Increased opportunity for sexual conflict promotes harmful males with elevated courtship frequencies

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 440-446

  Crudgington, H S ^a   Fellows, S ^a   Snook, R R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Behaviour; Experimental evolution; Insects; Longevity; Mating system; Sexual conflict; Sexual selection; Sexually antagonistic coevolution

Indexed keywords

COURTSHIP; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; FLY; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; LONGEVITY; MONOGAMY; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; SEXUAL CONFLICT;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BODY SIZE; DROSOPHILA; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENETICS; MALE; REPRODUCTION; SEX DIFFERENCE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALS; BODY SIZE; DROSOPHILA; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; MALE; REPRODUCTION; SEX FACTORS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

DROSOPHILA PSEUDOOBSCURA; HEXAPODA;

EID: 74349114460     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01907.x     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Anderson, W.W. 1974. Frequent multiple insemination in a natural population of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Am. Nat. 108 : 709 711.
2. Arnqvist, G. Nilsson, T. 2000. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim. Behav. 60 : 145 164.
3. Arnqvist, G. Rowe, L. 2002. Antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415 : 787 789.
4. Arnqvist, G. Rowe, L. 2005. Sexual Conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
5. Bacigalupe, L., Crudgington, H.S., Slate, J., Moore, A.J. Snook, R.R. 2008. Sexual selection and interacting phenotypes in experimental evolution: a study of Drosophila pseudoobscura mating behavior. Evolution 62 : 1804 1812.
6. Chapman, T., Liddle, L.F., Kalb, J.M., Wolfner, M.F. Partridge, L. 1995. Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster is mediated by female accessory-gland products. Nature 373 : 241 244.
7. Chapman, T., Arnqvist, G., Bangham, J. Rowe, L. 2003. Sexual conflict. TREE 18 : 41 47.
8. Clutton-Brock, T. Langley, P. 1997. Persistent courtship reduces male and female longevity in captive tsetse flies Glossina morsitans morsitans Westwood (Diptera: Glossinidae). Behav. Ecol. 8 : 392 395.
9. Clutton-Brock, T.H. Parker, G.A. 1995. Sexual coercion in animal societies. Anim. Behav. 49 : 1345 1365.
10. Crudgington, H.S., Beckerman, A.P., Brüstle, L., Green, K. Snook, R.R. 2005. Experimental removal and elevation of sexual selection: does sexual selection generate manipulative males and resistant females? Am. Nat. 165 : S72 S87.
11. Crudgington, H.S., Fellows, S., Badcock, N. Snook, R.R. 2009. Experimental manipulation of sexual selection promotes greater male mating capacity but does not alter sperm investment. Evolution 63 : 926 938.
12. Ewer, R.F. 1973. The Carnivores. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
13. Gavrilets, S. 2000. Rapid evolution of reproductive barriers driven by sexual conflict. Nature 403 : 886 889.
14. Gilchrist, G.W., Huey, R.B. Serra, L. 2001. Rapid evolution of wing size clines in Drosophila subobscura. Genetica 112 : 273 286.
15. Guy, L., Eady, P.E., Vasudev, R., Hosken, D.J. Tregenza, T. 2009. Costly sexual harassment in a beetle. Physiol. Entomol. 34 : 86 92.
16. Holland, B. Rice, W.R. 1998. Perspective: chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52 : 1 7.
17. Holland, B. Rice, W.R. 1999. Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96 : 5083 5088.
18. Hosken, D.J., Garner, T.W.J. Ward, P.I. 2001. Sexual conflict selects for male and female reproductive characters. Curr. Biol. 11 : 489 493.
19. Jennions, M.D. Petrie, M. 2000. Why do females mate multiply? A review of genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. 75 : 21 64.
20. Lessells, C.M. 1999. Sexual conflict in animals. In : Levels of Selection in Evolution (L. Keller, ed pp. 75 99. Princeton Universtiy Press, Princeton, NJ.
21. Lessells, C.M. 2006. The evolutionary outcome of sexual conflict. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 361 : 301 317.
22. Magurran, A.E. Seghers, B.H. 1994. The costs of sexual harassment in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 258 : 89 92.
23. Martin, P. Bateson, P. 1986. Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
24. Martin, O.Y. Hosken, D.J. 2003. Costs and benefits of evolving under experimentally enforced polyandry or monogamy. Evolution 57 : 2765 2772.
25. Martin, O.Y., Hosken, D.J. Ward, P.I. 2004. Post-copulatory sexual selection and female fitness in Scathophaga stercoraria. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271 : 353 359.
26. McComb, K. Clutton-Brock, T. 1994. Is mate choice copying or aggregation responsible for skewed distributions of females on leks? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 255 : 13 19.
27. Morrow, E.H., Arnqvist, G. Pitnick, S. 2003. Adaptation versus pleiotropy: why do males harm their mates? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 14 : 802 806.
28. Ojanguren, A.F. Magurran, A.E. 2007. Male harassment reduces short-term female fitness in guppies. Behaviour 144 : 503 514.
29. Parker, G.A. 1970. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol. Rev. 45 : 525 567.
30. Parker, G.A. 1979. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In : Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects (M.S. Blum N.A. Blum, eds pp. 123 166. Academic Press, London.
31. Partridge, L. Fowler, K. 1990. Nonmating costs of exposure to males in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Insect Physiol. 36 : 419 425.
32. Pitnick, S. 1991. Male size influences mate fecundity and remating interval in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim. Behav. 41 : 735 745.
33. Pitnick, S. Garcia-González, F. 2002. Harm to females increases with male body size in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269 : 1821 1828.
34. Pitnick, S., Brown, W.D. Miller, G.T. 2001. Evolution of female remating behaviour following experimental removal of sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268 : 557 563.
35. Reale, D., Bousses, P. Chapuis, J. 1996. Female-biased mortality induced by male sexual harassment in a feral sheep population. Can. J. Zool. 74 : 1812 1818.
36. Rice, W.R. 1996. Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 381 : 232 234.
37. Rice, W.R. 2000. Dangerous liaisons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97 : 12953 12955.
38. Robertson, F.W. Reeve, E. 1952. Studies in quantitative inheritance 1. The effects of selection of wing and thorax length in Drosophila melanogaster. Jr Genetics 50 : 414 448.
39. Sakurai, G. Kasuya, E. 2008. The costs of harassment in the adzuki bean beetle. Anim. Behav. 75 : 1367 1373.
40. Snook, R.R., Robertson, A., Crudgington, H.S. Ritchie, M.G. 2005. Experimental manipulation of sexual selection and the evolution of courtship song in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Behav. Genet. 35 : 245 255.
41. Snook, R.R., Brüstle, L. Slate, J. 2009. A test and review of the role of effective population size on experimental sexual selection patterns. Evolution 63 : 1923 1933.
42. Stockley, P. 1997. Sexual conflict resulting from adaptations to sperm competition. TREE 12 : 154 159.
43. Tilszer, M., Antoszczyk, K., Salek, N., Zajac, E. Radwan, J. 2006. Evolution under relaxed sexual conflict in the bulb mite, Rhizoglyphus robini. Evolution 60 : 1868 1873.
44. Watson, P.J., Arnqvist, G. Stallmann, R.R. 1998. Sexual conflict and the energetic costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. Am. Nat. 151 : 46 58.
45. Wigby, S. Chapman, T. 2004. Female resistance to male harm evolves in response to manipulation of sexual conflict. Evolution 58 : 1028 1037.
46. Wolfner, M.F. 1997. Tokens of love: functions and regulation of Drosophila male accessory gland products. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 27 : 179 192.