Sexual dimorphism in primate aerobic capacity: a phylogenetic test.
Male intrasexual competition should favour increased male physical prowess. This should in turn result in greater aerobic capacity in males than in females (i.e. sexual dimorphism) and a correlation between sexual dimorphism in aerobic capacity and the strength of sexual selection among species. However, physiological scaling laws predict that aerobic capacity should be lower per unit body mass in larger than in smaller animals, potentially reducing or reversing the sex difference and its association with measures of sexual selection. We used measures of haematocrit and red blood cell (RBC) counts from 45 species of primates to test four predictions related to sexual selection and body mass: (i) on average, males should have higher aerobic capacity than females, (ii) aerobic capacity should be higher in adult than juvenile males, (iii) aerobic capacity should increase with increasing sexual selection, but also that (iv) measures of aerobic capacity should co-vary negatively with body mass. For the first two predictions, we used a phylogenetic paired t-test developed for this study. We found support for predictions (i) and (ii). For prediction (iii), however, we found a negative correlation between the degree of sexual selection and aerobic capacity, which was opposite to our prediction. Prediction (iv) was generally supported. We also investigated whether substrate use, basal metabolic rate and agility influenced physiological measures of oxygen transport, but we found only weak evidence for a correlation between RBC count and agility.
Lindenfors
Patrik
P
Department of Zoology & Centre for the Study of Cultural Evolution, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. Patrik.Lindenfors@zoologi.su.se
Revell
L J
LJ
Nunn
C L
CL
D000818:Animals; D005260:Female; D008297:Male; D010802:Phylogeny; D010805:Physical Conditioning, Animal; D011323:Primates / Q000145:classification / Q000502:physiology*; D012727:Sex Characteristics; D013045:Species Specificity
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009 Jan 12;364(1513):61-9
18926977
J Exp Zool. 1975 Oct;194(1):287-307
811757
Am Nat. 2002 Dec;160(6):712-26
18707460
Nature. 2007 Mar 29;446(7135):507-12
17392779
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2006 May;130(1):50-9
16345072
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Jun 26;104(26):10808-12
17576932
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1989 Dec 21;326(1233):119-57
2575770
Science. 1982 Oct 22;218(4570):384-7
7123238
BMC Evol Biol. 2009 Jan 09;9:7
19134175
Bioinformatics. 2004 Jan 22;20(2):289-90
14734327
Am Nat. 2000 Mar;155(3):346-364
10718731
Br J Haematol. 1991 Mar;77(3):392-7
2012765
Evolution. 2002 Jan;56(1):177-90
11913662
Science. 1997 Apr 4;276(5309):122-6
9082983
Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Feb 22;270(1513):347-56
12639313
J Appl Physiol. 1967 Jul;23(1):85-9
6028166
Evolution. 2006 May;60(5):922-33
16817533
Evolution. 2009 Dec;63(12):3258-68
19663993
J Appl Physiol. 1967 Mar;22(3):453-60
6020227
Proc Biol Sci. 2002 May 22;269(1495):1031-7
12028760
Nature. 1999 Oct 28;401(6756):877-84
10553904
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1992 Mar;1(1):53-8
1342924
Evolution. 2001 Nov 11;55(11):2143-60
11794776
J Reprod Immunol. 2004 Feb;61(1):31-8
15027476
Science. 2000 Nov 10;290(5494):1168-70
11073457
Evolution. 2000 Feb;54(1):259-72
10937202
J Hum Evol. 1997 Jun;32(6):523-59
9210017
Syst Biol. 2007 Apr;56(2):252-70
17464881
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1992 Apr;87(4):461-77
1580353