Fitness effects of female mate choice: Preferred males are detrimental for Drosophila melanogaster females

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 16, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 797-811

  Friberg, U ^a,b   Arnqvist, G ^b  

^a UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Cost of mating; Courtship; Drosophila melanogaster; Senescence; Sexual conflict; Sexual selection; Sexually antagonistic coevolution

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; FITNESS; MATE CHOICE; REPRODUCTIVE COST; SEXUAL CONFLICT; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BODY CONSTITUTION; COURTSHIP; DROSOPHILA; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; MALE; PHENOTYPE;

ANIMALS; BODY CONSTITUTION; COURTSHIP; DROSOPHILA; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; MALE; PHENOTYPE; SELECTION (GENETICS);

ANIMALIA; DIPTERA; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; DROSOPHILIDAE; MELANOGASTER;

EID: 0041739122     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00597.x     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Alatalo, R.V., Carlson, A. & Lundberg, A. 1987. The search cost in mate choice of the pied flycatcher. Anim. Behav. 36: 289-291.
2. Andersson, M. 1986. Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution 40: 804-816.
3. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
4. Arak, A. & Enquist, M. 1995. Conflict, receiver bias and the evolution of signal form. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 349: 337-344.
5. Arnold, S.J. & Duvall, D. 1994. Animal mating systems: a synthesis based on selection theory. Am. Nat. 143: 317-348.
6. Arnqvist, G. 1992. Precopulatory fighting in a water strider: intersexual conflict or mate assessment?. Anim. Behav. 43: 559-567.
7. Arnqvist, G. & Nilsson, T. 2000. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim. Behav. 60: 145-164.
8. Ashburner, M. 1989. Drosophila a Laboratory Handbook. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New York.
9. Borgia, G. 1979. Sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. In: Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects (M. S. Blum & N. A. Blum, eds), pp. 19-80. Academic Press, New York.
10. Brooks, R. 2000. Negative genetic correlation between male sexual attractiveness and survival. Nature 406: 67-70.
11. Burt, A. 1995. Perspective: the evolution of fitness. Evolution 49: 1-8.
12. Burt, A. 2000. Natural selection in the wild. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15: 306-307.
13. 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.
14. Chapman, T., Trevitt, S. & Partridge, L. 1994. Remating and male-derived nutrients in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Evol. Biol. 7: 51-69
15. Chapman, T., Liddle, L.F., Kalib, 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.
16. Chippindale, A.K. & Rice, W.R. 2001. Y chromosome polymorphism is a strong determinant of male fitness in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 5677-5682.
17. Chippindale, A.K., Gibson, J.R. & Rice, W.R. 2001. Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 1671-1675.
18. Choe J.C. & Crespi, B.J. 1997. The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
19. Civetta, A. & Clark, A.G. 2000. Correlated effects of sperm competition and postmating female mortality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97: 13162-13165.
20. Day, T. 2000. Sexual selection and the evolution of costly female preferences: spatial effects. Evolution 54: 715-730.
21. Dernoncourt-Sterpin, C., Lechien, J. & Elens, A. 1991. Sex ratio, relative frequency, and mating success in two genotypes of Drosophila melanogaster. Behav. Genet. 21: 471-485.
22. Ewing, A.W. 1961. Body size and courtship behaviour in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim. Behav. 9: 93-99.
23. Ewing, A.W. 1964. The influence of wing area on the courtship behaviour of Drosophila melanogaster. Anim. Behav. 12: 316-320.
24. Fisher R.A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.
25. Fowler, K. & Partridge, L. 1989. A cost of mating in female fruit flies. Nature 338: 760-761.
26. Gavrilets, S. 2000. Rapid evolution of reproductive barriers driven by sexual conflict. Nature 403: 886-889
27. 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.
28. Gibson, R.M. & Bachman, G.C. 1992. The cost of female choice in a lekking bird. Behav. Ecol. 3: 300-309.
29. Grafen, A. 1990. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol. 144: 517-546.
30. Greenacre, M.L., Rithie, M.G., Byrne, B.C. & Kyriacou, C.P. 1993. Female song preference and the period gene in Drosophila. Behav. Genet. 23: 85-90.
31. Grimaldi, D. & Jaenike, J. 1984. Competition in natural populations of mycophagous Drosophila. Ecology 65: 1113-1120.
32. Hall, J.C. 1994. The mating of a fly. Science 264: 1702-1714.
33. Heywood, J.S. 1989. Sexual selection by the handicap mechanism. Evolution 43: 1387-1397.
34. Holland, B. & Rice, W.R. 1998. Perspective: chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52: 1-7.
35. Holland, B. & Rice, W.R. 1999. Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96: 5083-5088.
36. Houle, D. & Kondrashov, A.S. 2002. Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 269: 97-104.
37. Iliadi, K., Iliadi, N., Rashkovetsky, E., Minkow, I., Nevo, E. & Korol, A. 2001. Sexual and reproductive behaviour of Drosophila melanogaster from a microclimatically interslope differentiated population of 'Evolution Canyon' (Mount Carmel, Israel). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 268: 2365-2374.
38. Iwasa, Y & Pomiankowski, A. 1999. Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. J. Theor. Biol. 200: 97-109.
39. Iwasa, Y., Pomiankowski, A. & Nee, S. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The 'handicap' principle. Evolution 45: 1431-1442.
40. Jennions, M.D. & Petrie, M. 2000. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. 75: 21-64.
41. Johnstone, R.A. & Keller, L. 2000. How males can gain by harming their mates: sexual conflicts, seminal toxins, and the cost of mating. Am. Nat. 156: 368-377.
42. Kern, S., Ackermann, M., Sterns, S.C. & Kawecki, T.J. 2001. Decline in offspring viability as a manifestation of aging in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 55: 1822-1831.
43. Kirkpatrick, M. 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36: 1-12.
44. Kirkpatrick, M. 1987. Sexual selection by female choice in polygynous animals. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18: 43-70.
45. Kirkpatrick, M. 1996. Good genes and direct selection in the evolution of mating preferences. Evolution 50: 2125-2140.
46. Kirkpatrick, M. & Barton, N.H. 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94: 1282-1286.
47. Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M.J. 1991. The evolution of mating preference and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350: 33-38.
48. Kokko, H., Brooks, R., McNamara, J.M. & Houston, A.I. 2002. The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 269: 1331-1340.
49. Lande, R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78: 3721-3725.
50. Møller, A.P. & Alatalo, R.V. 1999. Good-genes effect in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 266: 85-91.
51. Markow, T.A. 1986. Genetic and sensory basis of sexual selection in Drosophila melanogaster. In: The Evolutionary Genetics of Invertebrate Behavior (M. Huettel, ed.), pp. 89-95. Plenum Press, New York.
52. Markow, T.A. 1988. Reproductive behavior of Drosophila melanogaster and D. nigrospiracula in the field and in the laboratory. J. Comp. Psychol. 102: 169-173.
53. Maynard-Smith, J. 1987. Sexual selection - a classification of models. In: Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives (J. W. Bradbury & M. B. Andersson, eds), pp. 9-20. J. Wiley, Chichester.
54. Mbata, G.N., Shu, S. & Ramaswamy, S.B. 1997. Rhythmicity of mating and oviposition in Callosobruchus subinnotatus (pic) (Colleoptera: Bruchidae) J. Insect Behav. 10: 409-423.
55. Noor, M.A.F. 2000. On the evolution of female mating preferences as pleiotropic byproducts of adaptive evolution. Adaptive Behav. 8: 3-12.
56. 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.
57. Partridge, L. 1980. Mate choice increases a component of offspring fitness in fruit flies. Nature 283: 290-291.
58. Partridge, L. 1988. Lifetime reproductive success in Drosophila. In: Reproductive Success (T. H. Clutton-Brock, ed.), pp. 11-23. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
59. Partridge, L. & Farquhar, M. 1983. Lifetime mating success of male fruitflies (Drosophila melanogaster) is related to size. Anim. Behav. 31: 871-877.
60. Partridge, L. & Fowler, K. 1990. Non-mating costs of exposure to males in female Drosophila melanogaster J. Insect Physiol. 36: 419-425.
61. Partridge, L., Hoffmann, A. & Jones, J.S. 1987a. Male size and mating success in Drosophila melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura under field conditions. Anim. Behav. 35: 468-476.
62. Partridge, L., Ewing, A. & Chandler, A. 1987b. Male size and mating success in Drosophila melanogaster: the roles of male and female behavior. Anim. Behav. 35: 555-562.
63. Petrie, M. & Kempenaers, B. 1998. Extra-pair paternity in birds: explaining variation between species and populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13: 52-58.
64. Pitnick, S. 1991. Male size influences mate fecundity and remating interval in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim. Behav. 41: 735-745.
65. Pitnick, S. & García-González, F. 2002. Harm to females increases with male body size in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 269: 1821-1828.
66. Pitnick, S., Spicer, G.S. & Markow, T. 1997. Phylogenetic examination of female incorporation of ejaculate in Drosophila. Evolution 51: 833-845.
67. Pomiankowski, A. 1987. The costs of choice in sexual selection. J. Theor. Biol. 128: 195-218.
68. Pomiankowski, A. &Møller, A.P. 1995. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 260: 21-29.
69. Pomiankowski, A. & Sheridan, L. 1994. Linked sexiness and choosiness. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9: 242-244.
70. Pomiankowski, A., Iwasa, Y. & Nee, S. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences 1. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution 45: 1422-1430.
71. Price, T., Schluter, D. & Heckman, N.E. 1993. Sexual selection when the female directly benefits. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 48: 187-211.
72. Prout, T. & Clark A.G. 2000. Seminal fluid causes temporary reduced egg hatch in previously mated females. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 267: 201-203.
73. Reynolds, J.D. & Côté, I.M. 1995. Direct selection on mate choice: female redlip blennies pay more for better mates. Behav. Ecol. 6: 175-181.
74. Rice, W.R. 1996. Sexually antagonistic male adaptations triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 381: 232-234.
75. Rice, W.R. 1998. Male fitness increases when females are eliminated from gene pool: implications for the Y chromosome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95: 6217-6221.
76. Robertson, F.S. & Reeve, E. 1952. Studies in quantitative inheritance. I. The effects of selection of wing and thorax length in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Genet. 50: 414-448.
77. Rowe, L. & Houle, D. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 263: 1415-1421.
78. Ryan, M.J. 1998. Sexual selection, receiver biases, and the evolution of sex differences. Science 281: 1999-2003.
79. Sawby, R. & Hughes K.A. 2001. Male genotype affects female longevity in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 55: 834-839.
80. Schaeffer, S.W., Brown, C.J. & Anderson, W.W. 1984. Does mate choice affect fitness? Genetics 107(Suppl.): 94.
81. Sgrò, C.M. & Partridge, L. 2000. Evolutionary responses of the life history of wild-caught Drosophila melanogaster to two standard methods of laboratory culture. Am. Nat. 156: 341-353.
82. Taylor, C.E., Pereda, A.D. & Ferrari, J.A. 1987. On the correlation between mating success and offspring quality in Drosophila melanogaster. Am. Nat. 129: 721-729.
83. Thornhill, R. & Alcock, J. 1983. The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA.
84. Wedell, N. & Sandberg, T. 1995. Female preference for large males in the bushcricket Requena sp. 5 (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). J. Insect Behav. 8: 513-522.
85. Weigensberg, I. & Roff, D.A. 1996. Natural heritabilities: can they be reliably estimated in the laboratory. Evolution 50: 2149-2157.
86. West-Eberhard, M.J. 1984. Sexual selection, competitive communication and species-specific signals in insects. In: Insect Communication (T. Lewis, ed.), pp. 283-324. Academic Press, London.
87. Whitlock, P.C., Phillips, P.C., Moore, F.B.-G. & Tonsor, S.J. 1995. Multiple fitness peaks and epistasis. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26: 601-629.
88. Wiley, R.H. & Poston, J. 1996. Indirect mate choice, competition for mates, and coevolution of the sexes. Evolution 50: 1371-1381.
89. Wilkinson, G. 1987. Equilibrium analysis of sexual selection in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 41: 11-21.
90. Wilson, N., Tufton, T.J. &Eady, P.E. 1999. The effect of single, double and triple matings on lifetime fecundity of Callosbruchus analis and Callosbruchus maculates (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) J. Insect Behav. 12: 295-306.
91. Zar, J.H. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.