How important is sexual conflict?

American Naturalist

Volumn 165, Issue SUPPL., 2005, Pages

  Hosken, David ^a   Snook, Rhonda ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; SEXUAL CONFLICT;

EID: 17644387753     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/429355     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (46)

1. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
2. Aniqvist, G. 2004. Sexual selection and sexual conflict: lost in the chase. Evolution 58:1383-1388.
3. Arnqvist, G., and M. Kirkpatrick. 2005. The evolution of infidelity in socially monogamous passerines: the strength of direct and ittdirect selection on extrapair copulation behavior in females. American Naturalist 165(suppl.):S26-S37.
4. Arnqvist, G., and L. Rowe. 2002. Antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415:787-789.
5. Bateman, A. J. 1948. Intrasexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349-368.
6. Cameron, E., T. Day, and L. Rowe. 2003. Sexual conflict and indirect benefits. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 16:1055-1060.
7. Chapman, T., L. F. Liddle, J. M. Kalb, M. F. Wolfner, and L Partridge. 1995. Costs of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is meciated by male accessory gland products Nature 373:241-244.
8. Chapman, T., G. Arnqvist, J. Bangham, and L. Rowe. 2003. Sexual conflict. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18:41-47.
9. Cook, P. A., and N. Wedell. 1999. Non-fertile sperm delay female remating. Nature 397:486-486.
10. Cordero, C., and W. G. Eberhard. 2003. Female choice of sexually antagonistic adaptations: a critical review of some current research. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 16:1-6.
11. Crudgington, H. S., and M. T. Siva-Jothy. 2000. Genital damage, kicking and early death. Nature 407:855-856.
12. Crudgington, H. S., A. P. Beckerman, L. Brüstle, K. Green, and R. P. Snook. 2005. Experimental removal and elevation of sexual selection: does sexual selection generate manipulative males and resistant females? American Naturalist 165(suppl.):S72-S87.
13. Darwin, C. 1871. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. J. Murray, London.
14. Dawkins, R., and J. R. Krebs. 1979. Arms races between and within species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 205:489-511.
15. Doherty, P. F., G. Sorci, J. A. Royle, J. E. Hines, J. D. Nichols, and T. Boulinier. 2003. Sexual selection affects local extinction and turnover in bird communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 100:5858-5862.
16. Eberhard, W. G. 1985. Sexual selection and animal genitalia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
17. _. 2003. Male-female conflict and genitalia: failure to confirm predictions in insects and spiders. Biological Reviews 79:121-186.
18. _. 2004. Rapid divergent evolution of sexual morphology: comparative tests of antagonistic coevolution and traditional female choice. Evolution 58:1947-1970.
19. _. 2005. Evolutionary conflicts of interest: are female sexual decisions different? American Naturalist 165(suppl.):S19-S25.
20. Eberhard, W. G., and C. Cordero. 2003. Sexual conflict and female choice. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18:438-439.
21. Gage, M. J. G., G. A. Parker, S. Nylin, and C. Wiklund. 2002. Sexual selection and speciation in mammals, butterflies and spiders. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269:2309-2316.
22. Harris, W. E., and P. J. Moore. 2005. Female mate preference and sexual conflict: females prefer males that have had fewer consorts. American Naturalist 165(suppl.):S64-S71.
23. Holland, B., and W. R. Rice. 1998. Perspective: chase-away sexual selection: antagonism versus resistance. Evolution 52:1-7.
24. _. 1999. Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes reproductive load. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 96: 5083-5088.
25. Hosken, D. J., T. W. J. Garner, and P. I. Ward. 2001. Sexual conflict selects for male and female reproductive characters. Current Biology 11:489-493.
26. Hosken, D. J., O. Y. Martin, J. Born, and F. Huber. 2003. Sexual conflict in Sepsis cynipsea: female reluctance, fertility and mate choice. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 16:485-490.
27. Jennions, M. D., and M. Petrie. 2000. Why do females mate multiply? a review of genetic benefits. Biological Reviews 75:21-64.
28. Kirkpatrick, M. 1985 Evolution of female choice and male parental investment in polygynous species: the demise of the "sexy son." American Naturalist 125:788-810.
29. Lessells, C. M. 2005. Why are males bad for females? models for the evolution of damaging male mating behavior. American Naturalist 165(suppl.):S46-S63.
30. Maklakov, A. A., T. Bilde, and Y. Lubin. 2005. Sexual conflict in the wild: elevated mating rate reduces female lifetime reproductive success. American Naturalist 165(suppl.):S38-S45.
31. Martin, O. Y., and D. J. Hosken. 2003. The evolution of reproductive isolation through sexual conflict. Nature 423:979-982.
32. Moore, A. J., and T. Pizzari. 2005. Quantitative genetic models of sexual conflict based on interacting phenotypes. American Naturalist 165(suppl.):S88-S97.
33. Moore, A. J., P. A. Gowaty, and P. J. Moore. 2003 Females avoid manipulative males and live longer. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 16:523-530.
34. Morrow, E. H., G. Arnqvist, and S. Pitnick 2003. Adaptation versus pleiotropy: why do males harm their mates? Behavioral Ecology 14:802-806.
35. Parker, G. A. 1979. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. Pages 123-166 in M. S. Blum and N. A. Blum, eds. Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. Academic Press, New York.
36. _. 1984. Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating strategies. Pages 1-60 in R. L. Smith, ed. Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic Press, London.
37. Pitnick, S., and F. Garcia-Gonzales. 2002. The harm to females increases with male body size in Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269:1821-1828.
38. Pizzari, T, and R. R. Snook. 2003. Perspective: sexual conflict and sexual selection: chasing away paradigm shifts. Evolution 57:1223-1236.
39. _. 2004. Sexual conflict and sexual selection: measuring antagonistic coevolution. Evolution 58:1389-1393.
40. Radwan, J. 2004. Effectiveness of sexual selection in removing mutations induced with ionizing radiation. Ecology Letters 7:1149-1154.
41. Rice, W. R. 1996. Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 381:232-234.
42. Rowe, L., E. Cameron, and T. Day. 2005. Escalation, retreat, and female indifference as alternative outcomes of sexually antagonistic coevolution. American Naturalist 165(suppl.):S5-S18.
43. Seehausen, O., J. J. M. van Alphen, and F. Witte. 1997. Cichlid fish diversity threatened by eutrophication that curbs sexual selection. Science 277:1808-1811.
44. Simmons, L. W., T. Llorens, M. Schinzig, D. Hosken, and M. Craig. 1994. Sperm competition selects for male mate choice and protandry in the bush-cricket, Requena verticalis (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Animal Behaviour 47:117-122.
45. Trivers, R. L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. Pages 136-179 in B. Campbell, ed. Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971. Atherton, Chicago.
46. West, S. A., C. M. Lively, and A. F. Read. 1999. A pluralist approach to sex and recombination. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 12:1003-1012.