The DOI matches its Crossref record; 103 of the 103 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A COMPARATIVE TEST OF ADAPTIVE HYPOTHESES FOR SEXUAL SIZE DIMORPHISM IN LIZARDS
Abstract
It is commonly argued that sexual size dimorphism (SSD) in lizards has evolved in response to two primary, nonexclusive processes: (1) sexual selection for large male size, which confers an advantage in intrasexual mate competition (intrasexual selection hypothesis), and (2) natural selection for large female size, which confers a fecundity advantage (fecundity advantage hypothesis). However, outside of several well-studied lizard genera, the empirical support for these hypotheses has not been examined with appropriate phylogenetic control. We conducted a comparative phylogenetic analysis to test these hypotheses using literature data from 497 lizard populations representing 302 species and 18 families. As predicted by the intrasexual selection hypothesis, male aggression and territoriality are correlated with SSD, but evolutionary shifts in these categorical variables each explain less than 2% of the inferred evolutionary change in SSD. We found stronger correlations between SSD and continuous estimates of intrasexual selection such as male to female home range ratio and female home range size. These results are consistent with the criticism that categorical variables may obscure much of the actual variation in intrasexual selection intensity needed to explain patterns in SSD. In accordance with the fecundity advantage hypothesis, SSD is correlated with clutch size, reproductive frequency, and reproductive mode (but not fecundity slope, reduced major axis estimator of fecundity slope, length of reproductive season, or latitude). However, evolutionary shifts in clutch size explain less than 8% of the associated change in SSD, which also varies significantly in the absence of evolutionary shifts in reproductive frequency and mode. A multiple regression model retained territoriality and clutch size as significant predictors of SSD, but only 16% of the variation in SSD is explained using these variables. Intrasexual selection for large male size and fecundity selection for large female size have undoubtedly helped to shape patterns of SSD across lizards, but the comparative data at present provide only weak support for these hypotheses as general explanations for SSD in this group. Future work would benefit from the consideration of alternatives to these traditional evolutionary hypotheses, and the elucidation of proximate mechanisms influencing growth and SSD within populations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The descent of man and selection in relation to sex
(1907) · The Journal of the Anthropological Society of Tokyo · doi:10.1537/ase1887.22.495 · Cited by 10,892
Phylogenies and the Comparative Method
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284325 · Cited by 9,793
Parental Investment and Sexual Selection
(2017) · Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man · doi:10.4324/9781315129266-7 · Cited by 9,510
Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man: The Darwinian Pivot
(2017) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315129266 · Cited by 7,252
The comparative method in evolutionary biology
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-5104 · Cited by 4,931
The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology
Harvey, P. H., & Pagel, M. D. (1991) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198546412.001.0001 · Cited by 4,337
Procedures for the Analysis of Comparative Data Using Phylogenetically Independent Contrasts
Garland, T., Harvey, P. H., & Ives, A. R. (1992) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/41.1.18 · Cited by 2,151
The descent of man, and Selection in relation to sex, Vol 1.
Darwin, C. (1871) · J. Murray eBooks · doi:10.1037/12293-000 · Cited by 1,912
SEXUAL DIMORPHISM, SEXUAL SELECTION, AND ADAPTATION IN POLYGENIC CHARACTERS
Lande, R. (1980) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1980.tb04817.x · Cited by 1,878
Ecological Causes for the Evolution of Sexual Dimorphism: A Review of the Evidence
Shine, R. (1989) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/416458 · Cited by 1,473
Cited by
Phylogenetic approaches in comparative physiology
Garland, T., Bennett, A. F., & Rezende, E. L. (2005) · Journal of Experimental Biology · doi:10.1242/jeb.01745 · Cited by 692
Sexually Antagonistic Selection, Sexual Dimorphism, and the Resolution of Intralocus Sexual Conflict
Cox, R. M., & Calsbeek, R. (2009) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/595841 · Cited by 448
Self-citationSexual size dimorphism in birds
Székely, T., Lislevand, T., & Figuerola, J. (2007) · Sex, Size and Gender Roles · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199208784.003.0004 · Cited by 160
Keeley, R. J., Bye, C., Trow, J., & McDonald, R. J. (2015) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2014.10.039 · Cited by 70
Metadata
- Authors
- Cox, R. M., Skelly, S. L., & John-Alder, H. B.
- Venue
- Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-07
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1653-1669
- ISSN
- 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-5646
- OpenAlex
- W2152868222
- Cited by
- 398
- References
- 103
- FWCI
- 8.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A COMPARATIVE TEST OF ADAPTIVE HYPOTHESES FOR SEXUAL SIZE DIMORPHISM IN LIZARDS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00371.x
- The paper
- Cox, R. M., Skelly, S. L., & John-Alder, H. B. (2003). A COMPARATIVE TEST OF ADAPTIVE HYPOTHESES FOR SEXUAL SIZE DIMORPHISM IN LIZARDS. Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00371.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.