Female choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptations: A critical review of some current research

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 1-6

  Cordero, Carlos ^a   Eberhard, W G ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Female choice; Intersexual coevolution; Laboratory studies; Sexual conflict

Indexed keywords

COEVOLUTION; MATE CHOICE; SEXUAL CONFLICT; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ADAPTATION; AGGRESSION; ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CONFLICT; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; MALE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT; SHORT SURVEY;

ADAPTATION, BIOLOGICAL; AGONISTIC BEHAVIOR; ANIMALS; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); EVOLUTION; FEMALE; MALE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; SELECTION (GENETICS); SEX CHARACTERISTICS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

ANIMALIA; DARWINIA;

EID: 0037234894     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00506.x     Document Type: Short Survey

References (34)

1. Ackermann, M., Bijlsma, R., James, A.C., Partridge, L. & Zwann, B.J. 2001. Effects of assay conditions in life history experiments with Drosophila melanogaster. J. Evol. Biol. 14: 199-209.
2. Alexander, R.D., Marshall, D. & Cooley, J. 1997. Evolutionary perspectives on insect mating. In: The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids (J. C. Choe & B. J. Crespi, eds), pp. 4-31. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
3. Arnqvist, G. 1997. The evolution of water strider mating systems: causes and consequences of sexual conflicts. In: The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids (J. C. Choe & B. J. Crespi, eds), pp. 146-163. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.
4. Arnqvist, G. & Rowe, L. 2002. Antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415: 787-789.
5. Birkhead, T.R. 1998. Cryptic female choice: criteria for establishing female sperm choice. Evolution 52: 1212-1218.
6. Birkhead, T.R. & Møller, A.P. 1998. Sperm competition, sexual selection and different routes to fitness. In: Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection (T. R. Birkhead & A. P. Møller, eds), pp. 757-782. Academic Press, New York.
7. Byrne, P.G. & Roberts, J.D. 2000. Does multiple paternity improve fitness of the frog Crinia georgiana? Evolution 54: 968-973.
8. Chapman, T., Liddle, L.F., Kalb, J.M., Wolfner, M.F. & Partridge, L. 1995. Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 373: 241-244.
9. Chapman, T. & Partridge, L. 1996. Female fitness in Drosophila melanogaster: an interaction between the effect of nutrition and of encounter rate with males. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 263: 755-759.
10. Crudgington, H.S. & Siva-Jothy, M.T. 2000. Genital damage, kicking and early death. Nature 407: 855-856.
11. Eberhard, W.G. 1998. Female roles in sperm competition. In: Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection (T. R. Birkhead & A. P. Moller, eds), pp. 91-116. Academic Press, New York.
12. Gavrilets, S., Arnqvist, G. & Friberg, U. 2001. The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 268: 531-539.
13. Getty, T. 1999. Chase-away sexual selection as noisy reliable signalling. Evolution 53: 299-302.
14. Gomendio, M., Harcourt, A.H. & Roldán, E.R.S. 1998. Sperm competition in mammals. In: Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection (T. R. Birkhead & A. P. Moller, eds), pp. 667-755. Academic Press, New York.
15. Harshman, L.G. & Hoffmann, A.A. 2000a. Laboratory selection experiments using Drosophila: what do they really tell us? Trends Ecol. Evol. 15: 32-36.
16. Harshman, L.G. & Hoffmann, A.A. 2000b. A reply from L.G. Harshman and A.A. Hoffmann. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15: 207.
17. Holland, B. & Rice, W.R. 1998. Chase-away selection: antagonistic seduction vs. resistance. Evolution 52: 1-7.
18. Holland, B. & Rice, W.R. 1999. Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96: 5083-5088.
19. Johnstone, R.A. & Keller, L. 2000. How males gain by harming their mates: sexual conflict, seminal toxins, and the cost of mating. Am. Nat. 156: 368-377.
20. Kirkpatrick, M. & Barton, N.H. 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94: 1282-1286.
21. Kokko, H. 2001. Fisherian and 'good genes' benefits of mate choice: how (not) to distinguish between them. Ecol. Lett. 4: 322-326.
22. Markow, T.A. 2000. Forced matings in natural populations of Drosophila. Am. Nat. 156: 100-103.
23. Matos, M., Rego, C., Levy, A., Teotónio, H. & Rose, M.R. 2000. An evolutionary no man's land. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15: 206.
24. Møller, A.P. & Jennions, M.D. 2001. How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection? Natuwissenschaften 88: 401-415.
25. Moore, A.J., Gowaty, P.A., Wallin, W.G. & Moore, P.J. 2001. Sexual conflict and the evolution of female mate choice and male social dominance. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 268: 517-523.
26. Parker, G.A. 1979. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects (M. S. Blum & N. A. Blum, eds), pp. 123-166. Academic Press, New York.
27. Partridge, L. & Hurst, L.D. 1998. Sex and conflict. Science 281: 2003-2008.
28. Rice, W.R. 1996. Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 361: 232-234.
29. Rice, W.R. & Holland, B. 1999. Reply to comments on the chase-away model of sexual selection. Evolution 53: 302-306.
30. Rosenthal, G.G. & Servedio, M.R. 1999. Chase-away sexual selection: resistance to 'resistance'. Evolution 53: 296-299.
31. Snook, R. 2001. Sexual selection: conflict, kindness and chicanery. Curr. Biol. 11: R337-R341.
32. Stutt, A.D. & Siva-Jothy, M.T. 2001. Traumatic insemination and sexual conflict in the bed bug Cimex lectularius. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98: 5683-5687.
33. Wiley, R.H. & Poston, J. 1996. Indirect mate choice, competition for mates, and coevolution of the sexes. Evolution 50: 1371-1381.
34. Wolfner, M.F. 1997. Tokens of love: functions and regulation of Drosophila male accessory gland products. Insect Biochem. Molec. Biol. 27: 179-192.