Sex-investment ratios in ants: has female bias been systematically overestimated?

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Sex-investment ratios in ants : has female bias been systematically overestimated? / Boomsma, J. J.

In: American Naturalist, Vol. 133, No. 4, 1989, p. 517-532.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Boomsma, JJ 1989, 'Sex-investment ratios in ants: has female bias been systematically overestimated?', American Naturalist, vol. 133, no. 4, pp. 517-532. https://doi.org/10.1086/284933

APA

Boomsma, J. J. (1989). Sex-investment ratios in ants: has female bias been systematically overestimated? American Naturalist, 133(4), 517-532. https://doi.org/10.1086/284933

Vancouver

Boomsma JJ. Sex-investment ratios in ants: has female bias been systematically overestimated? American Naturalist. 1989;133(4):517-532. https://doi.org/10.1086/284933

Author

Boomsma, J. J. / Sex-investment ratios in ants : has female bias been systematically overestimated?. In: American Naturalist. 1989 ; Vol. 133, No. 4. pp. 517-532.

Bibtex

@article{fec1fe98c3f840aab40fa153be202623,
title = "Sex-investment ratios in ants: has female bias been systematically overestimated?",
abstract = "The claim by Trivers and Hare (1976) and Nonacs (1986) that the ratio of sexual investment in monogynous ants is as much female-biased as 3:1 on the average is untenable because of 1) bias in the gyne-to-male dry-weight cost ratios, as a result of increasingly diverging rates of respiration and fat accumulation with increasing sexual dimorphism; and 2) bias in the numerical sex ratios estimated from small samples. Partial regressions of the numerical gyne-to-male sex ratio on the individual dry-weight ratio and sample size appeared to be consistently present in the data sets for monogynous and polygynous ants, although significantly so only for monogynous ants. These relationships were primarily interpreted as methodological artifacts, but possible biological explanations are also discussed. After adjustment for the assumed artifacts, the geometric-mean investment ratio across monogynous ants was estimated to be 1.82:1 in favor of gynes. -from Author",
author = "Boomsma, {J. J.}",
year = "1989",
doi = "10.1086/284933",
language = "English",
volume = "133",
pages = "517--532",
journal = "American Naturalist",
issn = "0003-0147",
publisher = "University of Chicago Press",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sex-investment ratios in ants

T2 - has female bias been systematically overestimated?

AU - Boomsma, J. J.

PY - 1989

Y1 - 1989

N2 - The claim by Trivers and Hare (1976) and Nonacs (1986) that the ratio of sexual investment in monogynous ants is as much female-biased as 3:1 on the average is untenable because of 1) bias in the gyne-to-male dry-weight cost ratios, as a result of increasingly diverging rates of respiration and fat accumulation with increasing sexual dimorphism; and 2) bias in the numerical sex ratios estimated from small samples. Partial regressions of the numerical gyne-to-male sex ratio on the individual dry-weight ratio and sample size appeared to be consistently present in the data sets for monogynous and polygynous ants, although significantly so only for monogynous ants. These relationships were primarily interpreted as methodological artifacts, but possible biological explanations are also discussed. After adjustment for the assumed artifacts, the geometric-mean investment ratio across monogynous ants was estimated to be 1.82:1 in favor of gynes. -from Author

AB - The claim by Trivers and Hare (1976) and Nonacs (1986) that the ratio of sexual investment in monogynous ants is as much female-biased as 3:1 on the average is untenable because of 1) bias in the gyne-to-male dry-weight cost ratios, as a result of increasingly diverging rates of respiration and fat accumulation with increasing sexual dimorphism; and 2) bias in the numerical sex ratios estimated from small samples. Partial regressions of the numerical gyne-to-male sex ratio on the individual dry-weight ratio and sample size appeared to be consistently present in the data sets for monogynous and polygynous ants, although significantly so only for monogynous ants. These relationships were primarily interpreted as methodological artifacts, but possible biological explanations are also discussed. After adjustment for the assumed artifacts, the geometric-mean investment ratio across monogynous ants was estimated to be 1.82:1 in favor of gynes. -from Author

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0024927818&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1086/284933

DO - 10.1086/284933

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:0024927818

VL - 133

SP - 517

EP - 532

JO - American Naturalist

JF - American Naturalist

SN - 0003-0147

IS - 4

ER -

ID: 379313119