Sexual conflict and sexual selection: Measuring antagonistic coevolution

Evolution

Volumn 58, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 1389-1393

  Pizzari, Tommaso ^a   Snook, Rhonda R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Fitness; Sexual conflict; Sexual selection; Sexually antagonistic coevolution

Indexed keywords

ANTAGONISM; COEVOLUTION; SEXUAL CONFLICT; SEXUAL SELECTION;

CENTROPOMUS UNDECIMALIS;

EID: 3042622175     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb01717.x     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Alatalo, R. V., J. Kotiaho, J. Mappes, and S. Parri. 1998. Mate choice for offspring performance: Major benefits or minor costs? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265:2297-2301.
2. Andersson, M. 1994, Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
3. 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.
4. Arnqvist, G. 2004. Sexual conflict and sexual selection: lost in the chase. Evolution 58:1383-1388.
5. Black, J. M., ed. 1996. Partnership in birds: the study of monogamy. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
6. Brooks, R. 2000. Negative genetic correlation between male sexual attractiveness and survival. Nature 406:67-70.
7. Burt, A. 1995. The evolution of fitness. Evolution 49:1-8.
8. Colegrave, N., J. S. Kotiaho, and J. L. Tomkins. 2002. Mate choice or polyandry: reconciling genetic compatibility and good genes sexual selection. Evol. Ecol. Res. 4:911-917.
9. Cordero, C., and W. G. Eberhard. 2003. Female choice of antagonistic male adaptations: a critical review of some current research. J. Evol. Biol. 16:1-6.
10. Cordoba-Aguilar, A., and J. Contreras-Garduño. 2003. Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18:439-440.
11. Darwin, C. 1871. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Appleton, NewYork.
12. David, P., T. Bjorksten, K. Fowler, and A. Pomiankowski. 2000. Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyes flies. Nature 406:186-188.
13. Droney, D. C. 2003. Females lay fewer eggs for males with greater courtship success in a lekking Drosophila. Anim. Behav. 65:371-378.
14. Eberhard, W. G., and C. Cordero. 2003. Sexual conflict and female choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18:438-439.
15. Fisher, RA. 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
16. Friberg, U., and G. Arnqvist. 2003. Fitness effects of female mate choice: preferred males are detrimental for Drosophila melanogaster females. J. Evol. Biol. 16:797-811.
17. Getty, T. 1999. Chase-away sexual selection as noisy reliable signalling. Evolution 53:299-302.
18. Hosken, D. J., 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.
19. Kirkpatrick, M., and M. J. Ryan. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33-38.
20. Kotiaho, J. S., L. W. Simmons, and J. L. Tompkins. 2001. Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410:684-686.
21. Lorch, P. D., S. Proulx, L. Rowe, and T. Day. 2003. Condition-dependent sexual selection can accelerate adaptation. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5:867-881.
22. Møller, A. P., and R. V. Alatalo. 1999. Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266:85-91.
23. Moore, A. J., P. A. Gowaty, and P. J. Moore. 2003. Females avoid manipulative males and live longer. J. Evol. Biol. 16:523-530.
24. Parker, G. A. 1979. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. Pp. 123-166 in Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. M. S. Blum and N. A. Blum eds. Academic Press, New York.
25. Pitnick, S., and F. Garcia-Gonzalez. 2002. Harm to females increases with male body size in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:1821-1828.
26. Pizzari, T., and R. R. Snook. 2003. Sexual conflict and sexual selection: chasing away paradigm shifts. Evolution 57:1223-1236.
27. Rosenthal, G. G., and M. R. Servedio. 1999. Chase-away sexual selection: resistance to "resistance." Evolution 53:296-299.
28. Rowe, L., and D. Houle. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263:1415-1421.
29. Rowe, L., E. Cameron, and T. Day. 2003. Detecting sexually antagonistic coevolution with population crosses. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270:2009-2016.
30. Shuster, S. M., and M. J. Wade. 2003. Mating systems and strategies. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.