Behavioral Causes and Consequences of Sexual Size Dimorphism

By W. Blanckenhorn. 2005

573 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Genetics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/168993c77a11f2b786e44608f215478975144abe

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Genetics

Citations in the corpus

Body size variation in insects: a macroecological perspective (2010, background): “…individuals could either be advantaged because they have relatively high energy use efficiency owing to the negative scaling of mass-specific metabolic rate (see also Blanckenhorn, Fanti & Reim, 2007b), or disadvantaged because they have higher absolute energy requirements (Blanckenhorn, 2005).”
Larval instar as a key element of insect growth schedules (2006, background): “…only the net selection, an outcome of fecundity-, sexual- and viability selection, acting on both sexes and viewed within constraint-based framework may lead to different body sizes of sexes 12 (Shine 1989, Fairbairn 1997, Karubian & Swaddle 2001, Badyaev 2002, Blanckenhorn 2005, Isaac 2005).”
Sexual dimorphism of heads and abdomens: Different approaches to 'being large' in female and male lizards (2013, background): “Although it is likely that the abdomen is the main body part under direct selection pressure because it limits the size and number of offspring (according to the fecundity advantage hypothesis; Blanckenhorn, 2005), this assumption is seldom examined directly.*Corresponding author.”
Achieving high sexual size dimorphism in insects: females add instars (2007, background): “Sexual size dimorphism (SSD), defined as the inequality of body sizes of the two sexes, is a widespread phenomenon among different groups of animals ( Shine, 1989; Fairbairn, 1997; Badyaev, 2002; Blanckenhorn, 2005 ).”
Sexual size dimorphism in the American rubyspot: male body size predicts male competition and mating success (2007, methodology): “To quantify lifetime selection on male and female body size, studies should use quantitative genetic protocols using selection differentials (Preziosi & Fairbairn 2000; Blanckenhorn 2005 ).”
Body size evolution in insects with different colouration strategies: the role of predation risk (2009, unknown): “This could lead to an increase in mortality as larvae grow and result in far stronger selection against large body sizes than if predation risk were constant with 8 respect to size (Leimar 1996, Blanckenhorn 2000, 2005).”
Sexual Size Dimorphism in Spiders: Patterns and Processes (2006, background): “In fact, its evolutionary signiﬁcance is far from resolved and remains controversial (e.g. Vollrath and Parker 1992; Coddington et al. 1997; Prenter et al. 1998, 1999; Moya-Laran˜o et al. 2002a, Blanckenhorn 2005; Foellmer and Fairbairn 2005a, 2005b).”
Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios (2008, background): “There is also evidence in many taxa that investment in somatic growth yields greater returns for females than for males, e.g. when fecundity increases with size (Blanckenhorn, 2005).”