Sexual conflict

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 41-47

  Chapman, Tracey ^a   Arnqvist, Göran ^b   Bangham, Jenny ^a   Rowe, Locke ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COEVOLUTION; LIFE HISTORY; SEXUAL CONFLICT;

EID: 0037220512     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0169-5347(02)00004-6     Document Type: Review

References (60)

1. Parker G.A. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. Blum M.S., Blum N.A. Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects. 1979;123-166 Academic Press.
2. Trivers R.L. Parental investment and sexual selection. Campbell B. Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man. 1972;136-179 Heinemann.
3. Rice W.R. Dangerous liaisons. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 97:2000;12953-12955.
4. Dawkins R. The Selfish Gene. 1976;Oxford University Press.
5. Kirkpatrick M., Ryan M.J. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature. 350:1991;33-38.
6. Kokko H., et al. The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 269:2002;1331-1340.
7. Rowe L., Houle D. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 263:1996;1415-1421.
8. Price T., et al. Sexual selection when the female directly benefits. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 48:1993;187-211.
9. Holland B., Rice W.R. Chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution. 52:1998;1-7.
10. Gavrilets S., et al. The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 268:2001;531-539.
11. Arak A., Enquist M. Conflict, receiver bias and the evolution of signal form. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 349:1995;337-344.
12. Clutton-Brock T.H., Parker G.A. Sexual coercion in animal societies. Anim. Behav. 49:1995;1345-1365.
13. Arak A., Enquist M. Hidden preferences and the evolution of signals. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 1993;340207-340213.
14. Wachtmeister C.A., Enquist M. The evolution of courtship rituals in monogamous species. Behav. Ecol. 11:2000;405-410.
15. Rice W.R. Sex-chromosomes and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Evolution. 38:1984;735-742.
16. Gibson J.R., et al. The X chromosome is a hot spot for sexually antagonistic fitness variation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 269:2002;499-505.
17. Rice W.R. Sexually antagonistic genes - experimental evidence. Science. 256:1992;1436-1439.
18. Holland B., Rice W.R. Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 96:1999;5083-5088.
19. Westneat D.F., Sargent R.C. Sex and parenting: the effects of sexual conflict and parentage on parental strategies. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:1996;87-91.
20. Royle N.J., et al. Sexual conflict reduces offspring fitness in zebra finches. Nature. 416:2002;733-736.
21. Székely T., et al. Nolan V., Ketterson E. An Evolutionary Approach to Offspring Desertion in Birds Current Ornithology. Current Ornithology. Vol. 13:1997;271-330 Plenum Press.
22. Barta Z.N., et al. Sexual conflict about parental care: the role of reserves. Am. Nat. 159:2002;687-705.
23. Tilghman S.M. The sins of the fathers and mothers: genomic imprinting in mammalian development. Cell. 96:1999;185-193.
24. Haig D. The kinship theory of genomic imprinting. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Sys. 31:2000;9-32.
25. Rice W.R. Intergenomic conflict, interlocus antagonistic coevolution and the evolution of reproductive isolation. Howard D.J., Berlocher S.H. Endless Forms Species and Speciation. 1998;261-270 Oxford University Press.
26. Arnqvist G., et al. Sexual conflict promotes speciation in insects. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 97:2000;10460-10464.
27. Gavrilets S. Rapid evolution of reproductive barriers driven by sexual conflict. Nature. 403:2000;886-889.
28. Gavrilets S., Waxman D. Sympatric speciation by sexual conflict. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 99:2002;10533-10538.
29. Parker G.A., Partridge L. Sexual conflict and speciation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 353:1998;261-274.
30. Arnqvist G., Rowe L. Antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature. 415:2002;787-789.
31. Rowe L., et al. Sexual conflict and the evolutionary ecology of mating patterns: water striders as a model system. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9:1994;289-293.
32. Warner R., et al. Sexual conflict - males with highest mating success convey the lowest fertilisation benefits to females. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 262:1995;135-139.
33. Crudgington H.S., Siva-Jothy M.T. Genital damage, kicking and early death - the battle of the sexes takes a sinister turn in the bean weevil. Nature. 407:2000;855-856.
34. Stutt A.D., Siva-Jothy M.T. Traumatic insemination and sexual conflict in the bed bug Cimex lectularius. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 98:2001;5683-5687.
35. Blanckenhorn W.U. The costs of copulating in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Behav. Ecol. 13:2002;353-358.
36. Arnqvist G. The evolution of water strider mating systems: causes and consequences of sexual conflicts. Choe J.C., Crespi B.J. The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids. 1997;146-163 Cambridge University Press.
37. Baer B., Schmid-Hempel P. Experimental variation in polyandry affects parasite loads and fitness in a bumble-bee. Nature. 397:1999;151-154.
38. Baer B., Schmid-Hempel P. Unexpected consequences of polyandry for parasitism and fitness in the bumblebee Bombus terrestris. Evolution. 55:2001;1639-1643.
39. Schmid-Hempel R., Schmid-Hempel P. Female mating frequencies in Bombus spp. from Central Europe. Insect Soc. 47:2000;36-41.
40. Sauter A., et al. Males of social insects can prevent queens from multiple mating. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 268:2000;1449-1454.
41. Civetta A., Clark A.G. Correlated effects of sperm competition and postmating female mortality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 97:2000;13162-13165.
42. Rice W.R. Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature. 381:1996;232-234.
43. Pitnick S., et al. Evolution of female remating behaviour following experimental removal of sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 268:2001;557-563.
44. Pitnick S., et al. Males' evolutionary responses to experimental removal of sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 268:2001;1071-1080.
45. Hosken D., et al. Sexual conflict selects for male and female reproductive characters. Curr. Biol. 11:2001;489-493.
46. Sharp P.M. The effect of inbreeding on competitive male-mating ability in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 106:1984;601-612.
47. Rice W.R., Holland B. The enemies within: intergenomic conflict, interlocus contest evolution (ICE), and the intraspecific Red Queen. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 41:1997;1-10.
48. Swanson W.J., Vacquier V.D. The rapid evolution of reproductive proteins. Nat. Rev. Genet. 3:2002;137-144.
49. Civetta A., Singh R.S. High divergence of reproductive tract proteins and their association with postzygotic reproductive isolation in Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila virilis group species. J. Mol. Evol. 41:1995;1085-1095.
50. Swanson W., et al. Positive Darwinian selection drives the evolution of several reproductive proteins in mammals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 98:2001;2509-2514.
51. Bergsten J., et al. Intraspecific variation and intersexual correlation in secondary sexual characters of three diving beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 73:2001;221-232.
52. Arnqvist G. Comparative evidence for the evolution of genitalia by sexual selection. Nature. 393:1998;784-786.
53. Clark A.G., Begun D.J. Female genotypes affect sperm displacement in Drosophila. Genetics. 149:1998;1487-1493.
54. Clark A.G., et al. Female×male interactions in Drosophila sperm competition. Science. 283:1999;217-220.
55. Andrés J.A., Arnqvist G. Genetic divergence of the seminal signal-receptor system in houseflies: the footprints of sexually antagonistic coevolution? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 268:2001;399-405.
56. Brown D.V., Eady P.E. Functional incompatibility between the fertilization systems of two allopatric populations of Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Evolution. 55:2001;2257-2262.
57. Knowles L.L., Markow T.A. Sexually antagonistic coevolution of a postmating-prezygotic reproductive character in desert Drosophila. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 98:2001;8692-8696.
58. Nilsson T., et al. Patterns of divergence in the effects of mating on female reproductive performance in flour beetles. Evolution. 56:2002;111-120.
59. Rosenthal G.G., Servedio M.R. Chase-away sexual selection: resistance to 'resistance'. Evolution. 53:1999;296-299.
60. Dawkins R., Krebs J.R. Arms races between and within species. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 205:1979;489-511.