A demographic model for sex ratio evolution and the effects of sex-biased offspring costs
A demographic model for sex ratio evolution and the effects of sex-biased offspring costs
Date
2016-02-09
Authors
Shyu, Esther
Caswell, Hal
Caswell, Hal
Linked Authors
Alternative Title
Citable URI
As Published
Date Created
Location
DOI
10.1002/ece3.1902
Related Materials
Replaces
Replaced By
Keywords
Adaptive dynamics
Evolutionarily singular strategies
Matrix population models
Offspring costs
Reproductive value
Sex ratio evolution
Two-sex models
Evolutionarily singular strategies
Matrix population models
Offspring costs
Reproductive value
Sex ratio evolution
Two-sex models
Abstract
The evolution of the primary sex ratio, the proportion of male births in an individual's offspring production strategy, is a frequency-dependent process that selects against the more common sex. Because reproduction is shaped by the entire life cycle, sex ratio theory would benefit from explicitly two-sex models that include some form of life cycle structure. We present a demographic approach to sex ratio evolution that combines adaptive dynamics with nonlinear matrix population models. We also determine the evolutionary and convergence stability of singular strategies using matrix calculus. These methods allow the incorporation of any population structure, including multiple sexes and stages, into evolutionary projections. Using this framework, we compare how four different interpretations of sex-biased offspring costs affect sex ratio evolution. We find that demographic differences affect evolutionary outcomes and that, contrary to prior belief, sex-biased mortality after parental investment can bias the primary sex ratio (but not the corresponding reproductive value ratio). These results differ qualitatively from the widely held conclusions of previous models that neglect demographic structure.
Description
© The Author(s), 2016. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Ecology and Evolution 6 (2016): 1470–1492, doi:10.1002/ece3.1902.
Embargo Date
Citation
Ecology and Evolution 6 (2016): 1470–1492