Lifetime and intergenerational fitness consequences of harmful male interactions for female lizards

Ecology

Volumn 89, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 56-64

  Le Galliard, J F ^a,b   Cote, J ^a   Fitze, P S ^a,c  

^a UPMC University Paris 06   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^c MUSEO NACIONAL DE CIENCIAS NATURALES   (Spain)

Author keywords

Direct costs; Fitness compensation; Indirect benefits; Multiple mating; Sexual conflict; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

COMPENSATION; FEMALE; FITNESS; INTRASEXUAL INTERACTION; LIZARD; MALE BEHAVIOR; MATING BEHAVIOR; MULTIPLE MATING; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SEX RATIO; SEXUAL CONFLICT; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; LIZARD; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; REPRODUCTION; SEX DIFFERENCE; SEX RATIO; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; LIZARDS; MALE; POPULATION DYNAMICS; REPRODUCTION; SELECTION (GENETICS); SEX FACTORS; SEX RATIO; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

SQUAMATA; ZOOTOCA VIVIPARA;

EID: 40449094050     PISSN: 00129658     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/06-2076.1     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
2. Arnqvist, G., and L. Rowe. 2005. Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
3. Bauwens, D., and R. F. Verheyen. 1985. The timing of reproduction in the lizards Lacerta vivipara: differences between individual females. Journal of Herpetology 19:353-364.
4. Boudjemadi, K., J. Lecomte, and J. Clobert. 1999a. Influence of connectivity on demography and dispersal in two contrasting habitats: an experimental approach. Journal of Animal Ecology 68:1207-1224.
5. Boudjemadi, K., O. Martin, J. C. Simon, and A. Estoup. 1999b. Development and cross-species comparison of microsatellite markers in two lizard species, Lacerta vivipara and Podarcis muralis. Molecular Ecology 8:518-520.
6. Cameron, E. T., T. Day, and L. Rowe. 2003. Sexual conflict and indirect benefits. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 16:1055-1060.
7. Chapman, T., G. Arnqvist, J. Bangham, and L. Rowe. 2003. Sexual conflict. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18:41-47.
8. 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.
9. Clutton-Brock, T. H., and G. A. Parker. 1995. Sexual coercion in animal societies. Animal Behaviour 49:1345-1365.
10. Cordero, C., and W. G. Eberhard. 2003. Female choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptations: a crucial review of some current research. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 16:1-6.
11. Crudington, H. S., and M. Siva-Jothy. 2000. Genital damage, kicking and early death. Nature 407:855-856.
12. Fitze, P. F., J.-F. Le Galliard, P. Federici, M. Richard, and J. Clobert. 2005. Conflict over multiple partner mating among males and females of polygynandrous common lizards. Evolution 59:2451-2459.
13. Head, M. L., J. Hunt, M. D. Jennions, and R. Brooks. 2005. The indirect benefits of mating with attractive males outweigh the direct costs. PLOS Biology 3:289-294.
14. Hosken, D. J., and T. Tregenza. 2006. Do bad husbands make good fathers? Current Biology 15:R836-R838.
15. Kokko, H. 2001. Fisherian and "good genes" benefits of mate choice: how (not) to distinguish between them. Ecology Letters 4:322-326.
16. Laloi, D., M. Richard, J. Lecomte, M. Massot, and J. Clobert. 2004. Multiple paternity in clutches of common lizard Lacerta vivipara: data from microsatellite markers. Molecular Ecology 13:719-723.
17. Lecomte, J., J. Clobert, M. Massot, and R. Barbault. 1994. Spatial and behavioural consequences of a density manipulation in the common lizard. Ecoscience 1:300-310.
18. Le Galliard, J.-F., P. Fitze, J. Cote, M. Massot, and J. Clobert. 2005a. Female common lizards (Lacerta vivipara) do not adjust their sex-biased investment in relation to the adult sex ratio. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18:1455-1463.
19. Le Galliard, J.-F., P. Fitze, R. Ferrière, and J. Clobert. 2005b. Sex ratio bias, male aggression, and population collapse in lizards. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 102:18231-18236.
20. Linder, J. E., and W. R. Rice. 2005. Natural selection and genetic variation for female resistance to harm from males. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18:568-575.
21. Littell, R. C., G. A. Millinken, W. W. Stroup, and R. D. Wolfinger. 1996. SAS systems for mixed models. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA.
22. Magurran, A. E., and B. H. Seghers. 1994. A cost of sexual harassment in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 258:89-92.
23. 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:S38-S45.
24. Martin, O. Y., and D. J. Hosken. 2003. Costs and benefits of evolving under experimentally enforced polyandry or monogamy. Evolution 57:2765-2772.
25. Massot, M., J. Clobert, T. Pilorge, J. Lecomte, and R. Barbault. 1992. Density dependence in the common lizard: demographic consequences of a density manipulation. Ecology 73:1742-1756.
26. McCullagh, P., and J. A. Nelder. 1989. Generalized linear models. Second edition. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.
27. Olsson, M., and R. Shine. 1997. The seasonal timing of oviposition in sand lizards (Lacerta agilis): why early clutches are better. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 10:369-381.
28. Orteiza, N., J. E. Linder, and W. R. Rice. 2005. Sexy sons from re-mating do not recoup the direct costs of harmful male interactions in the Drosophila melanogaster laboratory model system. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18:1315-1323.
29. Pizarri, T., and R. R. Snook. 2003. Sexual conflict and sexual selection: chasing away paradigm shifts. Evolution 57:1223-1236.
30. Pizarri, T., and R. R. Snook. 2004. Sexual conflict and sexual selection: measuring antagonistic coevolution. Evolution 58:1389-1393.
31. Quinn, G. P., and M. J. Keough. 2002. Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
32. Reyer, H. U., G. Frei, and C. Som. 1999. Cryptic female choice: frogs reduce clutch size when amplexed by undesired males. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 266:2101-2107.
33. Rice, W. D., A. D. Stewart, E. H. Morrow, J. E. Lindler, N. Orteiza, and P. G. Byrne. 2006. Assessing sexual conflict in the Drosophila melanogaster laboratory model system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 361:287-299.
34. Richard, M., J. Lecomte, M. de Fraipont, and J. Clobert. 2005. Age-specific mating strategies and reproductive senescence. Molecular Ecology 14:3147-3155.
35. Rowe, L., G. Arnqvist, A. Sih, and J. Krupa. 1994. Sexual conflict and the evolutionary ecology of mating patterns - water striders as a model system. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9:289-293.
36. Shine, R., P. LeMaster, I. T. Moore, M. M. Olsson, and R. T. Mason. 2001. Bumpus in the snake den: effects of sex, size, and body condition on mortality of red-sized garter snakes. Evolution 55:598-604.
37. Sinervo, B. 1999. Mechanistic analysis of natural selection and a refinement of Lack's and William's principles. American Naturalist 154:S26-S42.
38. Stewart, A. D., E. H. Morrow, and W. R. Rice. 2005. Assessing putative interlocus sexual conflict in Drosophila melanogaster using experimental evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 272:2029-2036.
39. Svensson, E., B. Sinervo, and T. Commendant. 2001. Density-dependent competition and selection on immune function in genetic lizard morphs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 98:12561-12565.
40. Uller, T., and M. Olsson. 2005. Multiple copulations in natural populations of lizards: evidence for the fertility assurance hypothesis. Behaviour 142:45-56.
41. Weatherhead, P. J., and R. J. Robertson. 1979. Offspring quality and the polygyny threshold: "sexy son" hypothesis. American Naturalist 113:201-208.