Experimentally enforced monogamy: Inadvertent selection, inbreeding, or evidence for sexually antagonistic coevolution?

Evolution

Volumn 59, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 682-685

  Rice, William R ^a   Holland, Brett ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Interlocus contest evolution; Monogamy; Sexual conflict; Sexually antagonistic coevolution

Indexed keywords

ANTAGONISM; COEVOLUTION; MONOGAMY; SEXUAL CONFLICT;

EID: 15944370632     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01026.x     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Chapman, T., G. Arnqvist, J. Bangham, and L. Rowe. 2003. Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18:41-47.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Kimura, M. 1983. The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.
5. Pitnick, S., G. T. Miller, J. Reagan, and B. Holland. 2001. Males' evolutionary responses to experimental removal of sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268:1071-1080.
6. 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.
7. Sharp, P. M. 1984. The effect of inbreeding on competitive male mating ability in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 106:601-612.
8. Snook, R. R. 2001. Sexual selection: conflict, kindness and chicanery. Curr. Biol. 11:R337-R341.
9. Wigby, S., and T. Chapman. 2004. Female resistance to male harm evolves in response to manipulation of sexual conflict. Evolution 58:1028-1037.