Remating in Drosophila melanogaster: Are indirect benefits condition dependent

Evolution

Volumn 64, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 2767-2774

  Long, Tristan A F ^a,b   Pischedda, Alison ^a   Rice, William R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Drosophila melanogaster; Fecundity; Fitness; Indirect benefits; Remating; Sexual conflict; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; EVOLUTIONARILY STABLE STRATEGY; FECUNDITY; FITNESS; FLY; GENETIC VARIATION; POLYANDRY; REPRODUCTIVE COST; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SEXUAL CONFLICT; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BODY SIZE; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; FEMALE; HISTOLOGY; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALS; BODY SIZE; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; FEMALE; MALE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER;

EID: 77956422636     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.00997.x     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Andersson M B. Sexual selection 1994, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ
2. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim. Behav. 2000, 60:145-164.
3. Arnqvist G, Rowe L. Sexual conflict 2005, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ
4. Bateman A J. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 1948, 2:349-368.
5. Bernasconi G, Keller L. Female polyandry affects their sons' reproductive success in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum. J. Evol. Biol. 2001, 14:186-193.
6. Byrne P G, Rice W R. Evidence for adaptive male mate choice in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2006, 273:917-922.
7. 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.
8. Chippindale A K, Gibson J R, Rice W R. Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98:1671-1675.
9. Civetta A, Clark A G. Correlated effects of sperm competition and postmating female mortality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97:13162-13165.
10. Clutton-Brock T H. Reproductive success: studies of individual variation in contrasting breeding systems 1988, The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago
11. Cotton S, Small J, Pomiankowski A. Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr. Biol. 2006, 16:R755-R765.
12. Csink A K, Henikoff S. Genetic modification of heterochromatic association and nuclear organization in Drosphila. Nature 1996, 381:529-531.
13. Fedorka K M, Mousseau T A. Material and genetic benefits of female multiple mating and polyandry. Anim. Behav. 2002, 64:361-367.
14. Fowler K, Partridge L. A cost of mating in female fruit flies. Nature 1989, 338:760-761.
15. Friberg U. Male perception of female mating status: its effect on copulation duration, sperm defence and female fitness. Anim. Behav. 2006, 72:1259-1268.
16. Friberg U, Lew T A, Byrne P G, Rice W R. Assessing the potential for an ongoing arms race within and between the sexes: selection and heritable variation. Evolution 2005, 59:1540-1551.
17. Fricke C, Bretman A, Chapman T. Adult male nutrition and reproductive success in Drosphila melanogaster. Evolution 2008, 62:3170-3117.
18. Fricke C, Perry J, Chapman T, Rowe L. The conditional economics of sexual conflict. Biol. Lett. 2009, 5:660-662.
19. Gibson J R, Chippindale A K, Rice W R. The X chromosome is a hot spot for sexually antagonistic fitness variation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2002, 269:499-505.
20. Halliday T R. The study of mate choice. Mate Choice 1983, 3-32. Bateson P. ed., Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK
21. Harshman L G, Clark A G. Inference of sperm competition from broods of field-caught Drosophila. Evolution 1998, 52:1334-1341.
22. Head M L, Hunt J, Brooks R. The indirect benefits of mating with attractive males outweigh the direct costs. PLoS Biol. 2005, 3:289-294.
23. Holland B, Rice W R. Perspective: chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 1998, 52:1-7.
24. Imhof M, Harr B, Brem G, Schlötterer C. Multiple mating in wild Drosophila melanogaster revisited by microsatellite analysis. Mol. Ecol. 1998, 7:915-917.
25. Jennions M D, Petrie M. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. 1997, 72:283-327.
26. Jennions M D, Petrie M. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. 2000, 75:21-64.
27. Kokko H, Mappes J. Sexual selection when fertilization is not guaranteed. Evolution 2005, 59:1876-1885.
28. Kuijper B, Morrow E H. Direct observation of female mating frequency using time-lapse photography. Fly 2009, 3:1-3.
29. Kuijper B, Stewart A D, Rice W R. The cost of mating rises nonlinearly with copulation frequency in a laboratory population of Drosophila melanogaster. J. Evol. Biol. 2006, 19:1795-1802.
30. Lefranc A, Bundgaard J. The influence of male and female body size on copulation duration and fecundity in Drosophila melanogaster. Hereditas 2000, 132:243-247.
31. Le Galliard J F, Cote J, Fitze P S. Lifetime and intergenerational fitness consequences of harmful male interactions for female lizards. Ecology 2008, 89:56-64.
32. Lew T A, Morrow E H, Rice W R. Standing genetic variance for female resistance to harm from males and its relationship to intralocus sexual conflict. Evolution 2006, 60:97-105.
33. Linder J E, Rice W R. Natural selection and genetic variation for female resistance to harm from males. J. Evol. Biol. 2005, 18:568-575.
34. Long T A F, Miller P M, Stewart A D, Rice W R. Estimating the heritability of female lifetime fecundity in a locally adapted Drosophila melanogaster population. J. Evol. Biol. 2009a, 22:637-643.
35. Long T A F, Pischedda A, Stewart A D, Rice W R. A cost of sexual attractiveness to high fitness females. PLoS Biol. 2009b, 7:e1000254.
36. MacLellan K, Whitlock M C, Rundle H D. Sexual selection against deleterious mutations via variable male search success. Biol. Lett. 2009, 5:795-797.
37. Markow T A. Forced matings in natural populations of Drosophila. Am. Nat. 2000, 156:100-103.
38. McGraw L A, Fuimera A C, Ramakrishnan M, Madhavarapu S, Clark A G, Wolfner M F. Larval rearing environment affects several post-copulatory traits in Drosophila melanogaster. Biol. Lett. 2007, 3:607-610.
39. Merrell D J. Competition involving dominant mutants in experimental populations of Drosphila melanogaster. Genetics 1965, 52:165-189.
40. Morrow E H, Stewart A D, Rice W R. Patterns of sperm precedence are not affected by female mating history in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 2005, 59:2608-2615.
41. Orteiza N, Linder J E, Rice W R. Sexy sons from re-mating do not recoup the direct costs of harmful male interactions in the Drosophila melanogaster laboratory model system. J. Evol. Biol. 2005, 18:1315-1323.
42. Parker G A. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects 1979, 123-166. Blum M SBlum N A. eds., Academic Press, New York
43. Partridge L, Fowler K. Nonmating costs of exposure to males in female Drosophila melanogaster. J. Insect Physiol. 1990, 36:419-425.
44. Partridge L, Ewing A, Chandler A. Male size and mating success in Drosophila melanogaster: the roles of male and female behaviour. Anim. Behav. 1987, 35:555-562.
45. Pischedda A, Chippindale A K. Intralocus sexual conflict diminishes the benefits of sexual selection. PLoS Biol. 2006, 4:e356.
46. Priest N K, Galloway L F, Roach D A. Sexual behaviour and inclusive fitness in Drosophila melanogaster. Am. Nat. 2008, 171:10-21.
47. Rice W R. Sex-chromosomes and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 1984, 38:735-742.
48. Rice W R. A consensus combined P-value test and the family-wide significance of component tests. Biometrics 1990, 46:303-308.
49. Rice W R, Chippindale A K. Intersexual ontogenetic conflict. J. Evol. Biol. 2001, 14:685-693.
50. Rice W R, Stewart A D, Morrow E H, Linder J E, Orteiza N, Byrne P G. Assessing sexual conflict in the Drosophila melanogaster laboratory model system. Philos. Tran. R. Soc. Lond. B 2006, 361:287-299.
51. Rowe L, Krupa J J, Sih A. An experimental test of condition-dependent mating behavior and habitat choice by water striders in the wild. Behav. Ecol. 1996, 7:474-479.
52. Rowe L, Cameron E, Day T. Escalation, retreat, and female indifference as alternative outcomes of sexually antagonistic coevolution. Am. Nat. 2005, 165:S5-S18.
53. Rundle H D, Odeen A, Mooers A O. An experimental test for indirect benefits in Drosophila melanogaster. BMC Evol. Biol. 2007, 7:36.
54. Simmons L W. The evolution of polyandry: sperm competition, sperm selection and offspring viability. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2005, 36:125-146.
55. Stewart A D, Morrow E H, Rice W R. Assessing putative interlocus sexual conflict in Drosophila melanogaster using experimental evolution. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2005, 272:2029-2035.
56. Stewart A D, Hannes A M, Mirzatuny A, Rice W R. Sexual conflict is not counterbalanced by good genes in the laboratory Drosophila melanogaster model system. J. Evol. Biol. 2008, 21:1808-1813.
57. Syriatowicz A, Brooks R. Sexual responsiveness is condition-dependent in female guppies, but preference functions are not. BMC Ecol. 2004, 4:5.
58. Thornhill R, Alcock J. The evolution of insect mating systems 1983, Harvard Univ/ Press, Cambridge, MA
59. Tregenza T, Wedell N. Benefits of multiple mates in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Evolution 1998, 52:1726-1730.
60. Wade M J, Arnold S J. The intensity of sexual selection in relation to male sexual behavior female choice and sperm precedence. Anim. Behav. 1980, 28:446-461.
61. Weigensberg I, Carrière Y, Roff D A. Effects of male genetic contribution and paternal investment to egg and hatchling size in the cricket, Gryllus firmus. J. Evol. Biol. 1998, 11:135-146.
62. Widemo F, Sæther S A. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: causes and consequences of mating preferences. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1999, 14:26-31.
63. Wigby S, Sirot L K, Linklater J R, Buehner A, Calboili F C F, Bretman A, Wolfner M F, Chapman T. Seminal fluid protein allocation and male reproductive success. Curr. Biol. 2009, 19:751-757.