Sexual conflict and the maintenance of multivariate genetic variation

Evolution

Volumn 64, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 1697-1703

  Hall, Matthew D ^a,b,c   Lailvaux, Simon P ^a,d   Blows, Mark W ^c,d   Brooks, Robert C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Crickets; Harassment; Interlocus conflict; Lek paradox; Quantitative genetics; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ANTAGONISM; COURTSHIP; CRICKET; GENE FLOW; GENETIC VARIATION; MATE CHOICE; SEXUAL CONFLICT; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; GRYLLIDAE; MALE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT;

ANIMALS; FEMALE; GENETIC VARIATION; GRYLLIDAE; MALE; SELECTION, GENETIC; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

GRYLLIDAE; TELEOGRYLLUS COMMODUS;

EID: 77953888199     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00932.x     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Balakrishnan R, Pollack G S. Recognition of courtship song in the field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus. Anim. Behav. 1996, 51:353-366.
2. Barton N H, Turelli M. Evolutionary quantitative genetics: how little do we know?. Annu. Rev. Genet. 1989, 23:337-370.
3. Bateman P W, MacFadyen D N. Mate guarding in the cricket Gryllodes sigillatus: influence of multiple potential partners. Ethology 1999, 105:949-957.
4. Bentsen C L, Hunt J, Jennions M D, Brooks R. Complex multivariate sexual selection on male acoustic signaling in a wild population of Teleogryllus commodus. Am. Nat. 2006, 167:102-116.
5. Blows M W. A tale of two matrices: multivariate approaches in evolutionary biology. J. Evol. Biol. 2007, 20:1-8.
6. Blows M W, Brooks R. Measuring nonlinear selection. Am. Nat. 2003, 162:815-820.
7. Brooks R, Hunt J, Blows M W, Smith M J, Bussière L F, Jennions M D. Experimental evidence for multivariate stabilizing sexual selection. Evolution 2005, 59:871-880.
8. Bussière L F, Hunt J, Jennions M D, Brooks R. Sexual conflict and cryptic female choice in the black field cricket, Teleogryllus commodus. Evolution 2006, 60:792-800.
9. Candolin U. Opposing selection on a sexually dimorphic trait through female choice and male competition in a water boatman. Evolution 2004, 58:1861-1864.
10. Chaine A S, Lyon B E. Adaptive plasticity in female mate choice dampens sexual selection on male ornaments in the lark bunting. Science 2008, 319:459-462.
11. Chapman T. Evolutionary conflicts of interest between males and females. Curr. Biol. 2006, 16:R744-R754.
12. Chapman T, Liddle L F, Kalb J M, Wolfner M F, Partridge L. Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory-gland products. Nature 1995, 373:241-244.
13. Chenoweth S F, Blows M W. Contrasting mutual sexual selection on homologous signal traits in Drosophila serrata. Am. Nat. 2005, 165:281-289.
14. Cotton S, Pomiankowski A. Sexual selection: does condition dependence fail to resolve the 'lek paradox'?. Curr. Biol. 2007, 17:R335-R337.
15. Evans A R. Mating systems and reproductive strategies in 3 Australian gryllid crickets: Bobilla victoriae Otte, Balamara gidya Otte and Teleogryllus commodus Walker (Orthoptera, Gryllidae: Nemobiinae; Trigonidiinae; Gryllinae). Ethology 1988, 78:21-52.
16. Foerster K, Coulson T, Sheldon B C, Pemberton J M, Clutton-Brock T H, Kruuk L E B. Sexually antagonistic genetic variation for fitness in red deer. Nature 2007, 447:1107-U1109.
17. Gibbs H L, Grant P R. Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches. Nature 1987, 327:511-513.
18. Hall M D, Lindholm A K, Brooks R. Direct selection on male attractiveness and female preference fails to produce a response. BMC Evol. Biol. 2004, 4.
19. Hall M D, Bussière L F, Hunt J, Brooks R. Experimental evidence that sexual conflict influences the opportunity, form and intensity of sexual selection. Evolution 2008, 62:2305-2315.
20. Hall M D, Bussière L F, Demont M, Ward P I, Brooks R. Competitive PCR reveals the complexity of post-copulatory sexual selection in Teleogryllus commodus. Molecular Ecology 2009, 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04496.x, doi, Epub ahead of print
21. Hine E, Blows M W. Determining the effective dimensionality of the genetic variance-covariance matrix. Genetics 2006, 173:1135-1144.
22. Hine E, Chenoweth S F, Blows M W. Multivariate quantitative genetics and the lek paradox: Genetic variance in male sexually selected traits of Drosophila serrata under field conditions. Evolution 2004, 58:2754-2762.
23. Hosken D, Snook R. How important is sexual conflict?. Am. Nat. 2005, 165:S1-S4.
24. Hotzy C, Arnqvist G. Sperm competition favors harmful males in seed beetles. Curr. Biol. 2009, 19:404-407.
25. Hunt J, Blows M W, Zajitschek F, Jennions M D, Brooks R. Reconciling strong stabilizing selection with the maintenance of genetic variation in a natural population of black field crickets (Teleogryllus commodus). Genetics 2007, 177:875-880.
26. Hunt J, Breuker C J, Sadowski J A, Moore A J. Male-male competition, female mate choice and their interaction: determining total sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 2009, 22:13-26.
27. Johnson T, Barton N. Theoretical models of selection and mutation on quantitative traits. Philos. Trans. R Soc. B 2005, 360:1411-1425.
28. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan M J. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 1991, 350:33-38.
29. Kotiaho J S, Simmons L W, Tomkins J L. Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 2001, 410:684-686.
30. Kotiaho J S, Lebas N R, Puurtinen M, Tomkins J L. On the resolution of the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2008, 23:1-3.
31. Kruuk L E B, Slate J, Pemberton J M, Brotherstone S, Guinness F, Clutton-Brock T. Antler size in red deer: heritability and selection but no evolution. Evolution 2002, 56:1683-1695.
32. Lande R. The genetic covariance between characters maintained by pleiotropic mutations. Genetics 1980, 94:203-216.
33. Lande R, Arnold S J. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 1983, 37:1210-1226.
34. Loher W, Rence B. The mating behavior of Teleogryllus commodus (Walker) and its central and peripheral control. Z Tierpsychol. 1978, 46:225-259.
35. McGuigan K, Van Homrigh A, Blows M W. An evolutionary limit to male mating success. Evolution 2008, 62:1528-1537.
36. Parker G A. Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Philos. Trans. R Soc. B 2006, 361:235-259.
37. Phillips P C, Arnold S J. Visualizing multivariate selection. Evolution 1989, 43:1209-1222.
38. Pigliucci M. Genetic variance-covariance matrices: a critique of the evolutionary quantitative genetics research program. Biol. Philos. 2006, 21:1-23.
39. Pischedda A, Chippindale A K. Intralocus sexual conflict diminishes the benefits of sexual selection. PLoS Biol. 2006, 4:2099-2103.
40. Pomiankowski A, Møller A P. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc. R Soc. B 1995, 260:21-29.
41. Radwan J. Maintenance of genetic variation in sexual ornaments: a review of the mechanisms. Genetica 2008, 134:113-127.
42. Reinhold K. Maintenance of a genetic polymorphism by fluctuating selection on sex-limited traits. J. Evol. Biol. 2000, 13:1009-1014.
43. Robinson M R, Pilkington J G, Clutton-Brock T H, Pemberton J M, Kruuk L E B. Environmental heterogeneity generates fluctuating selection on a secondary sexual trait. Curr. Biol. 2008, 18:751-757.
44. Sasaki A, Ellner S. Quantitative genetic variance maintained by fluctuating selection with overlapping generations: variance components and covariances. Evolution 1997, 51:682-696.
45. Simmons L W. Female choice in the field cricket Gryllus Bimaculatus (De Geer). Anim. Behav. 1986, 34:1463-1470.
46. Tomkins J L, Radwan J, Kotiaho J S, Tregenza T. Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19:323-328.
47. Tregenza T, Simmons L W, Wedell N, Zuk M. Female preference for male courtship song and its role as a signal of immune function and condition. Anim. Behav. 2006, 72:809-818.
48. Van Homrigh A, Higgie M, McGuigan K, Blows M W. The depletion of genetic variance by sexual selection. Curr. Biol. 2007, 17:528-532.
49. Wigby S, Chapman T. Sex peptide causes mating costs in female Drosophila melanogaster. Curr. Biol. 2005, 15:316-321.
50. Zuk M. The effects of gregarine parasites, body size, and time of day on spermatophore production and sexual selection in field crickets. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1987, 21:65-72.