Andersson, M. B. Sexual Selection (Princeton University Press, 1994).
Google Scholar
Royle, N. J., Smiseth, P. T. & Kölliker, M. The Evolution of Parental Care (Oxford University Press, 2012).
Google Scholar
Herridge, E. J., Murray, R. L., Gwynne, D. T. & Bussière, L. F. Mating and parental sex roles, diversity in. Encycl. Evol. Biol. 2, 453–458 (2016).
Google Scholar
Kokko, H. & Jennions, M. D. Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. J. Evol. Biol. 21, 919–948 (2008).
Google Scholar
Schärer, L., Rowe, L. & Arnqvist, G. Anisogamy, chance and the evolution of sex roles. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 260–264 (2012).
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
Jennions, M. D. & Fromhage, L. Not all sex ratios are equal: The Fisher condition, parental care and sexual selection. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci 372, 20160312 (2017).
Google Scholar
Darwin, C. The Descent Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. John Murray, vol. ah-king (1871).
Ah-King, M. & Ahnesjö, I. The ‘sex role’ concept: An overview and evaluation. Evol. Biol. 40, 461–470 (2013).
Google Scholar
Pizzari, T. & Bonduriansky, R. Sexual behaviour: Conflict, cooperation and co-evolution. In Social Behaviour: Genes, Ecology and Evolution (eds Szekely, T. et al.) (Cambridge University Press, 2010).
Trumbo, S. T. Patterns of parental care in invertebrates. Evol. Parent. Care 12, 62–81 (2012).
Balshine, S. Patterns of parental care in vertebrates. In The Evolution of Parental Care (eds Royle, N. et al.) 62–81 (Oxford University Press, 2012).
Google Scholar
Székely, T., Remeš, V., Freckleton, R. P. & Liker, A. Why care? Inferring the evolution of complex social behaviour. J. Evol. Biol. 26, 1381–1391 (2013).
Google Scholar
Bateman, A. J. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2, 349–368 (1948).
Google Scholar
Snyder, B. F. & Gowaty, P. A. A reappraisal of Bateman’s classic study of intrasexual selection. Evolution 61, 2457–2468 (2007).
Google Scholar
Gowaty, P. A., Kim, Y.-K. & Anderson, W. W. No evidence of sexual selection in a repetition of Bateman’s classic study of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 11740–11745 (2012).
Google Scholar
Wade, M. J. Don’t Throw Bateman Out with the Bathwater!. Integr. Comp. Biol. 45, 945–951 (2005).
Google Scholar
Dewsbury, D. A. The Darwin–Bateman paradigm in historical context. Integr. Comp. Biol. 45, 831–837 (2005).
Google Scholar
Parker, G. A. The sexual cascade and the rise of pre-ejaculatory (Darwinian) sexual selection, sex roles, and sexual conflict. Cold Spring Harb. Lab. Press 6, a017509 (2014).
Google Scholar
Jones, A. G., Arguello, J. R. & Arnold, S. J. Validation of Bateman’s principles: A genetic study of sexual selection and mating patterns in the rough-skinned newt. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 269, 2533–2539 (2002).
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 Biol. Sci. 281, 20132973–20132973 (2014).
Google Scholar
Hoquet, T. Bateman (1948): Rise and fall of a paradigm?. Anim. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.12.008 (2019).
Google Scholar
Janicke, T., Häderer, I. K., Lajeunesse, M. J. & Anthes, N. Darwinian sex roles confirmed across the animal kingdom. Sci. Adv. 2, e1500983–e1500983 (2016).
Google Scholar
Tang-Martinez, Z. & Ryder, B. T. The problem with paradigms: Bateman’s worldview as a case study. Integr. Comp. Biol. 54, 821–830 (2005).
Google Scholar
Levitan, D. Does Bateman’s principle apply to broadcast-spawning organisms ? Egg traits Iifluence in situ fertilization rates among congeneric sea urchins. Evolution 52, 1043–1056 (1998).
Google Scholar
Drea, C. M. Bateman revisited: The reproductive tactics of female primates. Integr. Comp. Biol. 45, 915–923 (2005).
Google Scholar
Kokko, H. Should advertising parental care be honest?. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 265, 1871–1878 (1998).
Google Scholar
Remeš, V. & Matysioková, B. More ornamented females produce higher-quality offspring in a socially monogamous bird: An experimental study in the great tit (Parus major). Front. Zool. 10, 1–10 (2013).
Google Scholar
Hanschen, E. R., Herron, M. D., Wiens, J. J., Nozaki, H. & Michod, R. E. Multicellularity drives the evolution of sexual traits. Am. Nat. 192, E93–E105 (2018).
Google Scholar
Queller, D. C. Why do females care more than males?. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 264, 1555–1557 (1997).
Google Scholar
Alcock, J. Sexual selection and the mating behavior of solitary bees. in (eds. Brockmann, H. J. et al.) vol. 45 1–48 (Academic Press, 2013).
Bjork, A. & Pitnick, S. Intensity of sexual selection along the anisogamy–isogamy continuum. Nature 441, 742–745 (2006).
Google Scholar
Kodric-Brown, A. & Brown, J. H. Anisogamy, sexual selection, and the evolution and maintenance of sex. Evol. Ecol. 1, 95–105 (1987).
Google Scholar
Schulte-Hostedde, A. I., Millar, J. S. & Gibbs, H. L. Sexual selection and mating patterns in a mammal with female-biased sexual size dimorphism. Behav. Ecol. 15, 351–356 (2004).
Google Scholar
Liker, A., Freckleton, R. P., Remeš, V. & Székely, T. Sex differences in parental care: Gametic investment, sexual selection, and social environment. Evolution 69, 2862–2875 (2015).
Google Scholar
Bjork, A. & Pitnick, S. Intensity of sexual selection along the anisogamy-isogamy continuum. Nature 441, 742–745 (2006).
Google Scholar
Thomas, G. H. & Székely, T. Evolutionary pathways in shorebird breeding systems: Sexual conflict, parental care, and chick development. Evolution 59, 2222 (2006).
Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Voyer, A., Fitzpatrick, J. L. & Kolm, N. Sexual selection determines parental care patterns in cichlid fishes. Evolution 62, 2015–2026 (2008).
Google Scholar
Garamszegi, L. Z. & Møller, A. P. Untested assumptions about within-species sample size and missing data in interspecific studies. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 66, 1363–1373 (2012).
Google Scholar
Nakagawa, S. & Freckleton, R. P. Model averaging, missing data and multiple imputation: A case study for behavioural ecology. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 103–116 (2011).
Google Scholar
Nakagawa, S. & Freckleton, R. P. Missing inaction: The dangers of ignoring missing data. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 592–596 (2008).
Google Scholar
Wiens, J. J. & Morrill, M. C. Missing data in phylogenetic analysis: Reconciling results from simulations and empirical data. Syst. Biol. 60, 719–731 (2011).
Google Scholar
Apakupakul, K. & Rubenstein, D. R. Bateman’s principle is reversed in a cooperatively breeding bird. Biol. Lett. 11, 20150034 (2015).
Google Scholar
Nakagawa, S. et al. Meta-analysis of variation: Ecological and evolutionary applications and beyond. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 143–152 (2015).
Google Scholar
Lajeunesse, M. Recovering missing data or partial data from studies: A survey of conversions and imputation for meta-analysis. Handb. Meta-Anal. Ecol. Evol. 195–206 (2013).
Smith, R. J. Statistics of sexual size dimorphism. J. Hum. Evol. 36, 423–458 (1999).
Google Scholar
Dunn, P. O., Whittingham, L. A. & Pitcher, T. E. Mating systems, sperm competition, and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in birds. Evolution 55, 161–175 (2001).
Google Scholar
Pérez-Barbería, F. J., Gordon, I. J. & Pagel, M. The origins of sexual dimorphism in body size in ungulates. Evolution 56, 1276–1285 (2002).
Google Scholar
Weckerly, F. W. Sexual-size dimorphism: Influence of mass and mating systems in the most dimorphic mammals. J. Mammal. 79, 33–52 (1998).
Google Scholar
Székely, T., Reynolds, J. D. & Figuerola, J. Sexual size dimorphism in shorebirds, gulls, and alcids: The influence of sexual and natural selection. Evolution 54, 1404–1413 (2000).
Google Scholar
Fairbairn, D. J., Blanckenhorn, W. U. & Székely, T. Sex, Size and Gender Roles: Evolutionary Studies of Sexual Size Dimorphism (Oxford University Press, 2007).
Google Scholar
Janicke, T. & Fromonteil, S. Sexual Selection and Sexual Size Dimorphism in Animals. (2021) https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.10.443408.
De Lisle, S. P. Understanding the evolution of ecological sex differences: Integrating character displacement and the Darwin–Bateman paradigm. Evol. Lett. 3, 434–447 (2019).
Google Scholar
Harvey, P. H. & Clutton-Brock, T. H. Life history variation in primates. Evolution 39, 559–581 (1985).
Google Scholar
Hedges, S. B., Dudley, J. & Kumar, S. TimeTree: A public knowledge-base of divergence times among organisms. Bioinformatics 22, 2971–2972 (2006).
Google Scholar
Martins, E. P. & Hansen, T. F. Phylogenies and the comparative method: A general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data. Am. Nat. 149, 646–667 (1997).
Google Scholar
Pagel, M. Inferring evolutionary processes from molecular phylogenies. Zool. Scr. 98, 313–333 (1997).
Freckleton, R. P., Harvey, P. H. & Pagel, M. Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: A test and review of evidence. Am. Nat. 160, 712–726 (2002).
Google Scholar
Cooper, N., Thomas, G. H., Venditti, C., Meade, A. & Freckleton, R. P. A cautionary note on the use of Ornstein Uhlenbeck models in macroevolutionary studies. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 118, 64–77 (2016).
Google Scholar
Orme, D. The caper package: Comparative analysis of phylogenetics and evolution in R. R Package Version 05(2), 1–36 (2013).
Penone, C. et al. Imputation of missing data in life-history trait datasets: Which approach performs the best?. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 1–10 (2014).
Google Scholar
Goolsby, E. W., Bruggeman, J. & Ané, C. Rphylopars: Fast multivariate phylogenetic comparative methods for missing data and within-species variation. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 22–27 (2017).
Google Scholar
Goolsby, A. E. W., Bruggeman, J., Ane, C. & Goolsby, M. E. W. Package ‘ Rphylopars ’. (2016).
Parker, G. A. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects (eds Blum, M. S. & Blum, N. A.) (Academic Press, 1979).
Trivers, R. L. Social Evolution (Benjamin-Cummings Pub Co, 1985).
AlRashidi, M., Kosztolányi, A., Shobrak, M., Küpper, C. & Székely, T. Parental cooperation in an extreme hot environment: Natural behaviour and experimental evidence. Anim. Behav. 82, 235–243 (2011).
Google Scholar
Gwynne, D. T. & Simmons, L. W. Experimental reversal of courtship roles in an insect. Nature 346, 172–174 (1990).
Google Scholar
Bonnet, X. et al. Sexual dimorphism in steppe tortoises (Testudo horsfieldii): Influence of the environment and sexual selection on body shape and mobility. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 72, 357–372 (2001).
Google Scholar
Griskevicius, V. et al. The financial consequences of too many men: Sex ratio effects on saving, borrowing, and spending. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102, 69–80 (2012).
Google Scholar
Jirotkul, M. Operational sex ratio influences female preference and male-male competition in guppies. Anim. Behav. 58, 287–294 (1999).
Google Scholar
Liker, A., Freckleton, R. P. & Székely, T. Divorce and infidelity are associated with skewed adult sex ratios in birds. Curr. Biol. 24, 880–884 (2014).
Google Scholar
Schacht, R., Kramer, K. L., Székely, T. & Kappeler, P. M. Adult sex ratios and reproductive strategies: A critical re-examination of sex differences in human and animal societies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 372, 20160309 (2017).
Google Scholar
Székely, Á. & Székely, T. Human behaviour: Sex ratio and the city. Curr. Biol. 22, 684–685 (2012).
Google Scholar
Székely, T., Liker, A., Freckleton, R. P., Fichtel, C. & Kappeler, P. M. Sex-biased survival predicts adult sex ratio variation in wild birds. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 281, 20140342–20140342 (2014).
Google Scholar
Grant, P. R. & Grant, B. R. Adult sex ratio influences mate choice in Darwin’s finches. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 116, 12373–12382 (2019).
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
Janicke, T. & Morrow, E. H. Operational sex ratio predicts the opportunity and direction of sexual selection across animals. Ecol. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12907 (2018).
Google Scholar
Wolf, K. N. et al. Age-dependent changes in sperm production, semen quality, and testicular volume in the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes). Biol. Reprod. 63, 179–187 (2000).
Google Scholar
Gasparini, C., Marino, I. A. M., Boschetto, C. & Pilastro, A. Effect of male age on sperm traits and sperm competition success in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). J. Evol. Biol. 23, 124–135 (2009).
Google Scholar
Chargé, R., Jalme, M. S., Lacroix, F., Cadet, A. & Sorci, G. Male health status, signalled by courtship display, reveals ejaculate quality and hatching success in a lekking species. J. Anim. Ecol. 79, 843–850 (2010).
Google Scholar
Ramirez, M. E. V., Le Pennec, M., Dorange, G., Devauchelle, N. & Nonnotte, G. Assessment of female gamete quality in the pacific oyster crassostrea gigas. Invertebr. Reprod. Dev. 36, 73–78 (1999).
Google Scholar
Berger, T. & Horner, C. M. In vivo exposure of female rats to toxicants may affect oocyte quality. Reprod. Toxicol. 17, 273–281 (2003).
Google Scholar
Dufour, J. J., Fahmy, M. H. & Minvielle, F. Seasonal changes in breeding activity, testicular size, testosterone concentration and seminal characteristics in rams with long or short breeding season. J. Anim. Sci. 58, 416–422 (1984).
Google Scholar
Gorman, M. R. & Zucker, I. Seasonal adaptations of siberian hamsters: II: Pattern of change in day length controls annual testicular and body weight rhythms. Biol. Reprod. 53, 116–125 (1995).
Google Scholar
Parker, G. A. & Begon, M. Optimal egg size and clutch size: Effects of environment and maternal Phenotype. Am. Nat. 128, 573–592 (1986).
Google Scholar
Boyce, M. S. & Perrins, C. M. Optimizing great tit clutch size in a fluctuating environment. Ecology 68, 142–153 (1987).
Google Scholar
Tallamy, D. W. Sexual selection and the evolution of exclusive paternal care in arthropods. Anim. Behav. 60, 559–567 (2000).
Google Scholar
Olson, V. A., Webb, T. J., Freckleton, R. P. & Székely, T. Are parental care trade-offs in shorebirds driven by parental investment or sexual selection?. J. Evol. Biol. 22, 672–682 (2009).
Google Scholar
Reynolds, J. D. & Székely, T. The evolution of parental care in shorebirds: Life histories, ecology, and sexual selection. Behav. Ecol. 8, 126–134 (1995).
Google Scholar
Balshine-Earn, S. & Earn, D. J. D. On the evolutionary pathway of parental care in mouth-brooding cichlid fish. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 265, 2217–2222 (1998).
Google Scholar
Ah-King, M., Kvarnemo, C. & Tullberg, B. S. The influence of territoriality and mating system on the evolution of male care: A phylogenetic study on fish. J. Evol. Biol. 18, 371–382 (2005).
Google Scholar
Székely, T., Webb, J. N. & Cutchill, I. C. Mating patterns, sexual selection and parental care: An integrative approach. Vertebrate Mat. Syst. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812793584_0008 (2000).
Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. Parental investment and sexual selection. (1972).
Keenleyside, M. H. A. Mate desertion in relation to adult sex ratio in the biparental cichlid fish Herotilapia multispinosa. Anim. Behav. 31, 683–688 (1983).
Google Scholar
Alonzo, S. H. Social and coevolutionary feedbacks between mating and parental investment. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 99–108 (2010).
Google Scholar
Houston, A. I., Székely, T. & McNamara, J. M. Conflict between parents over care. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 33–38 (2005).
Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H. The Evolution of Parental Care (Princeton University Press, 1991).
Google Scholar
Liker, A. & Szekely, T. Mortality costs of sexual selection and parental care in natural populations of birds. Evolution 59, 890–897 (2005).
Google Scholar
Emlen, S. T. Lek organization and mating strategies in the bullfrog. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1, 283–313 (1976).
Google Scholar
Weir, L. K., Grant, J. W. A. & Hutchings, J. A. The influence of operational sex ratio on the intensity of competition for mates. Am. Nat. 177, 167–176 (2011).
Google Scholar
Orians, G. H. On the evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals. Am. Nat. 103, 589–603 (1969).
Google Scholar
Carmona-Isunza, M. C. et al. Adult sex ratio and operational sex ratio exhibit different temporal dynamics in the wild. Behav. Ecol. 28, 523–532 (2017).
Wikelski, M., Trillmich, F. & Jun, N. Body size and sexual size dimorphism in marine iguanas fluctuate as a result of opposing natural and sexual selection: An island comparison. Evolution 51, 922–936 (1997).
Google Scholar
Székely, T., Freckleton, R. P. & Reynolds, J. D. Sexual selection explains Rensch’s rule of size dimorphism in shorebirds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 101, 12224–12227 (2004).
Google Scholar
Kelly, C. D., Bussière, L. F. & Gwynne, D. T. Sexual selection for male mobility in a giant insect with female-biased size dimorphism. Am. Nat. 172, 417–423 (2008).
Google Scholar
Kotiaho, J., Alatalo, R. V., Mappes, J. & Parri, S. Sexual selection in a wolf spider: Male drumming activity, body size, and viability. Evolution 50, 1977 (1996).
Google Scholar
Cooke, R. S. C., Eigenbrod, F. & Bates, A. E. Projected losses of global mammal and bird ecological strategies. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–8 (2019).
Google Scholar
Cooke, R. S. C., Bates, A. E. & Eigenbrod, F. Global trade-offs of functional redundancy and functional dispersion for birds and mammals. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 28, 484–495 (2019).
Google Scholar
Bakewell, A. T., Davis, K. E., Freckleton, R. P., Isaac, N. J. B. & Mayhew, P. J. Comparing life histories across taxonomic groups in multiple dimensions: How mammal-like are insects?. Am. Nat. 195, 70–81 (2020).
Google Scholar
del Villalobos-Segura, M. C., García-Prieto, L. & Rico-Chávez, O. Effects of latitude, host body size, and host trophic guild on patterns of diversity of helminths associated with humans, wild and domestic mammals of Mexico. Int. J. Parasitol. Parasites Wildl. 13, 221–230 (2020).
Google Scholar
Pandit, P. S. et al. Predicting wildlife reservoirs and global vulnerability to zoonotic Flaviviruses. Nat. Commun. 9, 1–10 (2018).
Google Scholar
Rapacciuolo, G. et al. Species diversity as a surrogate for conservation of phylogenetic and functional diversity in terrestrial vertebrates across the Americas. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 53–61 (2019).
Google Scholar
Capdevila, P. et al. Longevity, body dimension and reproductive mode drive differences in aquatic versus terrestrial life-history strategies. Funct. Ecol. 34, 1613–1625 (2020).
Google Scholar
Ellington, E. H. et al. Using multiple imputation to estimate missing data in meta-regression. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 153–163 (2015).
Google Scholar
Pollock, L. J. et al. Protecting biodiversity (in all its complexity): New models and methods. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35, 1119–1128 (2020).
Google Scholar
Johnson, T. F., Isaac, N. J. B., Paviolo, A. & González-Suárez, M. Handling missing values in trait data. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 30, 51–62 (2021).
Google Scholar
Onkelinx, T., Devos, K. & Quataert, P. Working with population totals in the presence of missing data comparing imputation methods in terms of bias and precision. J. Ornithol. 158, 603–615 (2017).
Google Scholar
Source: Ecology - nature.com
