The measure and significance of Bateman's principles.

Julie M Collet, Rebecca F Dean, Kirsty Worley, David S Richardson, Tommaso Pizzari
Author Information
  1. Julie M Collet: Department of Zoology, Edward Grey Institute, University of Oxford, , Oxford OX1 3PS, UK, School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, , Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia, Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, , The Darwin Building, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK, Department of Evolutionary Biology, Uppsala University, , Norbyvägen 18D, Uppsala 752 36, Sweden, Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Conservation, School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, , Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.

Abstract

Bateman's principles explain sex roles and sexual dimorphism through sex-specific variance in mating success, reproductive success and their relationships within sexes (Bateman gradients). Empirical tests of these principles, however, have come under intense scrutiny. Here, we experimentally show that in replicate groups of red junglefowl, Gallus gallus, mating and reproductive successes were more variable in males than in females, resulting in a steeper male Bateman gradient, consistent with Bateman's principles. However, we use novel quantitative techniques to reveal that current methods typically overestimate Bateman's principles because they (i) infer mating success indirectly from offspring parentage, and thus miss matings that fail to result in fertilization, and (ii) measure Bateman gradients through the univariate regression of reproductive over mating success, without considering the substantial influence of other components of male reproductive success, namely female fecundity and paternity share. We also find a significant female Bateman gradient but show that this likely emerges as spurious consequences of male preference for fecund females, emphasizing the need for experimental approaches to establish the causal relationship between reproductive and mating success. While providing qualitative support for Bateman's principles, our study demonstrates how current approaches can generate a misleading view of sex differences and roles.

Keywords

References

  1. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013 Jan 21;368(1613):20120335 [PMID: 23339245]
  2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jul 17;109(29):11740-5 [PMID: 22689966]
  3. Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Jan 7;274(1606):143-50 [PMID: 17134998]
  4. Evolution. 2007 Sep;61(9):2205-11 [PMID: 17725624]
  5. Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Dec 22;269(1509):2533-9 [PMID: 12573067]
  6. Evolution. 2009 Jul;63(7):1673-84 [PMID: 19228185]
  7. Am Nat. 2004 Oct;164(4):E83-9 [PMID: 15459886]
  8. Heredity (Edinb). 1948 Dec;2(Pt. 3):349-68 [PMID: 18103134]
  9. Mol Ecol. 2008 Jun;17(11):2566-80 [PMID: 18452517]
  10. Science. 2007 Dec 21;318(5858):1882-5 [PMID: 18096798]
  11. Science. 2012 Nov 9;338(6108):802-4 [PMID: 23139332]
  12. Integr Comp Biol. 2005 Nov;45(5):895-902 [PMID: 21676840]
  13. Evolution. 2014 May;68(5):1320-31 [PMID: 24410424]
  14. Evolution. 2006 Jul;60(7):1486-93 [PMID: 16929665]
  15. BMC Evol Biol. 2008 Dec 16;8:332 [PMID: 19087292]
  16. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 May 29;109(22):8641-5 [PMID: 22592795]
  17. Mol Ecol. 1999 Jul;8(7):1199-209 [PMID: 10447860]
  18. Evolution. 1983 Nov;37(6):1210-1226 [PMID: 28556011]
  19. Am Nat. 2002 Jun;159(6):645-57 [PMID: 18707387]
  20. Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Oct 7;270(1528):2065-71 [PMID: 14561296]
  21. Nature. 2006 Jun 8;441(7094):742-5 [PMID: 16760976]
  22. Am Nat. 2010 Sep;176(3):249-63 [PMID: 20636132]
  23. Am Nat. 2004 Oct;164(4):444-56 [PMID: 15459877]
  24. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013 Jan 21;368(1613):20120045 [PMID: 23339236]
  25. Am Nat. 2010 Feb;175(2):174-85 [PMID: 20028216]
  26. Trends Ecol Evol. 2013 Jan;28(1):1-2 [PMID: 22964456]
  27. Science. 2013 May 3;340(6132):549 [PMID: 23641094]
  28. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 16;106 Suppl 1:10017-24 [PMID: 19528648]
  29. Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Apr 7;267(1444):677-80 [PMID: 10821612]
  30. Ecol Lett. 2012 Nov;15(11):1340-1351 [PMID: 22925080]
  31. Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Mar 22;269(1491):607-12 [PMID: 11916477]
  32. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 16;106 Suppl 1:10001-8 [PMID: 19528643]
  33. Nature. 2003 Nov 6;426(6962):70-4 [PMID: 14603319]
  34. Evolution. 2007 Nov;61(11):2457-68 [PMID: 17725639]
  35. Evolution. 2013 May;67(5):1420-34 [PMID: 23617918]
  36. Evolution. 2013 Jul;67(7):1926-36 [PMID: 23815650]
  37. Curr Biol. 2005 Jul 12;15(13):1222-7 [PMID: 16005296]
  38. Integr Comp Biol. 2005 Nov;45(5):874-84 [PMID: 21676838]
  39. Science. 2010 Jun 4;328(5983):1269-72 [PMID: 20522773]
  40. Proc Biol Sci. 1995 Nov 22;262(1364):135-9 [PMID: 8524908]
  41. Am Nat. 2013 Mar;181(3):291-300 [PMID: 23448880]
  42. Fly (Austin). 2013 Jan-Mar;7(1):28-38 [PMID: 23360967]
  43. Trends Ecol Evol. 2009 Mar;24(3):127-35 [PMID: 19185386]
  44. Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Mar 22;274(1611):853-60 [PMID: 17251117]
  45. Integr Comp Biol. 2005 Nov;45(5):945-51 [PMID: 21676845]
  46. Evolution. 2008 Jul;62(7):1653-1665 [PMID: 18315573]
  47. Hum Biol. 1958 Feb;30(1):1-13 [PMID: 13513111]
  48. Evolution. 2012 Jan;66(1):66-81 [PMID: 22220865]
  49. Immunogenetics. 2008 May;60(5):233-47 [PMID: 18389232]
  50. Integr Comp Biol. 2005 Nov;45(5):838-47 [PMID: 21676835]
  51. Science. 2013 May 3;340(6132):549 [PMID: 23641095]
  52. Trends Ecol Evol. 2012 May;27(5):260-4 [PMID: 22277154]
  53. Mol Ecol. 1998 May;7(5):639-55 [PMID: 9633105]

Grants

  1. /Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

MeSH Term

Animals
Chickens
Female
Fertility
Male
Mating Preference, Animal
Models, Biological
Reproduction
Sex Characteristics
Sexual Behavior, Animal