Sex ratio bias, male aggression, and population collapse in lizards.

The adult sex ratio (ASR) is a key parameter of the demography of human and other animal populations, yet the causes of variation in ASR, how individuals respond to this variation, and how their response feeds back into population dynamics remain poorly understood. A prevalent hypothesis is that ASR is regulated by intrasexual competition, which would cause more mortality or emigration in the sex of increasing frequency. Our experimental manipulation of populations of the common lizard (Lacerta vivipara) shows the opposite effect. Male mortality and emigration are not higher under male-biased ASR. Rather, an excess of adult males begets aggression toward adult females, whose survival and fecundity drop, along with their emigration rate. The ensuing prediction that adult male skew should be amplified and total population size should decline is supported by long-term data. Numerical projections show that this amplifying effect causes a major risk of population extinction. In general, such an "evolutionary trap" toward extinction threatens populations in which there is a substantial mating cost for females, and environmental changes or management practices skew the ASR toward males.

Operational sex ratio, sexual conflict and the intensity of sexual selection.

Modern sexual selection theory indicates that reproductive costs rather than the operational sex ratio predict the intensity of sexual selection. We investigated sexual selection in the polygynandrous common lizard Lacerta vivipara. This species shows male aggression, causing high mating costs for females when adult sex ratios (ASR) are male-biased. We manipulated ASR in 12 experimental populations and quantified the intensity of sexual selection based on the relationship between reproductive success and body size. In sharp contrast to classical sexual selection theory predictions, positive directional sexual selection on male size was stronger and positive directional selection on female size weaker in female-biased populations than in male-biased populations. Thus, consistent with modern theory, directional sexual selection on male size was weaker in populations with higher female mating costs. This suggests that the costs of breeding, but not the operational sex ratio, correctly predicted the strength of sexual selection.

Female common lizards (Lacerta vivipara) do not adjust their sex-biased investment in relation to the adult sex ratio.

Sex allocation theory predicts that facultative maternal investment in the rare sex should be favoured by natural selection when breeders experience predictable variation in adult sex ratios (ASRs). We found significant spatial and predictable interannual changes in local ASRs within a natural population of the common lizard where the mean ASR is female-biased, thus validating the key assumptions of adaptive sex ratio models. We tested for facultative maternal investment in the rare sex during and after an experimental perturbation of the ASR by creating populations with female-biased or male-biased ASR. Mothers did not adjust their clutch sex ratio during or after the ASR perturbation, but produced sons with a higher body condition in male-biased populations. However, this differential sex allocation did not result in growth or survival differences in offspring. Our results thus contradict the predictions of adaptive models and challenge the idea that facultative investment in the rare sex might be a mechanism regulating the population sex ratio.

Dismissal of the illusion of uncertainty in the assessment of a likelihood ratio

The use of the Bayes factor (BF) or likelihood ratio as a metric to assess the probative value of forensic traces is largely supported by operational standards and recommendations in different forensic disciplines. However, the progress towards more widespread consensus about foundational principles is still fragile as it raises new problems about which views differ. It is not uncommon e.g. to encounter scientists who feel the need to compute the probability distribution of a given expression of evidential value (i.e. a BF), or to place intervals or significance probabilities on such a quantity. The article here presents arguments to show that such views involve a misconception of principles and abuse of language. The conclusion of the discussion is that, in a given case at hand, forensic scientists ought to offer to a court of justice a given single value for the BF, rather than an expression based on a distribution over a range of values.