Perspective: Sexual conflict and sexual selection: Chasing away paradigm shifts

Evolution

Volumn 57, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 1223-1236

  Pizzari, Tommaso ^a,b   Snook, Rhonda R ^c  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Fitness; Promiscuity; Reproduction; Sexual antagonism; Sexual coevolution; Sexual mutualism

Indexed keywords

COEVOLUTION; EVOLUTION; FITNESS; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; SEXUAL CONFLICT; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 0038302324     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00331.x     Document Type: Review

References (85)

1. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
2. Andres, J. A., and G. Arnqvist. 2001. Genetic divergence of the seminal signal-receptor system in houseflies: the footprints of sexually antagonistic coevolution? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268:399-405.
3. Arnold, S. J., and M. J. Wade. 1984a. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: theory. Evolution 38:709-719.
4. _. 1984b. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: applications. Evolution 38:720-734.
5. Arnqvist, G., and T. Nilsson 2000. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim. Behav. 60:145-164.
6. Arnqvist, G., and L. Rowe. 2002. Antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415:787-789.
7. Arnqvist, G., M. Edvardsson, U. Friberg, and T. Nilsson. 2000. Sexual conflict promotes speciation in insects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97:10460-10464.
8. Bateman, A. J. 1948. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349-368.
9. Birkhead, T. R., and A. P. Møller, eds. 1998. Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, London.
10. Birkhead, T. R., and T. Pizzari. 2002. Postcopulatory sexual selection. Nature Rev. Genet. 3:262-273.
11. Blackenhorn, W. U., D. J. Hosken, O. Y. Martin, C. Reim, Y. Teuschl, and P. I. Ward. 2002. The costs of copulating in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Behav. Ecol. 13:353-358.
12. Boughman, J. W. 2001. Divergent sexual selection enhances reproductive isolation in sticklebacks. Nature 411:944-948.
13. Brookfield, J. F. Y. 2001. The evolvability enigma. Curr. Biol. 11: R106-R108..
14. Brooks, M. D., and R. Jennions. 1999. The dark side of sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14:336-337.
15. Brown, J. L. 1997. A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity. Behav. Ecol. 8:60-65.
16. Brown, W. D., B. J. Crespi, and J. C. Choe. 1997. Sexual conflict and the evolution of mating systems. Pp. 352-378 in B. J. Crespi and J. C. Choe, eds. Mating systems in insects and arachnids. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.
17. Chapman, T. 2001. Seminal fluid-mediated fitness traits in Drosophila. Heredity 87:511-521.
18. Chapman, T., L. Liddle, J. Kalb, M. Wolfner, and L. Partridge. 1995. Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 373:241-244.
19. Civetta, A., and A. G. Clark. 2000. Correlated effects of sperm competition and postmating female mortality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97:13162-13165.
20. Clutton-Brock, T. H., and G. A. Parker. 1995. Sexual coercion in animal societies. Anim. Behav. 49:1345-1365.
21. Crudgington, H. S., and M. T. Siva-Jothy. 2000. Genital damage, kicking and early death. Nature 407:855-856.
22. Dawkins, M. S., and T. Guilford. 1996. Sensory bias and the adaptiveness of female choice. Am. Nat. 148:937-942.
23. Dawkins, R., and J. Krebs. 1979. Arms races between and within species. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 205:489-511.
24. Eberhard, W. G. 1996. Female control: sexual selection by female cryptic choice. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
25. Ellegren, H., and A. K. Fridolfsson. 1997. Male-driven evolution of DNA sequences in birds. Nature Genet. 17:182-184.
26. Endler, J. A., and A. L. Basolo. 1998. Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:415-420.
27. Fisher, R. A. 1958. The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford, U.K.
28. Gage, M. J. G., G. A. Parker, S. Nylin, and C. Wiklund. 2002. Sexual selection and speciation in mammals, butterflies and spiders. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:2309-2316.
29. Gavrilets, S. 2000. Rapid evolution of reproductive barriers driven by sexual conflict. Nature 403:886-889.
30. Gavrilets, S., and D. Waxman. 2002. Sympatric speciation by sexual conflict. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:10533-10538.
31. Gavrilets, S., G. Arnqvist, and U. Friberg. 2001. The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268:531-539.
32. Gems, D., and D. L. Riddle. 1996. Longevity in Caenorhabditis elegans reduced by mating but not gamete production. Nature 379:723-725.
33. Gowaty, P. A. 1997. Sexual dialectics, sexual selection, and variation in mating behavior. Pp. 351-384 in P. A. Gowaty, ed. Feminism and evolutionary biology: boundaries, intersections, and frontiers. Chapman and Hall, New York.
34. Gowaty, P. A., and N. Buschhaus. 1998. Ultimate causation of aggressive and forced copulation in birds: female resistance, the CODE hypothesis, and social monogamy. Am. Zool. 38:207-225.
35. Hall, D. W., M. Kirkpatrick, and B. West. 2000. Runaway sexual selection when female preferences are directly selected. Evolution 54:1862-1869.
36. Holland, B., and W. R. Rice. 1998. Chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52:1-7.
37. Holland, B., and W. R. Rice. 1999. Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:5083-5088.
38. Hosken, D. J. T., W. U. Blanckenhorn, and T. W. J. Garner. 2002. Heteropopulation males have a fertilization advantage during sperm competition in the yellow dung fly Scathophaga stercoraria. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:1701-1707.
39. Hosken, D. J., T. W. J. Garner, and P. I. Ward. 2001. Sexual conflict selects for male and female reproductive characters. Curr. Biol. 11:489-493.
40. Howard, D. J. 1999. Conspecific sperm and pollen precedence and speciation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30:109-132.
41. Johnstone, R. A., and L. Keller. 2000. How males can gain by harming their mates: sexual conflict, seminal toxins, and the cost of mating. Am. Nat. 156:368-377.
42. Keller, L., and H. K. Reeve. 1995. Why do females mate with multiple males? The sexually selected sperm hypothesis. Adv. Study Behav. 24:291-315.
43. Kirkpatrick, M., and M. J. Ryan. 1991. The evolution of mating preference and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33-38.
44. Kirkpatrick, M., and N. H. Barton. 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94:1282-1286.
45. Kirschner, M., and J. Gerhart. 1998. Evolvability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:8420-8427.
46. Knowles, L. L., and T. A. Markow. 2001. Sexually antagonistic coevolution of a postmating-prezygotic reproductive character in desert Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98:8692-8696.
47. Lessells, C. M. 1999. Sexual conflict in animals. Pp. 75-99 in L. Keller, ed. Levels of selection in evolution. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
48. Leopold, R. A., A. C. Terranova, and E. M. Swilley. 1971. Mating refusal in Musca domestica: effects of repeated mating and decerebration upon frequency and duration of copulation. J. Exp. Zool. 176:353-360.
49. McLain, D. K., and A. E. Pratt. 1999. The cost of sexual coercion and heterospecific sexual harassment on the fecundity of a host-specific, seed-eating insect (Neacoryyphus bicrucis). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 46:164-170.
50. McVean, G. T., and L. D. Hurst. 1997. Evidence for a selectively favourable reduction in the mutation rate of the X chromosome. Nature 386:388-392.
51. Makova, K. D., and W. H. Li. 2002. Strong male-driven evolution of DNA sequences in humans and apes. Nature 416:624-626.
52. Masta, S. E., and W. P. Maddison. 2002. Sexual selection driving diversification in jumping spiders. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:4442-4447.
53. Montell, H., A. K. Fridolfsson, and H. Ellegren. 2001. Contrasting levels of nucleotide diversity on the avian Z and W sex chromosomes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:2010-2016.
54. Moore, A. J., P. A. Gowaty, W. G. Wallin, and P. J. Moore. 2001. Sexual conflict and the evolution of female mate choice and male social dominance. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268:517-523.
55. Parker, G. A. 1970. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol. Rev. 45:525-567.
56. _. 1979. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. Pp. 123-166 in M. S. Blum and N. A. Blum, eds. Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. Academic Press, New York.
57. Parker, G. A., and L. Partridge. 1998. Sexual conflict and speciation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 353:261-274.
58. Partridge, L., and L. D. Hurst. 1998. Sex and conflict. Science 281:2003-2008.
59. Pitnick, S., and F. García-González. 2002. Harm to females increases with male body size in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:1821-1828.
60. Pitnick, S., W. D. Brown, and G. T. Miller. 2001a. Evolution of female remating behaviour following experimental removal of sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268:557-563.
61. Pitnick, S., G. T. Miller, J. Reagan, and B. Holland. 2001b. Males' evolutionary responses to experimental removal of sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268:1071-1080.
62. Pizzari, T., and T. R. Birkhead. 2002. The sexually-selected sperm hypothesis: sex-biased inheritance and sexual antagonism. Biol. Rev. 77:183-209.
63. Rice, W. R. 1996. Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 381:232-234.
64. Rice, W. R. 1998. Intergenomic conflict, interlocus antagonistic coevolution, and the evolution of reproductive isolation. Pp. 261-270 in D. J. Howard and S. H. Berlocher, eds. Endless forms: species and speciation. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
65. Rice, W. R., and B. Holland. 1997. The enemies within: intergenomic conflict, interlocus contest evolution (ICE), and the intraspecific Red Queen. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 41:1-10.
66. Riemann, J. G., and B. J. Thorson. 1969. Effect of male accessory material on oviposition and mating by female houseflies. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 62:828-834.
67. Ryan M. J., J. H. Fox, W. Wilczynski, and A. S. Rand. 1990. Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature 343:66-67.
68. Sheldon, B. C. 2000. Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15:397-402.
69. Shuker, D. M., and T. H. Day. 2001. The repeatability of a sexual conflict over mating. Anim. Behav. 61:755-762.
70. Smadja, C., and G. Ganem. 2002. Subspecies recognition in the house mouse: a study of two populations from the border of a hybrid zone. Behav. Ecol. 13:312-320.
71. Smuts, B. B., and R. W. Smuts. 1993. Male aggression and sexual coercion of female in nonhuman primates and other mammals: evidence and theoretical implications. Adv. Study Behav. 22:1-63.
72. Snook, R. R. 2001. Sexual selection: conflict, kindness and chicanery. Curr. Biol. 11:R337-R341.
73. Stutt, A. D., and M. T. Siva-Jothy. 2001. Traumatic insemination and sexual conflict in the bed bug Cimex lectularius. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98:683-5687.
74. Tregenza, T., and N. Wedell. 2000. Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage. Mol. Ecol. 9:1013-1027.
75. _. 2002. Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature 415:71-73.
76. Tregenza, T., R. K. Butlin, and N. Wedell. 2000. Sexual conflict and speciation. Nature 407:149-150.
77. Trivers, R. L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. Pp. 136-179 in B. Campbell, ed. Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971. Aldine-Atherton, Chicago, IL.
78. Veen, T., T. Borge, S. C. Griffith, G. P. Saetre, S. Bures, L. Gustafsson, and B. C. Sheldon. 2001. Hybridization and adaptive mate choice in flycatchers. Nature 411:45-50.
79. Wagner, G. P., and L. Altenberg. 1996. Complex adaptations and the evolution of evolvability. Evolution 50:967-976.
80. Wedell, N., M. J. G. Gage, G. A. Parker. 2002. Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17:313-320.
81. West-Eberhard, M. J. 1984. Sexual selection, competitive communication, and species-specific signals in insects. Pp. 283-324 in T. Lewis, ed. Insect communication. Academic Press, London.
82. Williams, G. C. 1966. Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
83. Zahavi, A. 1977. The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). J. Theor. Biol. 67:603-605.
84. Zeh, J. A., and D. W. Zeh. 1996. The evolution of polyandry. 1. intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263:1711-1717.
85. _. 1997. The evolution of polyandry. 2. Postcopulatory defences against genetic incompatibility. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264:69-75.