4.5 Article

Tardy females, impatient males: protandry and divergent selection on arrival date in the two sexes of the barn swallow

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY AND SOCIOBIOLOGY
卷 61, 期 8, 页码 1311-1319

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-007-0362-x

关键词

antagonistic selection; Hirundo rustica; migration; protandry; viability selection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Protandry reflects the earlier arrival of males than females to the site of reproduction. Such protandry is hypothesised to arise from sex differences in costs and benefits of early arrival. I investigated temporal patterns of arrival date of male and female barn swallows Hirundo rustica and temporal patterns of selection to test the hypothesis that sex differences in selection account for sex differences in arrival date. Mean arrival date of male barn swallows but not of females advanced during the last 33 years, giving rise to an increasing sex difference in arrival date. Early arrival was favoured by increasingly better survival in males, while females showed an opposite pattern that did not reach significance, although the effect differed between sexes. Early arrival increased fecundity in both sexes equally.The sex difference in viability selection in relation to arrival date changed from positive to negative as the degree of protandry increased in recent years, although there was no similar significant relationship for fecundity selection. Furthermore, sex differences in viability selection in a given year affected the degree of protandry in the following year through differential survival of certain phenotypes over others. Finally, temporal changes in sex difference in viability selection and protandry were related to an increase in the interval between first and second clutches, as the duration of the breeding season increased because of climatic amelioration. These findings suggest that arrival date is under divergent selection in the two sexes, providing a mechanism for the evolution of protandry.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据