The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sexual Dimorphism in the Body Size of Mustelids (Carnivora): The Roles of Food Habits and Breeding Systems
Abstract
In mustelids males are always the larger sex. In 24 samples from 15 species there is a significant inverse correlation between the extent of sexual dimorphism (measured as the ratio of male to female weight) and male weight. Two explanations for the selective advantages of dimorphism are discussed. The first hypothesis proposes that it reduces intersexual competition for food by enabling each sex to exploit different prey. Available data on food habits are insufficient to test the theory directly. Other objections, however, lead to the conclusion that avoidance of competition is not the primary advantage of dimorphism. The second hypothesis takes into account the polygynous breeding systems of mustelids and the fact that females alone raise their litters. It proposes that small females are favoured because they need less energy for daily maintenance and are probably more efficient in hunting small prey. Because of this they can channel more energy into reproduction than larger females. Large males are favoured by sexual selection and the ability to exploit a wider range of prey. Data are presented for weasels Mustela nivalis showing that towards the end of lactation an average female requires daily about 20% less energy than a hypothetical male-sized female. The optimum sizes of each sex result from different selective pressures, and probably vary independently. Relationships between reproductive strategy, diet and dimorphism are discussed.
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
Life-History Tactics: A Review of the Ideas
Stearns, S. C. (1976) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/409052 · Cited by 3,557
Cited by
ANDERSSON, M., & NORBERG, R. Å. (1981) · Biological Journal of the Linnean Society · doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1981.tb00752.x · Cited by 367
Resource partitioning among British and Irish mustelids
McDonald, R. A. (2002) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00588.x · Cited by 154
Kidawa, D., & Kowalczyk, R. (2011) · Acta Theriologica · doi:10.1007/s13364-011-0031-3 · Cited by 119
Zalewski, A. (2007) · Acta Theriologica · doi:10.1007/bf03194220 · Cited by 69
Pagh, S., Hansen, M. S., Jensen, B., Pertoldi, C., & Chriél, M. (2018) · Zoology and Ecology · doi:10.1080/21658005.2017.1409997 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Moors, P. J.
- Venue
- Oikos
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1980
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 147
- ISSN
- 0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1992980162
- Cited by
- 271
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.05
- 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: Sexual Dimorphism in the Body Size of Mustelids (Carnivora): The Roles of Food Habits and Breeding Systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/3544175
- The paper
- Moors, P. J. (1980). Sexual Dimorphism in the Body Size of Mustelids (Carnivora): The Roles of Food Habits and Breeding Systems. Oikos. https://doi.org/10.2307/3544175
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.