Does sex trade with violence among genotypes in Drosophila melanogaster?

PLoS ONE

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2008, Pages

  Cabral, Larry G ^a   Foley, Brad R ^b   Nuzhdin, Sergey V ^b,c  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGGRESSION; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENETIC TRAIT; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENOTYPE; INBRED STRAIN; MALE; MATE CHOICE; MATING SUCCESS; NATURAL POPULATION; NONHUMAN; SEXUAL SELECTION; TERRITORIALITY; VIOLENCE; ANIMAL; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; GENETIC SELECTION; PHENOTYPE; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SPECIES DIFFERENCE;

DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER;

ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENOTYPE; MALE; PHENOTYPE; SELECTION (GENETICS); SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; SPECIES SPECIFICITY; VARIATION (GENETICS); VIOLENCE;

EID: 44849139601     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001986     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Dierick HA, Greenspan RJ (2006) Molecular analysis of flies selected for aggressive behavior. Nature Genetics 38: 1023-1031.
2. Dow MA, Schilcher FV (1975) Aggression and Mating Success in Drosophila melanogaster. Nature 254. 511-512.
3. Tomkins JL, Radwan J, Kotiaho JS, Tregenza T (2004) Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19: 323.
4. Hine E, Chenoweth SF, Blows MW (2004) Multivariate quantitative genetics and the lek paradox: Genetic variance in male sexually selected traits of Drosophila serrata under field conditions. Evolution 58: 2754.
5. Moore AJ, Brodie ED, Wolf JB (1997) Interacting phenotypes and the evolutionary process .1. Direct and indirect genetic effects of social interactions. Evolution 51: 1352.
6. Wolf JB, Brodie ED, Moore AJ (1999) Interacting phenotypes and the evolutionary process. II. Selection resulting from social interactions. American Naturalist 153: 254.
7. Harris WE, McKane AJ, Wolf JB (2008) The maintenance of heritable variation through social competition. Evolution 62: 337-347.
8. Sinervo B, Lively CM (1996) The rock-paper-scissors game and the evolution of alternative male strategies. 380: 240-243.
9. Matthews IM, Evans JP, Magurran AE (1997) Male display rate reveals ejaculate characteristics in the Trinidadian guppy Poecilia reticulata. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 264: 695-700.
10. Brooks R, Endler JA (2001) Female guppies agree to differ: Phenotypic and genetic variation in mate-choice behavior and the consequences for sexual selection. Evolution 55: 1644.
11. Coleman SW, Patricelli GL, Borgia G (2004) Variable female preferences drive complex male displays. Nature 428: 742.
12. Sih A, Watters JV (2005) The mix matters: behavioural types and group dynamics in water striders. Behaviour 142: 1417-1431.
13. Stamps J, Buechner M, Alexander K, Davis J, Zuniga N (2005) Genotypic differences in space use and movement patterns in Drosophilla melanogaster. Animal Behaviour 70: 609-618.
14. Chen S, Lee AY, Bowens NM, Huber R, Kravitz EA (2002) Fighting fruit flies: A model system for the study of aggression. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99: 5664-5668.
15. Edwards AC, Rollmann SM, Morgan TJ, Mackay TFC (2006) Quantitative genomics of aggressive behavior in Drosophila melanogaster. Plos Genetics 2: 1386-1395.
16. Baier A, Wittek B, Brembs B (2002) Drosophila as a new model organism for the neurobiology of aggression? Journal of Experimental Biology 205: 1233-1240.
17. Boake CRB, Arnold SJ, Breden F, Meffert LM, Ritchie MG, et al. (2002) Genetic tools for studying adaptation and the evolution of behavior. American Naturalist 160: S143-S159.
18. Hoffmann AA, Cacoyianni Z (1989) Selection for Territoriality in Drosophila melanogaster - Correlated Responses in Mating Success and Other Fitness Components. Animal Behaviour 38: 23-34.
19. Nilsen SP, Chan YB, Huber R, Kravitz EA (2004) Gender-selective patterns of aggressive behavior in Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101: 12342-12347.
20. Lasbleiz C, Ferveur JF, Everaerts C (2006) Courtship behaviour of Drosphila melanogaster revisited. Animal Behaviour 72: 1001-1012.
21. Garcia LV (2004) Escaping the Bonferroni iron claw in ecological studies. Oikos 105: 657-663.
22. Hoffmann AA (1988) Heritable Variation for Territorial Success in 2 Drosophila melanogaster Populations. Animal Behaviour 36: 1180-1189.
23. Greenspan RJ, Ferveur JF (2000) Courtship in Drosophila. Annual Review of Genetics 34: 205.
24. Droney DC (2001) Male lekking duration and mating benefits in a lek-forming Hawaiian Drosophila. Journal of Insect Behavior 14: 621-635.
25. Sih A, Bell AM, Johnson JC, Ziemba RE (2004) Behavioral syndromes: An integrative overview. Quarterly Review of Biology 79: 241-277.
26. Stamps JA (2007) Growth-mortality tradeoffs and 'personality traits' in animals. Ecology Letters 10: 355-363.
27. Yang HP, Nuzhdin SV (2003) Fitness costs of Doc expression are insufficient to stabilize its copy number in Drosophila melanogaster. Molecular Biology and Evolution 20: 800-804.
28. Hoffmann AA (1987) A Laboratory Study of Male Territoriality in the Sibling Species Drosophila melanoigaster and Drosophila simulans. Animal Behaviour 35: 807-818.
29. Hoffmann AA, Cacoyianni Z (1990) Territoriality in Drosphila melanogaster as a Conditional Strategy. Animal Behaviour 40: 526-537.