Sexual conflict and sexual selection: Lost in the chase

Evolution

Volumn 58, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 1383-1388

  Arnqvist, Göran ^a  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Coevolution; Fitness; Reproduction; Sex ratio; Sexual selection; Sperm competition

Indexed keywords

COEVOLUTION; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; SEXUAL CONFLICT; SEXUAL SELECTION; SPECIATION (BIOLOGY);

ANIMALIA; CENTROPOMUS UNDECIMALIS;

EID: 3042678364     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb01716.x     Document Type: Review

References (73)

1. Agrawal, A. F. 2001. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature 411:692-695.
2. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
3. Andrés, J. A., and E. H. Morrow. 2003. The origin of interlocus sexual conflict: Is sex-linkage important? J. Evol. Biol. 16:219-223.
4. Andrés, 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.
5. Arak, A., and M. Enquist. 1993. Hidden preferences and the evolution of signals. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 340:207-213.
6. Arak, A., and M. Enquist. 1995. Conflict, receiver bias and the evolution of signal form. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 349:337-344.
7. Arnqvist, G. 1992. Precopulatory fighting in a water strider: Intersexual conflict or mate assessment? Anim. Behav. 43:559-567.
8. Arnqvist, G., and L. Rowe. 1995. Sexual conflict and arms races between the sexes: a morphological adaptation for control of mating in a female insect. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 261:123-127.
9. Arnqvist, G., and L. Rowe. 2002. Antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415:787-789.
10. Arnqvist, G., M. Edvardsson, U. Friberg, and T. Nilsson. 2000. Sexual conflict promotes speciation in insects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97:10460-10464.
11. Baker, R. H., R. I. S. Ashwell, T. A. Richards, K. Fowler, T. Chapman, and A. Pomiankowski. 2001. Effects of multiple mating and male eye span on female reproductive output in the stalk-eyed fly, Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. Behav. Ecol. 6:732-739.
12. Bergsten, J., A. Töyrä, and A. Nilsson. 2001. Intraspecific variation and intersexual correlation in secondary sexual characters of three diving beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 73:221-232.
13. Brooks, R. 2000. Negative genetic correlation between male sexual attractiveness and survival. Nature 406:67-70.
14. Brown, D. V., and P. E. Eady. 2001. Functional incompatibility between the fertilization systems of two allopatric populations of Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Evolution 55:2257-2262.
15. Cameron, E., T. Day, and L. Rowe. 2003. Sexual conflict and indirect benefits. J. Evol. Biol. 16:1055-1060.
16. Chapman, T., G. Arnqvist, J. Bangham, and L. Rowe. 2003. Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18:41-47.
17. Chapman, T., L. F. Liddle, J. M. Kalb, M. F. Wolfner, and L. Partridge. 1995. Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 373:241-244.
18. Civetta, A., and A. G. Clark. 2000. Correlated effects of sperm competition and postmating female mortality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97:13162-13165.
19. Clark, A. G., D. J. Begun, and T. Prout. 1999. Female X male interactions in Drosophila sperm competition. Science 283:217-220.
20. 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.
21. Crump, M. L. 1988. Aggression in harlequin frogs: male-male competition and a possible conflict of interest between the sexes. Anim. Behav. 36:1064-1077.
22. Dawkins, R. 1976. The selfish gene. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
23. Dawkins, R., and J. R. Krebs. 1978. Animal signals: information or manipulation? Pp. 282-309 in J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies, eds. Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell Science Publ., Oxford, U.K.
24. Dawkins, R., and J. R. Krebs. 1979. Arms races between and within species. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 202:489-511.
25. Droney, D. C. 2003. Females lay fewer eggs for males with greater courtship success in a lekking Drosophila. Anim. Behav. 65:371-378.
26. Eberhard, W. G. 1996. Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
27. Eberhard, W. G. 1998. Female roles in sperm competition. Pp. 91-116 in T. R. Birkhead and A. P. Møller, eds. Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, London.
28. Fisher, RA. 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. Gavrilets, S., and D. Waxman. 2002. Sympatric speciation by sexual conflict. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:10533-10538.
32. Gems, D., and D. L. Riddle. 1996. Longevity in Caenorhabditis elegans reduced by mating but not gamete production. Nature 379:723-725.
33. Getty, T. 1999. Chase-away sexual selection as noisy reliable signaling. Evolution 53:299-302.
34. Holland, B., and W. R. Rice. 1998. Chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52:1-7.
35. 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.
36. Houle, D., and A. S. Kondrashov. 2002. Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:97-104.
37. Jormalainen, V., S. Merilaita, and R. Härdling. 2000. Dynamics of intersexual conflict over precopulatory mate guarding in two populations of the isopod ldotea baltica. Anim. Behav. 60:85-93.
38. Kirkpatrick, M., and M. J. Ryan. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33-38.
39. Kokko, H., R. Brooks, M. D. Jennions, and J. Morley. 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270:653-664.
40. Kokko, H., and R. Brooks. 2003. Sexy to die for? Sexual selection and the risk of extinction. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 40:207-219.
41. Kokko, H., and M. Jennions. 2003. It takes two to tango. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18:103-104.
42. Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
43. 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.
44. Lorch, P. D., S. Proulx, L. Rowe, and T. Day. 2003. Condition-dependent sexual selection can accelerate adaptation. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5:867-881.
45. Moore, A. J., P. A. Gowaty, and P. J. Moore. 2003. Females avoid manipulative males and live longer. J. Evol. Biol. 16:523-530.
46. Morrow, E. H., G. Arnqvist, and S. Pitnick. 2003. Adaptation versus pleiotropy: Why do males harm their mates? Behav. Ecol. 14:802-806.
47. Nilsson, T., C. Fricke, and G. Arnqvist. 2002. Patterns of divergence in the effects of mating on female reproductive performance in flour beetles. Evolution 56:111-120.
48. Parker, G. A. 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.
49. Parker, G. A. 1984. Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating strategies. Pp. 1-60 in R. L. Smith, ed. Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic Press, London.
50. Parker, G. A., and L. Partridge. 1998. Sexual conflict and speciation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 353:261-274.
51. Partridge, L., and L. D. Hurst. 1998. Sex and conflict. Science 281:2003-2008.
52. 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.
53. Pizzari, T., and R. R. Snook. 2003. Sexual conflict and sexual selection: chasing away paradigm shifts. Evolution 57:1223-1236.
54. Rice, W. R. 1984. Sex chromosomes and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38:735-742.
55. Rice, W. R. 1996. Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 381:232-234.
56. 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, Oxford, U.K.
57. Rice, W. R. 2000. Dangerous liaisons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97:12953-12955.
58. 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.
59. Rice, W. R., and B. Holland. 1999. Reply to comments on the chase-away model of sexual selection. Evolution 53:302-306.
60. Rosenthal, G. G., and M. R. Servedio. 1999. Chase-away sexual selection: resistance to "resistance." Evolution 53:296-299.
61. Rowe, L., and G. Arnqvist. 2002. Sexually antagonistic coevolution in a mating system: combining experimental and comparative approaches to address evolutionary processes. Evolution 56:754-767.
62. Rowe, L., G. Arnqvist, A. Sih, and J. J. Krupa. 1994. Sexual conflict and the evolutionary ecology of mating patterns: water striders as a model system. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9:289-293.
63. Rowe, L., E. Cameron, and T. Day. 2003. Detecting sexually antagonistic coevolution with population crosses. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270:2009-2016.
64. Siller, S. 2001. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex. Nature 411:689-692.
65. Slagsvold, T., and J. T. Lifjeld. 1994. Polygyny in birds - the role of competition between females for male parental care. Am. Nat. 143:59-94.
66. Tanaka, Y. 1996. Sexual selection enhances population extinction in a changing environment. J. Theor. Biol. 180:197-206.
67. Thornhill, R., and K. P. Sauer. 1991. The notal organ of the scorpionfly (Panorpa vulgaris): an adaptation to coerce mating duration. Behav. Ecol. 2:156-164.
68. Tregenza, T., N. Wedell, and R. K. Butlin. 2000. Speciation and sexual conflict. Nature 407:149-150.
69. Trivers, R. L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. Pp. 136-179 in B. Campbell, ed. Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aladine, Chicago.
70. Wade, M. J., and S. M. Shuster. 2002. The evolution of parental care in the context of sexual selection: a critical reassessment of parental investment theory. Am. Nat. 160:285-292.
71. Warner, R. R., D. Y. Shapiro, A. Marcanto, and C. W. Petersen. 1995. Sexual conflict - males with highest mating success convey the lowest fertilization benefits to females. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 262:135-139.
72. Watson, P. J., G. Arnqvist, and R. R. Stallman. 1998. Sexual conflict and the energetic costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. Am. Nat. 151:46-58.
73. Whitlock, M. C. 2000. Fixation of new alleles and the extinction of small populations: drift load, beneficial alleles, and sexual selection. Evolution 54:1855-1861.