TY - JOUR
T1 - Not all sex ratios are equal
T2 - The Fisher condition, parental care and sexual selection
AU - Jennions, Michael D.
AU - Fromhage, Lutz
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.
PY - 2017/9/19
Y1 - 2017/9/19
N2 - The term ‘sex roles’ encapsulates male–female differences in mate searching, competitive traits that increase mating/fertilization opportunities, choosiness about mates and parental care. Theoretical models suggest that biased sex ratios drive the evolution of sex roles. To model sex role evolution, it is essential to note that in most sexually reproducing species (haplodiploid insects are an exception), each offspring has one father and one mother. Consequently, the total number of offspring produced by each sex is identical, so the mean number of offspring produced by individuals of each sex depends on the sex ratio (Fisher condition). Similarly, the total number of heterosexual matings is identical for each sex. On average, neither sex can mate nor breed more often when the sex ratio is even. But equally common in which sex ratio? The Fisher condition only applies to some reproductive measures (e.g. lifetime offspring production or matings) for certain sex ratios (e.g. operational or adult sex ratio; OSR, ASR). Here, we review recent models that clarify whether a biased OSR, ASR or sex ratio at maturation (MSR) have a causal or correlational relationship with the evolution of sex differences in parental care and competitive traits—two key components of sex roles. We suggest that it is more fruitful to understand the combined effect of the MSR and mortality rates while caring and competing than that of the ASR itself. In short, we argue that the ASR does not have a causal role in the evolution of parental care. We point out, however, that the ASR can be a cue for adaptive phenotypic plasticity in how each sex invests in parental care. This article is part of the themed issue ‘Adult sex ratios and reproductive decisions: a critical re-examination of sex differences in human and animal societies’.
AB - The term ‘sex roles’ encapsulates male–female differences in mate searching, competitive traits that increase mating/fertilization opportunities, choosiness about mates and parental care. Theoretical models suggest that biased sex ratios drive the evolution of sex roles. To model sex role evolution, it is essential to note that in most sexually reproducing species (haplodiploid insects are an exception), each offspring has one father and one mother. Consequently, the total number of offspring produced by each sex is identical, so the mean number of offspring produced by individuals of each sex depends on the sex ratio (Fisher condition). Similarly, the total number of heterosexual matings is identical for each sex. On average, neither sex can mate nor breed more often when the sex ratio is even. But equally common in which sex ratio? The Fisher condition only applies to some reproductive measures (e.g. lifetime offspring production or matings) for certain sex ratios (e.g. operational or adult sex ratio; OSR, ASR). Here, we review recent models that clarify whether a biased OSR, ASR or sex ratio at maturation (MSR) have a causal or correlational relationship with the evolution of sex differences in parental care and competitive traits—two key components of sex roles. We suggest that it is more fruitful to understand the combined effect of the MSR and mortality rates while caring and competing than that of the ASR itself. In short, we argue that the ASR does not have a causal role in the evolution of parental care. We point out, however, that the ASR can be a cue for adaptive phenotypic plasticity in how each sex invests in parental care. This article is part of the themed issue ‘Adult sex ratios and reproductive decisions: a critical re-examination of sex differences in human and animal societies’.
KW - Anisogamy
KW - Mate choice
KW - Mating rates
KW - Parental care
KW - Sex allocation
KW - Sex roles
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85026654480&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1098/rstb.2016.0312
DO - 10.1098/rstb.2016.0312
M3 - Review article
SN - 0962-8436
VL - 372
JO - Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
JF - Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
IS - 1729
M1 - 20160312
ER -