English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

There are three  sex ratio strategies  (SRS) in nature—male-biased sex ratio, female-biased sex ratio and, equal sex ratio. It was R. A. Fisher who first explained why most species in nature display a sex ratio of ½. Consequent SRS theories such as Hamilton’s  local mate competition  (LMC) and Clark’s  local resource competition  (LRC) separately explained the observed deviations from the seemingly universal 1:1 ratio. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is not yet a unified theory that accounts for the mechanisms of the three SRS. Here, we introduce the  price elasticity theory  in economics to define  sex ratio elasticity  (SRE), and present an analytical model that derives three SRSs based on the following assumption: simultaneously existing competitions for both resources A and resources B influence the level of SRE in both sexes differently. Consequently, it is the difference (between two sexes) in the level of their sex ratio elasticity that leads to three different SRS. Our analytical results demonstrate that the elasticity-based model not only reveals a highly plausible mechanism that explains the evolution of SRS in nature, but also offers a novel framework for unifying two major classical theories ( i.e.,  LMC & LRC) in the field of SRS research.

Sex Ratio Elasticity Influences the Selection of Sex Ratio Strategy