Andrade, M. C. B. & Herberstein, M. E. Spatial and temporal demographic variation drives within-season fluctuations in sexual selection. Evolution 62, 2316–2325 (2008).
Google Scholar
Mobley, K. B. & Jones, A. G. Environmental, demographic, and genetic mating system variation among five geographically distinct dusky pipefish (Syngnathus floridae) populations. Mol. Ecol. 18, 1476–1490 (2009).
Google Scholar
Hoffer, J. N., Mariën, J., Ellers, J. & Koene, J. M. Sexual selection gradients change over time in a simultaneous hermaphrodite. eLife 6, e25139 (2017).
Google Scholar
Sih, A., Montiglio, P.-O., Wey, T. W. & Fogarty, S. Altered physical and social conditions produce rapidly reversible mating systems in water striders. Behav. Ecol. 28, 632–639 (2017).
Google Scholar
Preston, B. T., Stevenson, I. R., Pemberton, J. M. & Wilson, K. Dominant rams lose out by sperm depletion. Nature 409, 681–682 (2001).
Google Scholar
Cornwallis, C. K. & Uller, T. Towards an evolutionary ecology of sexual traits. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 145–152 (2010).
Google Scholar
Forsgren, E., Amundsen, T., Borg, A. A. & Bjelvenmark, J. Unusually dynamic sex roles in a fish. Nature 429, 551–554 (2004).
Google Scholar
Hare, R. M. & Simmons, L. W. Sexual selection maintains a female-specific character in a species with dynamic sex roles. Behav. Ecol. 32, 609–616 (2021).
Google Scholar
Fox, R. J., Donelson, J. M., Schunter, C., Ravasi, T. & Gaitán-Espitia, J. D. Beyond buying time: the role of plasticity in phenotypic adaptation to rapid environmental change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 374, 20180174 (2019).
Google Scholar
Ingleby, F. C., Hunt, J. & Hosken, D. J. The role of genotype-by-environment interactions in sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 2031–2045 (2010).
Google Scholar
Lindström, J., Pike, T. W., Blount, J. D. & Metcalfe, N. B. Optimization of resource allocation can explain the temporal dynamics and honesty of sexual signals. Am. Nat. 174, 515–525 (2009).
Google Scholar
Janicke, T., David, P. & Chapuis, E. Environment-dependent sexual selection: Bateman’s parameters under varying levels of food availability. Am. Nat. 185, 756–768 (2015).
Google Scholar
Morimoto, J., Pizzari, T. & Wigby, S. Developmental environment effects on sexual selection in male and female Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS ONE 11, e0154468 (2016).
Google Scholar
Cattelan, S., Evans, J. P., Garcia-Gonzalez, F., Morbiato, E. & Pilastro, A. Dietary stress increases the total opportunity for sexual selection and modifies selection on condition-dependent traits. Ecol. Lett. 23, 447–456 (2020).
Google Scholar
Glavaschi, A., Cattelan, S., Grapputo, A. & Pilastro, A. Imminent risk of predation reduces the relative strength of postcopulatory sexual selection in the guppy. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20200076 (2020).
Google Scholar
Clark, D. C., DeBano, S. J. & Moore, A. J. The influence of environmental quality on sexual selection in Nauphoeta cinerea (Dictyoptera: Blaberidae). Behav. Ecol. 8, 46–53 (1997).
Google Scholar
Emlen, S. & Oring, L. Ecology, sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197, 215–223 (1977).
Google Scholar
Liker, A., Freckleton, R. P. & Székely, T. The evolution of sex roles in birds is related to adult sex ratio. Nat. Commun. 4, 1–6 (2013).
Google Scholar
Wacker, S. et al. Operational sex ratio but not density affects sexual selection in a fish. Evolution 67, 1937–1949 (2013).
Google Scholar
Wacker, S., Ness, M. H., Östlund-Nilsson, S. & Amundsen, T. Social structure affects mating competition in a damselfish. Coral Reefs 36, 1279–1289 (2017).
Google Scholar
Janicke, T. & Morrow, E. H. Operational sex ratio predicts the opportunity and direction of sexual selection across animals. Ecol. Lett. 21, 384–391 (2018).
Google Scholar
Procter, D. S., Moore, A. J. & Miller, C. W. The form of sexual selection arising from male-male competition depends on the presence of females in the social environment. J. Evol. Biol. 25, 803–812 (2012).
Google Scholar
Eldakar, O. T., Dlugos, M. J., Pepper, J. W. & Wilson, D. S. Population structure mediates sexual conflict in Water striders. Science 326, 816–816 (2009).
Google Scholar
Martin, A. M., Festa-Bianchet, M., Coltman, D. W. & Pelletier, F. Demographic drivers of age-dependent sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 29, 1437–1446 (2016).
Google Scholar
Pilakouta, N. & Ålund, M. Sexual selection and environmental change: what do we know and what comes next? Curr. Zool. 67, 293–298 (2021).
Google Scholar
Kahn, A. T., Dolstra, T., Jennions, M. D. & Backwell, P. R. Y. Strategic male courtship effort varies in concert with adaptive shifts in female mating preferences. Behav. Ecol. 24, 906–913 (2013).
Google Scholar
Jordan, L. A. & Brooks, R. C. Recent social history alters male courtship preferences. Evolution 66, 280–287 (2012).
Google Scholar
Wilson, D. R., Nelson, X. J. & Evans, C. S. Seizing the opportunity: Subordinate male fowl respond rapidly to variation in social context. Ethology 115, 996–1004 (2009).
Google Scholar
Gwynne, D. T., Bailey, W. J. & Annells, A. The sex in short supply for matings varies over small Spatial scales in a Katydid (Kawanaphila nartee, Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 42, 157–162 (1998).
Google Scholar
Fedina, T. Y. & Lewis, S. M. Female mate choice across mating stages and between sequential mates in flour beetles. J. Evol. Biol. 20, 2138–2143 (2007).
Google Scholar
Clark, H. L. & Backwell, P. R. Y. Temporal and spatial variation in female mating preferences in a fiddler crab. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 69, 1779–1784 (2015).
Google Scholar
Serbezov, D., Bernatchez, L., Olsen, E. M. & Vøllestad, L. A. Mating patterns and determinants of individual reproductive success in brown trout (Salmo trutta) revealed by parentage analysis of an entire stream living population. Mol. Ecol. 19, 3193–3205 (2010).
Google Scholar
Gerlach, N. M., McGlothlin, J. W., Parker, P. G. & Ketterson, E. D. Reinterpreting Bateman gradients: multiple mating and selection in both sexes of a songbird species. Behav. Ecol. 23, 1078–1088 (2012).
Google Scholar
Dubuc, C., Ruiz-Lambides, A. & Widdig, A. Variance in male lifetime reproductive success and estimation of the degree of polygyny in a primate. Behav. Ecol. 25, 878–889 (2014).
Google Scholar
Breuer, T. et al. Variance in the male reproductive success of western gorillas: acquiring females is just the beginning. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64, 515–528 (2010).
Google Scholar
Germain, R. R., Hallworth, M. T., Kaiser, S. A., Sillett, T. S. & Webster, M. S. Variance in within-pair reproductive success influences the opportunity for selection annually and over the lifetimes of males in a multi-brooded songbird. Evolution 75, 915–930 (2021).
Google Scholar
Lande, R. & Arnold, S. J. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37, 1210–1226 (1983).
Google Scholar
Klug, H., Heuschele, J., Jennions, M. D. & Kokko, H. The mismeasurement of sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 447–462 (2010).
Google Scholar
Jennions, M. D., Kokko, H. & Klug, H. The opportunity to be misled in studies of sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 25, 591–598 (2012).
Google Scholar
Krakauer, A. H., Webster, M. S., Duval, E. H., Jones, A. G. & Shuster, S. M. The opportunity for sexual selection: not mismeasured, just misunderstood. J. Evol. Biol. 24, 2064–2071 (2011).
Google Scholar
Hebets, E. A., Stafstrom, J. A., Rodriguez, R. L. & Wilgers, D. J. Enigmatic ornamentation eases male reliance on courtship performance for mating success. Anim. Behav. 81, 963–972 (2011).
Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, J. L. & Lüpold, S. Sexual selection and the evolution of sperm quality. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 20, 1180–1189 (2014).
Google Scholar
Jones, A. G. On the opportunity for sexual selection, the Bateman gradient and the maximum intensity of sexual selection. Evolution 63, 1673–1684 (2009).
Google Scholar
Henshaw, J. M., Kahn, A. T. & Fritzsche, K. A rigorous comparison of sexual selection indexes via simulations of diverse mating systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E300–E308 (2016).
Google Scholar
Evans, J. P. & Garcia-Gonzalez, F. The total opportunity for sexual selection and the integration of pre- and post-mating episodes of sexual selection in a complex world. J. Evol. Biol. 29, 2338–2361 (2016).
Google Scholar
Downhower, J. F., Blumer, L. S. & Brown, L. Opportunity for selection: an appropriate measure for evaluating variation in the potential for selection? Evolution 41, 1395–1400 (1987).
Google Scholar
Klug, H. & Stone, L. More than just noise: Chance, mating success, and sexual selection. Ecol. Evol. 11, 6326–6340 (2021).
Google Scholar
Anthes, N., Häderer, I. K., Michiels, N. K. & Janicke, T. Measuring and interpreting sexual selection metrics: evaluation and guidelines. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 918–931 (2016).
Google Scholar
Klug, H., Lindström, K. & Kokko, H. Who to include in measures of sexual selection is no trivial matter. Ecol. Lett. 13, 1094–1102 (2010).
Google Scholar
Collet, J. M., Dean, R. F., Worley, K., Richardson, D. S. & Pizzari, T. The measure and significance of Bateman’s principles. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20132973 (2014).
Google Scholar
Collet, J., Richardson, D. S., Worley, K. & Pizzari, T. Sexual selection and the differential effect of polyandry. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 8641–8645 (2012).
Google Scholar
McDonald, G. C., Spurgin, L. G., Fairfield, E. A., Richardson, D. S. & Pizzari, T. Pre- and postcopulatory sexual selection favor aggressive, young males in polyandrous groups of red junglefowl. Evolution 71, 1653–1669 (2017).
Google Scholar
Morimoto, J. et al. Sex peptide receptor-regulated polyandry modulates the balance of pre- and post-copulatory sexual selection in Drosophila. Nat. Commun. 10, 283 (2019).
Google Scholar
Shuster, S. M., Willen, R. M., Keane, B. & Solomon, N. G. Alternative mating tactics in socially monogamous prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 7 (2019).
Google Scholar
Dowling, J. & Webster, M. S. Working with what you’ve got: unattractive males show greater mate-guarding effort in a duetting songbird. Biol. Lett. 13, 20160682 (2017).
Google Scholar
Pizzari, T. & McDonald, G. C. Sexual selection in socially structured, polyandrous populations: Some insights from the fowl. Adv. Study Behav. 51, 77–141 (2019).
Google Scholar
Archer, M. S. & Elgar, M. A. Female preference for multiple partners: sperm competition in the hide beetle, Dermestes maculatus (DeGeer). Anim. Behav. 58, 669–675 (1999).
Google Scholar
Qvarnström, A. & Forsgren, E. Should females prefer dominant males? Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 498–501 (1998).
Google Scholar
Webster, M. S., Tarvin, K. A., Tuttle, E. M. & Pruett-Jones, S. Promiscuity drives sexual selection in a socially monogamous bird. Evolution 61, 2205–2211 (2007).
Google Scholar
Brunton, D. H. Energy expenditure in reproductive effort of male and female Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus). Auk 105, 553–564 (1988).
Google Scholar
Johnson, L. S., Hicks, B. G. & Masters, B. S. Increased cuckoldry as a cost of breeding late for male house wrens (Troglodytes aedon). Behav. Ecol. 13, 670–675 (2002).
Google Scholar
Boinski, S. Mating patterns in squirrel monkeys (Saimiri oerstedi): implications for seasonal sexual dimorphism. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 21, 13–21 (1987).
Google Scholar
McDonald, G. C., Spurgin, L. G., Fairfield, E. A., Richardson, D. S. & Pizzari, T. Differential female sociality is linked with the fine-scale structure of sexual interactions in replicate groups of red junglefowl, Gallus gallus. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20191734 (2019).
Google Scholar
Carleial, R. et al. Temporal dynamics of competitive fertilization in social groups of red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) shed new light on avian sperm competition. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20200081 (2020).
Google Scholar
Lessells, C. M. & Birkhead, T. R. Mechanisms of sperm competition in birds: mathematical models. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 27, 325–337 (1990).
Google Scholar
Taborsky, T., Oliveira, R. F. & Brockmann, H. J. The Evolution of Alternative Reproductive Tactics: Concepts and Questions. in Alternative Reproductive Tactics: An Integrative Approach (Cambridge University Press, 2008).
Ghislandi, P. G. et al. Resource availability, mating opportunity and sexual selection intensity influence the expression of male alternative reproductive tactics. J. Evol. Biol. 31, 1035–1046 (2018).
Google Scholar
Lehtonen, T. K., Wong, B. B. M. & Lindström, K. Fluctuating mate preferences in a marine fish. Biol. Lett. 6, 21–23 (2010).
Google Scholar
Chaine, A. S. & Lyon, B. E. Adaptive plasticity in female mate choice dampens sexual selection on male ornaments in the lark bunting. Science 319, 459–462 (2008).
Google Scholar
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019).
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).
Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Softw. 82, 1–26 (2017).
Google Scholar
Oklander, L. I., Kowalewski, M. & Corach, D. Male reproductive strategies in black and gold howler monkeys (Alouatta caraya). Am. J. Primatol. 76, 43–55 (2014).
Google Scholar
Pröhl, H. & Hödl, W. Parental investment, potential reproductive rates, and mating system in the strawberry dart-poison frog, Dendrobates pumilio. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 46, 215–220 (1999).
Google Scholar
Turnell, B. R. & Shaw, K. L. High opportunity for postcopulatory sexual selection under field conditions. Evolution 69, 2094–2104 (2015).
Google Scholar
Gill, L. F., van Schaik, J., von Bayern, A. M. P. & Gahr, M. L. Genetic monogamy despite frequent extrapair copulations in “strictly monogamous” wild jackdaws. Behav. Ecol. 31, 247–260 (2020).
Google Scholar
Carleial, R., McDonald, G. C. & Pizzari, T. Dynamic phenotypic correlates of social status and mating effort in male and female red junglefowl, Gallus gallus. J. Evol. Biol. 33, 22–40 (2020).
Google Scholar
McDonald, G. C. & Pizzari, T. Structure of sexual networks determines the operation of sexual selection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E53–E61 (2018).
Google Scholar
Janicke, T., Häderer, I. K., Lajeunesse, M. J. & Anthes, N. Darwinian sex roles confirmed across the animal kingdom. Sci. Adv. 2, e1500983 (2016).
Google Scholar
Webster, M. S., Pruett-Jones, S., Westneat, D. F. & Arnold, S. J. Measuring the effects of pairing success, extra-pair copulations and mate quality on the opportunity for sexual selection. Evolution 49, 1147–1157 (1995).
Google Scholar
Etches, R. J. Reproduction in Poultry. (CABI, 1996).
Schielzeth, H. Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients: Interpretation of regression coefficients. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 103–113 (2010).
Google Scholar
Løvlie, H., Cornwallis, C. K. & Pizzari, T. Male mounting alone reduces female promiscuity in the fowl. Curr. Biol. 15, 1222–1227 (2005).
Google Scholar
Berglund, A. Many mates make male pipefish choosy. Behaviour 132, 213–218 (1995).
Google Scholar
Carleial, R., Pizzari, T., Richardson, D. S. & McDonald, G. C. Data for: Disentangling the causes of temporal variation in the opportunity for sexual selection. figshare Dataset (2023) https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21902133.v1.
McLain, D. K., Burnette, L. B. & Deeds, D. A. Within season variation in the intensity of sexual selection on body size in the bug Margus obscurator (Hemiptera Coreidae). Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 5, 75–86 (1993).
Google Scholar
Schlicht, E. & Kempenaers, B. Effects of social and extra-pair mating on sexual selection in Blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus). Evolution 67, 1420–1434 (2013).
Google Scholar
Source: Ecology - nature.com
