Sexual selection as a side-effect of sexual conflict in the seaweed fly, Coelopa ursina (Diptera: Coelopidae)

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 56, Issue 6, 1998, Pages 1405-1410

  Crean, Caroline S ^a   Gilburn, Andre S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; MATING BEHAVIOR; MATING SUCCESS; SEXUAL SELECTION;

COELOPA URSINA; COELOPIDAE; DIPTERA;

EID: 0032421446     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/anbe.1998.0932     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Andersson, M. B. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
2. Arnqvist, G. 1989. Multiple mating in a water strider: mutual benefits or inter-sexual conflict? Animal Behaviour, 38, 749-756.
3. Arnqvist, G. 1992. Pre-copulatory fighting in a water strider: inter-sexual conflict or mate assessment? Animal Behaviour, 43, 559-567.
4. Arnqvist, G., Rowe, L., Krupa, J. & Sih, A. 1996. Assortative mating by size: a meta-analysis of mating patterns in water striders. Evolutionary Ecology, 10, 265-284.
5. Basolo, A. L. 1995. Phylogenetic evidence for the role of a pre-existing bias in sexual selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 259, 307-311.
6. Butlin, R. K. & Day, T. H. 1985. Adult size, longevity and fecundity in the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida. Heredity, 54, 107-110.
7. Butlin, R. K., Read, I. L & Day, T. H. 1982. The effects of a chromosomal inversion on adult size and male mating success in the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida. Heredity, 49, 51-62.
8. Butlin, R. K., Collins, P. M. & Day, T. H. 1984. The effect of larval density on an inversion polymorphism in the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida. Heredity, 52, 415-423.
9. Day, T. H. & Gilburn, A. S. 1997. Sexual selection in seaweed flies. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 26, 1-57.
10. Day, T. H., Dobson, T, Hillier, P. C., Parkin, D. T. & Clarke, B. 1982. Associations of enzymic and chromosomal polymorphisms in the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida. Heredity, 48, 435-445.
11. Day, T. H., Dawe, C., Dobson, T. & Hillier, P. C. 1983. A chromosomal inversion polymorphism in Scandinavian populations of the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida. Hereditas, 99, 135-145.
12. Day, T. H., Crean, C. S., Gilburn, A. S., Shuker, D. M. & Wilcockson, R. W. 1996. Genetic variation and indicator reliability of male size, a sexually selected character in seaweed flies. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 263, 1127-1134.
13. Fairbairn, D. J. 1988. Sexual selection for homogamy in the Gerridae: an extension of Ridley's comparative approach. Evolution, 42, 1212-1222.
14. Fairbairn, D. J. 1990. Factors influencing sexual size dimorphism in temperate waterstriders. American Naturalist, 136, 61-86.
15. Fairbairn, D. J. & Preziosi, R. F. 1994. Sexual selection and evolution of allometry for sexual size dimorphism in the water-strider, Aquarius remigis. American Naturalist, 144, 101-108.
16. Gilburn, A. S. & Day, T. H. 1994a. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection and the αβ inversion polymorphism in the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 257, 303-309.
17. Gilburn, A. S. & Day, T. H. 1994b. Evolution of female choice in seaweed flies: Fisherian and good genes mechanisms operate in different populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 255, 159-165.
18. Gilburn, A. S. & Day, T. H. 1996. The evolution of female choice when the preference and the preferred trait are linked to the same inversion system. Heredity, 76, 19-27.
19. Gilburn, A. S., Foster, S. P. & Day, T. H. 1992. Female mating preference for large size in Coelopa frigida. Heredity, 69, 209-216.
20. Gilburn, A. S., Foster, S. P. & Day, T. H. 1993. Genetic correlation between a female mating preference and the male preferred character in the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida. Evolution, 47, 1788-1795.
21. Gilburn, A. S., Crean, C. S. & Day, T. H. 1996. Sexual selection in natural populations of seaweed flies: variation in offspring fitness of females carrying different inversion karyotypes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 263, 249-256.
22. Hammerstein, P. & Parker, G. A. 1987. Sexual selection: games between the sexes. In: Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives (Ed. by J. W. Bradbury & M. B. Andersson), pp. 119-142. Chichester: J. Wiley.
23. Kirkpatrick, M. & Barton, N. H. 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences U.S.A., 94, 1282-1286.
24. Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M. J. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature, 350, 33-38.
25. Parker, G. A. 1979. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects (Ed. by M. S. Blum & N. A. Blum), pp. 123-166. New York: Academic Press.
26. Parker, G. A. 1983. Mate quality and mating decisions. In: Mate Choice (Ed. by P. Bateson), pp. 141-166. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Pitafi, K. D., Simpson, R., Stephen, J. J. & Day, T. H. 1990. Adult size and mate choice in seaweed flies (Coelopa frigida). Heredity, 65, 91-97.
28. Rowe, L 1992. Convenience polyandry in a water strider: foraging conflicts and female control of copulation frequency and guarding duration. Animal Behaviour, 44, 189-202.
29. Rowe, L., Arnqvist, G., Sih, A. & Krupa, J. J. 1994. Sexual conflict and the evolutionary ecology of mating patterns: water striders as a model system. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 289-293.
30. Ryan, M. J. & Rand, A. S. 1990. The sensory basis of sexual selection for complex calls in the Túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus (sexual selection for sensory exploitation). Evolution, 44, 305-314.
31. Ryan, M. J., Fox, J. H., Wilcynski, W. & Rand, A. S. 1990. Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature, 343, 66-67.
32. Schluter, D. 1988. Estimating the form of natural selection on a quantitative trait. Evolution, 42, 849-861.
33. Shaw, K. 1995. Phylogenetic tests of the sensory exploitation model of sexual selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10, 117-120.
34. Sih, A. & Krupa, J. J. 1992. Predation risk, food deprivation and non-random mating by size in the stream-water strider, Aquarius remigis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 31, 51-56.
35. Thornhill, R. & Alcock, J. 1983. The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
36. Watson, P. J., Arnqvist, G. & Stallmann, R. R. 1998. Sexual conflict and the energetic costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. American Naturalist, 151, 46-58.
37. Weigensberg, I. & Fairbairn, D. J. 1994. Conflicts of interest between the sexes: a study of mating interactions in a semiaquatic bug. Animal Behaviour, 48, 893-901.
38. Weigensberg, I. & Fairbairn, D. J. 1996. The sexual arms race and phenotypic correlates of mating success in the water strider, Aquarius remigis. Journal of Insect Behaviour, 9, 307-319.
39. Wilcockson, R. W., Crean, C. S. & Day, T. H. 1995. Heritability of a sexually selected character expressed in both sexes. Nature, 374, 158-159.