Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Pattern of sexual size dimorphism supports the inverse of Rensch’s rule in two frog species

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Animal Biology
For more content, see Archives Néerlandaises de Zoologie (Vol 1-17) and Netherlands Journal of Zoology (Vol 18-52).

Rensch’s rule describes that sexual size dimorphism (SSD) increases with body size (hyperallometry) when males are larger, and decreases with body size (hypoallometry) when males are smaller. In this paper, on the basis of mean adult body size resulting from 18 populations of the common frog Rana temporaria and 24 populations of the Tibetan frog Nanorana parkeri, we tested the consistency of allometric relationships between males and females with Rensch’s rule. Our results show that the variation in degree of female-biased SSD increased with increasing mean size at intraspecific levels in two species, which is consistent with the inverse of Rensch’s rule. Furthermore, we tested the hypothesis that the degree of SSD decreased with increasing altitudes. Inconsistent with the predications of our hypothesis, we found no relationships between the degree of SSD and altitude for the two species investigated. These findings suggest that females living in adverse climates in high altitudes cannot adjust their body size as plastically as males.

Affiliations: 1: 3Wanglang National Natural Reserve, Pingwu 622550, P.R. China

10.1163/15707563-00002431
/content/journals/10.1163/15707563-00002431
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/15707563-00002431
Loading

Data & Media loading...

1. Andersson M. ( 1994) Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
2. Angilletta M.J. , Dunham A.E. ( 2003) "The temperature-size rule in ectotherms: simple evolutionary explanations may not be general". Am. Nat., Vol 162, 332- 342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/377187
3. Blanckenhorn W.U. ( 2000) "The evolution of body size: what keeps organisms small?" Q. Rev. Biol., Vol 75, 385- 407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/393620
4. Brandt R. , Navas C.A. ( 2013) "Body size variation across climatic gradients and sexual size dimorphism in Tropidurinae lizards". J. Zool., Vol 290, 192- 198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12024
5. Ceballos C.P. , Adams D.C. , Iverson J.B. , Valenzuela N. ( 2013) "Phylogenetic patterns of sexual size dimorphism in turtles and their implications for Rensch’s rule". Evol. Biol., Vol 40, 194- 208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11692-012-9199-y
6. Ceballos C.P. , Valenzuela N. ( 2011) "The role of sex-specific plasticity in shaping sexual dimorphism in a long-lived vertebrate, the snapping turtle Chelydra serpentine ". Evol. Biol., Vol 38, 163- 181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11692-011-9117-8
7. Colwell R.K. ( 2000) "Rensch’s rule crosses the line: convergent allometry of sexual size dimorphism in hummingbirds and flower mites". Am. Nat., Vol 156, 495- 510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/303406
8. Cox R.M. , Kelly S.L. , John-Adler H.B. ( 2003) "A comparative test of adaptive hypotheses for sexual size dimorphism in lizards". Evolution, Vol 57, 1653- 1669. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00371.x
9. De Lisle S.P. , Rowe L. ( 2013) "Correlated evolution of allometry and sexual dimorphism across higher taxa". Am. Nat., Vol 182, 630- 639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/673282
10. Fairbairn D.J. ( 1997) "Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females". Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst., Vol 28, 659- 687. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.659
11. Fairbairn D. , Blanckenhorn W. , Székely T. ( 2007) Sex, Size and Gender Roles: Evolutionary Studies of Sexual Size Dimorphism. Oxford University Press, Oxford. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199208784.001.0001
12. Ficetola G.F. , Bonardi A. , Colleoni E. , Padoa-Schioppa E. , Scali S. ( 2013) "Evolution of sexual dimorphism in the number of tail vertebrae in Salamanders: comparing multiple hypotheses". Evol. Biol., Vol 40, 220- 227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11692-012-9203-6
13. Frýdlová P. , Frynta D. ( 2010) "A test of Rensch’s rule in varanid lizards". Biol. J. Linn. Soc., Vol 100, 293- 306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2010.01430.x
14. Frynta D. , Baudyšová J. , Hradcová P. , Faltusová K. , Kratochvíl L. ( 2012) "Allometry of sexual size dimorphism in domestic dog". PLoS ONE, Vol 7, e46125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046125
15. Gasc J.P. ( 1997) Atlas of Amphibians and Reptiles in Europe. Soc. Eur. Herpetol. Mus. Nat. His. Nat. (IEGP/SPN), Paris.
16. Herczeg G. , Gonda A. , Merilä J. ( 2010) "Rensch’s rule inverted-female-driven gigantism in nine-spined stickleback Pungitius pungitius ". J. Anim. Ecol., Vol 79, 581- 588. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01665.x
17. Hu S.Q. ( 1987) Amphibia-Reptilia in Tibet. Science Press, Beijing.
18. Kelly C.D. , Folinsbee E.K. , Adams C.D. , Jennions D.M. ( 2013) "Intraspecific sexual size and shape dimorphism in an Australian freshwater fish differs with respect to a biogeographic barrier and latitude". Evol. Biol., Vol 40, 408- 419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11692-013-9224-9
19. Laiolo P. , Illera J.C. , Obeso R.J. ( 2013) "Local climate determines intra- and interspecific variation in sexual size dimorphism in mountain grasshopper communities". J. Evol. Biol., Vol 26, 2171- 2183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12213
20. Liao W.B. ( 2013) "Evolution of sexual size dimorphism in a frog obeys the inverse of Rensch’s rule". Evol. Biol., Vol 40, 293- 299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11692-012-9212-5
21. Liao W.B. , Chen W. ( 2012) "Inverse Rensch-rule in a frog with female-biased sexual size dimorphism". Naturwissenschaften, Vol 99, 427- 431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00114-012-0913-5
22. Liao W.B. , Lu X. ( 2010) "Age structure and body size of the Chuanxi tree frog Hyla annectans chuanxiensisfrom two different elevations in Sichuan (China)". Zool. Anz., Vol 248, 255- 263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2009.10.002
23. Liao W.B. , Lu X. ( 2012) "Adult body size = f(initial size + growth rate × age): explaining the proximate cause of Bergman’s cline in a toad along altitudinal gradients". Evol. Ecol., Vol 26, 579- 590. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10682-011-9501-y
24. Liao W.B. , Zeng Y. , Yang J.D. ( 2013a) "Sexual size dimorphism in anurans: roles of mating system and habitat types". Front. Zool., Vol 10, 65.
25. Liao W.B. , Zeng Y. , Zhou C.Q. , Robert J. ( 2013b) "Sexual size dimorphism in anurans fails to obey Rensch’s rule". Front. Zool., Vol 10, 10.
26. Lovich J.E. , Gibbons J.W. ( 1992) "A review of techniques for quantifying sexual size dimorphism". Grow, Devel Aging: GDA, Vol 56, 269- 281.
27. Matějů J. , Kratochvíl L. ( 2013) "Sexual size dimorphism in ground squirrels (Rodentia: Sciuridae: Marmotini) does not correlate with body size and sociality". Front. Zool., Vol 10, 27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-10-27
28. Miaud C. , Guyétant R. , Elmberg J. ( 1999) "Variations in life-history traits in the common frog ( R. temporaria, Amphibia: Anura): a literature review and new data from the French Alps". J. Zool., Vol 249, 61- 73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1999.tb01060.x
29. Monnet J.M. , Cherry M.I. ( 2002) "Sexual size dimorphism in anurans". Proc. R. Soc. B, Vol 269, 2301- 2307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2170
30. Owens I.P.F. , Hartley I.R. ( 1998) "Sexual dimorphism in birds: why are there so many different forms of dimorphism?" Proc. R. Soc. B, Vol 265, 397- 407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1998.0308
31. Polák J. , Frynta D. ( 2009) "Sexual size dimorphism in domestic goats, sheep, and their wild relatives". Biol. J. Linn. Soc., Vol 98, 872- 883. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2009.01294.x
32. Polák J. , Frynta D. ( 2010) "Patterns of sexual size dimorphism in cattle breeds support Rensch’s rule". Evol. Ecol., Vol 24, 1255- 1266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10682-010-9354-9
33. Remeš V. , Székely T. ( 2010) "Domestic chickens defy Rensch’s rule: sexual size dimorphism in chicken breeds". J. Evol. Biol., Vol 23, 2754- 2759. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02126.x
34. Rensch B. ( 1950) "Die Abhängigkeit der relativen Sexualdifferenz von der Körpergrosse". Bonn Zool. Beitr., Vol 1, 58- 69.
35. Ridley M. , Thompson D.J. ( 1979) "Size and mating in Asellus aquaticus(Crustacea: Isopoda)". Z. Tierpsychol., Vol 51, 380- 397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1979.tb00697.x
36. Serrano-Meneses M.A. , Córdoba-Aguilar A. , Azpilicueta-Amorin M. , Gonzalez-Soriano E. , Székely T. ( 2009) "Sexual selection, sexual size dimorphism and Rensch’s rule in Odonata". J. Evol. Biol., Vol 21, 1259- 1273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01567.x
37. Serrano-Meneses M.A. , Córdoba-Aguilar A. , Méndez V. , Layen S.J. , Székely T. ( 2007) "Sexual size dimorphism in the American rubyspot: male body size predicts male competition and mating success". Anim. Behav., Vol 73, 987- 997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.08.012
38. Serrano-Meneses M.A. , Székely T. ( 2006) "Sexual size dimorphism in seabirds: sexual selection, fecundity selection and differential niche-utilisation". Oikos, Vol 113, 385- 394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2006.14246.x
39. Shine R. ( 1979) "Sexual selection and sexual dimorphism in the Amphibia". Copeia, Vol 1979, 297- 306. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1443418
40. Smith R.J. , Cheverud J.M. ( 2002) "Scaling of sexual dimorphism in body mass: a phylogenetic analysis of Rensch’s rule in Primates". Int. J. Primat., Vol 23, 1095- 1135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1019654100876
41. Sokal R.R. , Rohlf F.J. ( 1995) Biometry. 3rd ed. W.H. Freeman and Company.
42. Starostová Z. , Kubička L. , Kratochvíl L. ( 2010) "Macroevolutionary pattern of sexual size dimorphism in geckos corresponds to intraspecific temperature e-induced variation". J. Evol. Biol., Vol 23, 670- 677. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.01933.x
43. Stephens P.R. , Wiens J.J. ( 2009) "Evolution of sexual size dimorphisms in Emydid turtles: ecological dimorphism, Rensch’s rule, and sympatric divergence". Evolution, Vol 63, 910- 925. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00597.x
44. Székely T. , Freckleton R.P. , Reynolds J.D. ( 2004) "Sexual selection explains Rensch’s rule of size dimorphism in shorebirds". PNAS, Vol 101, 12224- 12227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0404503101
45. Webb T.J. , Freckleton R.P. ( 2007) "Only half right: species with female-biased sexual size dimorphism consistently break Rensch’s rule". PLoS ONE, Vol 2, e897.
46. Wells K.D. ( 2007) The Ecology and Behavior of Amphibians. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226893334.001.0001
47. Wiewandt T.A. ( 1982) "Evolution of nesting patterns in iguanine lizards". In: Burghardt G.M. , Rand A.S. (Eds.) Their Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation, pp.  119- 141. Iguanas of the World Noyes Publications, New Jersey.
48. Young K.A. ( 2005) "Life-history variation and allometry for sexual size dimorphism in Pacific salmon and trout". Proc. R. Soc. B, Vol 272, 167- 172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.2931
49. Zhang L.X. , Lu X. ( 2013) "Sexual size dimorphism in anurans: ontogenetic determination revealed by an across-species comparison". Evol. Biol., Vol 40, 84- 93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11692-012-9187-2
50. Zhang L.X. , Ma X.Y. , Jiang J.P. , Lu X. ( 2012) "Stronger condition dependence in female size explains altitudinal variation in sexual size dimorphism of a Tibetan frog". Biol. J. Linn. Soc., Vol 107, 558- 565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2012.01953.x
http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/15707563-00002431
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/15707563-00002431
2014-01-01
2016-12-05

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Animal Biology — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation