Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T13:41:10.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 6 - Comparative analysis of sex ratios

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2009

By
Peter J. Mayhew  and
Ido Pen
Edited by
Ian C. W. Hardy
Peter J. Mayhew
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of York, United Kingdom
Ido Pen
Affiliation:
Zoological Laboratory, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Ian C. W. Hardy
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Get access

Summary

Summary

Comparative studies use the characteristics of different taxa as a source of data, and such studies have made important contributions towards the understanding of sex ratios. Comparative data require special methods for statistical analysis because not all the variance in taxon characteristics is evolutionarily independent. Solving this problem requires explicit phylogenetic and evolutionary assumptions that create challenges at each stage of a comparative study. Here we review the essentials of a comparative approach: asking questions, collecting data, choosing methods, analysing data and drawing conclusions. We include a worked example of a recent sex ratio study on New World nonpollinating fig wasps (West & Herre 1998a), which we analyse using phylogenetically independent contrasts and by simulation methods. Finally we review the relevant software for comparative analysis of sex ratios and how to obtain it.

Introduction

I find that in Great Britain there are 32 indigenous trees[:] of these 19 or more than half … have their sexes separated, – an enormous proportion compared with the remainder of the British flora: nor is this wholly owing to a chance coincidence in some one family having many trees and having a tendency to separated sexes: for the 32 trees belong to nine families and the trees with separate sexes to five families.

Charles Darwin, from Stauffer (ed) (1975).

In recent years an abundance of reviews has dealt with the theoretical problems of conducting a comparative study (Ridley 1983, Brooks & McLennan 1991, Harvey & Pagel 1991, Martins 1996a, Pagel 1999).

Type
Chapter
Information
Sex Ratios
Concepts and Research Methods
 , pp. 132 - 156
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abouheif, E (1999) A method for testing the assumption of phylogenetic independence in comparative data. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 1, 895–909Google Scholar
Arneberg, P, Skorping, A & Read, A F (1997) Is population density a species character? Comparative analyses of the nematode parasites of mammals. Oikos, 80, 289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnqvist, G & Wooster, D (1995) Metaanalysis – synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10, 236–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bininda-Emonds, O R P, Gittleman, J L & Purvis, A (1999) Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: a complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biological Reviews, 74, 143–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Björklund, M (1997) Are ‘comparative methods’ always necessary?Oikos, 80, 607–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks D R & McLennan D A (1991) Phylogeny, ecology and behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Burt, A (1989) Comparative methods using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, 6, 33–53Google Scholar
Cheverud, J M, Dow, M M & Leutenegger, W (1985) The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic constraints in comparative analyses: sexual dimorphism in body weight among primates. Evolution, 39, 1335–1351CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crawley M J (1993) GLIM for Ecologists. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific
Dijkstra, C, Daan, S & Pen, I (1998) Fledgling sex ratios in relation to brood size in size-dimorphic altricial birds. Behavioral Ecology, 9, 287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fellowes, M D E, Compton, S G & Cook, J M (1999) Sex allocation and local mate competition in the Old World non-pollinating fig wasps. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 46, 95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felsenstein, J (1985) Phylogenies and the comparative method. American Naturalist, 125, 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felsenstein, J (1988) Phylogenies and quantitative characters. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 19, 445–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freckleton, R P (2000) Phylogenetic tests of ecological and evolutionary hypotheses: checking for phylogenetic independence. Functional Ecology, 14, 129–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garland, T & Adolph, S C (1994) Why not to do two species comparative tests – limitations on infering adaptations. Physiological Zoology, 67, 797–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garland, T & Ives, A R (2000) Using the past to predict the present: confidence intervals for regression equations in phylogenetic comparative methods. American Naturalist, 155, 346–364CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garland, T, Harvey, P H & Ives, A R (1992) Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Systematic Biology, 41, 18–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garland, T, Dickerman, A W, Janis, C M & Jones, J A (1993) Phylogenetic analysis of covariance by computer simulation. Systematic Biology, 42, 265–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garland, T, Midford, P E & Ives, A R (1999) An introduction to phylogenetically based statistical methods, with a new method for confidence intervals on ancestral states. American Zoologist, 39, 374–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gittleman, J L & Kot, M (1990) Adaptation: statistics and a null model for estimating phylogenetic effects. Systematic Zoology, 39, 227–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gittleman, J L & Luh, H-K (1992) On comparing comparative methods. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 23, 383–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gittleman JL, Anderson CG, Kot M & Luh H-K (1996) Comparative tests of evolutionary lability and rates using molecular phylogenies. In: P H Harvey, A J Leigh Brown, J Maynard Smith & S Nee (eds) New Uses for New Phylogenies, pp 289–307. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Gowaty, P A (1993) Differential dispersal, local resource competition, and sex ratio variation in birds. American Naturalist, 141, 263–280CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grafen, A (1989) The phylogenetic regression. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 326, 119–157CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grafen, A & Ridley, M (1996) Statistical tests for discrete cross-species data. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 193, 255–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, N T & Godfray, H C J (1988) Local mate competition, sex ratio and clutch size in bethylid wasps. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 22, 211–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, W D (1967) Extraordinary sex ratios. Science, 156, 477–488CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hardy, I C W (1994) Sex ratio and mating structure in the parasitoid Hymenoptera. Oikos, 69, 3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, I C W & Mayhew, P J (1998a) Sex ratio, sexual dimorphism and mating structure in bethylid wasps. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 42, 383–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, I C W & Mayhew, P J (1998b) Partial local mating and the sex ratio: indirect comparative evidence. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13, 431–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, I C W & Mayhew, P J (1999) Reply to M. D. Drapeau. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14, 235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, I C W, Dijkstra, L J, Gillis, J E M & Luft, P A (1998) Patterns of sex ratio, virginity and developmental mortality in gregarious parasitoids. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 64, 239–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, P H (1996) Phylogenies for ecologists. Journal of Animal Ecology, 65, 255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey PH & Nee S (1997) The phylogenetic foundations of behavioural ecology. In: J R Krebs & N B Davies (eds) Behavioural Ecology, An Evolutionary Approach, pp 334–349. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific
Harvey P H & Pagel M D (1991) The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Herre, E A (1987) Optimality, plasticity, and selective regime in fig wasp sex ratios. Nature, 329, 627–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herre EA, West SA, Cook JM, Compton SG & Kjellberg F (1997) Fig-associated wasps: pollinators, sex-ratio adjustment and male polymorphism, population structure and its consequences. In: J Choe & B Crespi (eds) Social Competition and Cooperation in Insects and Arachnids. volume 1. The Evolution of Mating Systems, pp 226–239. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Johnson, C N (1988) Dispersal and the sex ratio at birth in primates. Nature, 332, 726–728CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Losos, J B (1994) An approach to the analysis of comparative data when a phylogeny is unavailable or incomplete. Systematic Biology, 43, 117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machado, C A, Herre, E A & Bermingham, E (1996) Molecular phylogenies of fig pollinating and non-pollinating wasps and the implications for the origin and evolution of the fig-fig wasp mutualism. Journal of Biogeography, 23, 531–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddison, W P (1990) A method for testing the correlated evolution of two binary characters: are gains or losses concentrated on certain branches of the tree?Evolution, 44, 539–557CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maddison W P & Maddison D R (1992) MacClade. Analysis of Phylogeny and Character Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer
Martins E P (ed) (1996a) Phylogenies and the Comparative Method in Animal Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Martins, E P (1996b) Conducting phylogenetic comparative studies when the phylogeny is not known. Evolution, 50, 12–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martins, E P & Hansen, T F (1997) Phylogenies and the comparative method: a general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data. American Naturalist, 149, 646–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, P J (1998) The evolution of gregariousness in parasitoid wasps. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 265, 383–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, P J & Blackburn, T M (1999) Does development mode organize life history traits in the parasitoid Hymenoptera?Journal of Animal Ecology, 68, 906–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, P J & Hardy, I C W (1998) Nonsiblicidal behavior and the evolution of clutch size in bethylid wasps. American Naturalist, 151, 409–424CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitani, J C, Gros-Louis, J & Richards, A F (1996) Sexual dimorphism, the operational sex ratio, and the intensity of male competition in polygynous primates. American Naturalist, 147, 966–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
M″ller, A P & Birkhead, T R (1992) A pairwise comparative method as illustrated by copulation frequency in birds. American Naturalist, 139, 644–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagel, M D (1992) A method for the analysis of comparative data. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 136, 361–364Google Scholar
Pagel M (1994a) The adaptationist wager. In: P Eggleton & R I Vane-Wright (eds) Phylogenetics and Ecology, pp 29–51. London: Academic Press
Pagel, M (1994b) Detecting correlated evolution on phylogenies: a general method for the comparative analysis of discrete characters. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 255, 37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagel, M (1999) Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature, 401, 877–884CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poulin, R (1997a) Covariation of sexual size dimorphism and adult sex ratio in parasitic nematodes. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 62, 567–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulin, R (1997b) Population abundance and sex ratio in dioecious helminth parasites. Oecologia, 111, 375–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, T (1997a) Book review: phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior (EP Martins (ed)). Animal Behaviour 54: 235–238Google Scholar
Price, T (1997b) Correlated evolution and independent contrasts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B, 352, 519–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purvis, A (1995) A composite estimate of primate phylogeny. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B, 348, 405–421CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purvis, A & Harvey, P H (1995) Mammal life-history evolution: a comparative test of Charnov's model. Journal of Zoology, 237, 259–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purvis, A & Rambaut, A (1995) Comparative analysis by independent contrasts (CAIC); an Apple Macintosh application for analyzing comparative data. Computer Applications in the Biosciences, 11, 247–251Google Scholar
Purvis, A, Gittleman, J L & Luh, H-K (1994) Truth or consequences: effects of phylogenetic accuracy on two comparative methods. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 167, 293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, A F, Anwar, M, Shutler, D & Nee, S (1995) Sex allocation and population structure in malaria and related parasitic protozoa. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 260, 359–363CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richman, A D & Price, T (1992) Evolution of ecological differences in the old world leaf warblers. Nature, 355, 817–821CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ricklefs, R E (1998) Evolutionary theories of aging: confirmation of a fundamental prediction, with implications for the genetic basis and evolution of lifespan. American Naturalist, 152, 24–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricklefs, R E & Starck, J M (1996) Applications of phylogenetically independent contrasts: a mixed progress report. Oikos, 77, 167–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridley M (1983) The Explanation of Organic Diversity: the Comparative Method and Adaptations for Mating. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Ridley, M (1989) Why not to use species in comparative tests. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 136, 361–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridley M & Grafen A (1996) How to study discrete comparative methods. In: E P Martins (ed) Phylogenies and the Comparative Method in Animal Behavior, pp 70–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Sanderson, M J, Purvis, A & Henze, C (1998) Phylogenetic supertrees: assembling the trees of life. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13, 105–109CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seehausen, O, Mayhew, P J & , Alphen J J M (1999) Evolution of colour patterns in East African cichlid fish. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 12, 514–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shutler, D, Bennett, G F & Mullie, A (1995) Sex proportions of Haemoproteus blood parasites and local mate competition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA, 92, 6748–6752CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sillén-Tullberg, B (1993) The effect of biased inclusion of taxa on the correlation between discrete characters in phylogenetic trees. Evolution, 47, 1182–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slagsvold, T, R″skaft, E & Engen, S (1986) Sex ratio, differential cost of rearing young, and differential mortality between the sexes during the period of parental care: Fisher's theory applied to birds. Ornis Scandinavica, 17, 117–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stauffer R C (ed) (1975) Charles Darwin's Natural Selection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Waage, J K (1982) Sib-mating and sex ratio strategies in scelionid wasps. Ecological Entomology, 7, 103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherhead, P J & Montgomerie, R (1995) Local resource competition and sex ratio variation in birds. Journal of Avian Biology, 26, 168–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, S A & Herre, E A (1998a) Partial local mate competition and the sex ratio: a study on non-pollinating fig wasps. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 11, 531–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, S A & Herre, E A (1998b) Stabilizing selection and variance in fig wasp sex ratios. Evolution, 52, 475–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, S A, Herre, E A, Compton, S G, Godfray, H C J & Cook, J M (1997) A comparative study of virginity in fig wasps. Animal Behaviour, 54, 437–450CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westoby, M, Leishman, M R & Lord, J M (1995) On misinterpreting the ‘phylogenetic correction’. Journal of Ecology, 83, 531–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson E O (1994) Naturalist. Washington: Island Press

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×