Male-induced costs of mating for females compensated by offspring viability benefits in an insect

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 23, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 2066-2075

  Garcia Gonzalez, F ^a   Simmons, L W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Accessory gland products; Embryo viability; Field cricket; Genetic benefits; Lifetime reproductive success; Longevity; Polyandry; Seminal fluid; Sexual conflict; Teleogryllus oceanicus

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; BODY FLUID; CRICKET; FITNESS; GENETIC STRUCTURE; LONGEVITY; PARENTAL INVESTMENT; POLYANDRY; REPRODUCTIVE COST; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SEXUAL CONFLICT; SURVIVAL; TRADE-OFF; VIABILITY;

ANIMAL; ANIMAL EMBRYO; ARTICLE; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; FERTILITY; GENETIC SELECTION; GRYLLIDAE; LONGEVITY; MALE; OVIPARITY; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SPERM;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; EMBRYO, NONMAMMALIAN; FEMALE; FERTILITY; GRYLLIDAE; LONGEVITY; MALE; OVIPARITY; SELECTION, GENETIC; SEMEN; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

GRYLLINAE; HEXAPODA; TELEOGRYLLUS OCEANICUS;

EID: 77956596470     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02065.x     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Andrés JA, Maroja LS, Bogdanowicz SM, Swanson WJ, Harrison RG. Molecular evolution of seminal proteins in field crickets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2006, 23:1574-1584.
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 University Press, Princeton
4. Bateman AJ. Intrasexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 1948, 2:349-368.
5. Becker WA. Manual of Quantitative Genetics 1984, Pullman, Washington
6. Bilde T, Friberg U, Maklakov AA, Fry JD, Arnqvist G. The genetic architecture of fitness in a seed beetle: assessing the potential for indirect genetic benefits of female choice. BMC Evol. Biol. 2008, 8:295.
7. Bilde T, Foged A, Schilling N, Arnqvist G. Postmating sexual selection favors males that sire offspring with low fitness. Science 2009, 324:1705-1706.
8. Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection 1998, Birkhead TRMøller AP. eds, Academic Press, San Diego, California
9. Boake CRB. Genetic consequences of mate choice - a quantitative genetic method for testing sexual selection theory. Science 1985, 227:1061-1063.
10. Brommer JE, Gustafsson L, Pietiainen H, Merila J. Single-generation estimates of individual fitness as proxies for long-term genetic contribution. Am. Nat. 2004, 163:505-517.
11. Brown WD, Bjork A, Schneider K, Pitnick S. No evidence that polyandry benefits females in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 2004, 58:1242-1250.
12. Bussiere LF, Hunt J, Jennions MD, Brooks R. Sexual conflict and cryptic female choice in the black field cricket, Teleogryllus commodus. Evolution 2006, 60:792-800.
13. Byrne PG, Rice WR. Remating in Drosophila melanogaster: an examination of the trading-up and intrinsic male-quality hypotheses. J. Evol. Biol. 2005, 18:1324-1331.
14. Cameron E, Day T, Rowe L. Sexual conflict and indirect benefits. J. Evol. Biol. 2003, 16:1055-1060.
15. Chapman T. Evolutionary conflicts of interest between males and females. Curr. Biol. 2006, 16:744-754.
16. Chapman T, Liddle LF, Kalb JM, Wolfner MF, Partridge L. Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 1995, 373:241-244.
17. Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L. Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2003, 18:41-47.
18. Civetta A, Clark AG. Correlated effects of sperm competition and postmating female mortality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97:13162-13165.
19. Cordero C, Eberhard WG. Female choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptations: a critical review of some current research. J. Evol. Biol. 2003, 16:1-6.
20. Crudgington HS, Siva-Jothy MT. Genital damage, kicking and early death. Nature 2000, 407:855-856.
21. Destephano DB, Brady UE. Prostaglandin and prostaglandin synthetase in the cricket, Acheta domesticus. J. Insect Physiol. 1977, 23:905-911.
22. Dunn DW, Sumner JP, Goulson D. The benefits of multiple mating to female seaweed flies, Coelopa frigida (Diptera: Coelpidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2005, 58:128-135.
23. Eberhard WG. Female Control: Sexual Selection By Cryptic Female Choice 1996, Princeton University Press, Princeton
24. Fedorka KM, Mousseau TA. Material and genetic benefits of female multiple mating and polyandry. Anim. Behav. 2002, 64:361-367.
25. Fedorka KM, Mousseau TA. Female mating bias results in conflicting sex-specific offspring fitness. Nature 2004, 429:65-67.
26. Fisher DO, Double MC, Blomberg SP, Jennions MD, Cockburn A. Post-mating sexual selection increases lifetime fitness of polyandrous females in the wild. Nature 2006, 444:89-92.
27. Fiumera AC, Dumont BL, Clark AG. Sperm competitive ability in Drosophila melanogaster associated with variation in male reproductive proteins. Genetics 2005, 169:243-257.
28. Fowler K, Partridge L. A cost of mating in female fruitflies. Nature 1989, 338:760-761.
29. Friberg U, Arnqvist G. Fitness effects of female mate choice: preferred males are detrimental for Drosophila melanogaster females. J. Evol. Biol. 2003, 16:797-811.
30. García-González F, Simmons LW. The evolution of polyandry: intrinsic sire effects contribute to embryo viability. J. Evol. Biol. 2005, 18:1097-1103.
31. García-González F, Simmons LW. Paternal indirect genetic effects on offspring viability and the benefits of polyandry. Curr. Biol. 2007, 17:32-36.
32. Gillott C. Male accessory gland secretions: modulators of female reproductive physiology and behavior. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2003, 48:163-184.
33. Head ML, Hunt J, Jennions MD, Brooks R. The indirect benefits of mating with attractive males outweigh the direct costs. PLoS Biol. 2005, 3:289-294.
34. Holland B, Rice WR. Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 1999, 96:5083-5088.
35. Hood GM. PopTools version 3.0.6. 2008, http://www.cse.csiro.au/poptools, Available on the internet. URL
36. Hotzy C, Arnqvist G. Sperm competition favors harmful males in seed beetles. Curr. Biol. 2009, 19:404-407.
37. Johnstone RA, Keller L. How males can gain by harming their mates: sexual conflict, seminal toxins, and the cost of mating. Am. Nat. 2000, 156:368-377.
38. Kokko H, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Morley J. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2003, 270:653-664.
39. Kubli E. Sex-peptides: seminal peptides of the Drosophila male. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2003, 60:1689-1704.
40. Kuijper B, Stewart AD, Rice WR. The cost of mating rises nonlinearly with copulation frequency in a laboratory population of Drosophila melanogaster. J. Evol. Biol. 2006, 19:1795-1802.
41. Le Galliard JF, Cote J, Fitze PS. Lifetime and intergenerational fitness consequences of harmful male interactions for female lizards. Ecology 2008, 89:56-64.
42. Leopold RA. The role of male accessory glands in insect reproduction. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1976, 21:199-221.
43. Lessells CM. Why are males bad for females? Models for the evolution of damaging male mating behavior. Am. Nat. 2005, 165:S46-S63.
44. Loher W, Edson K. The effect of mating on egg production and release in the cricket Teleogryllus commodus. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1973, 16:483-490.
45. Loher W, Rence B. The mating behaviour of Teleogryllus commodus (Walker) and its central and peripheral control. Z. Tierpsychol. 1978, 46:225-259.
46. Long TAF, Stewart AD, Miller PM. Potential confounds to an assay of cross-generational fitness benefits of mating and male seminal fluid. Biol. Lett. 2009, 5:26-27.
47. Morrow EH, Arnqvist G, Pitnick S. Adaptation versus pleiotropy: why do males harm their mates? Behav. Ecol. 2003, 14:802-806.
48. Maternal Effects as Adaptations 1998, Mousseau TAFox CW. eds, Oxford University Press, Oxford
49. Orteiza N, Linder JE, Rice WR. 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.
50. Parker GA. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects 1979, 123-166. Blum MSBlum NA., Academic Press, New York
51. Pischedda A, Chippindale AK. Intralocus sexual conflict diminishes the benefits of sexual selection. PLoS Biol. 2006, 4:e356.
52. Pitnick S, García-González F. Harm to females increases with male body size in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2002, 269:1821-1828.
53. Poiani A. Complexity of seminal fluid: a review. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2006, 60:289-310.
54. Priest NK, Roach DA, Galloway LF. Cross-generational fitness benefits of mating and male seminal fluid. Biol. Lett. 2008, 4:6-8.
55. Qvarnstrom A, Brommer JE, Gustafsson L. Testing the genetics underlying the co-evolution of mate choice and ornament in the wild. Nature 2006, 441:84-86.
56. Rebar D, Bailey NW, Zuk M. Courtship song's role during female mate choice in the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. Behav. Ecol. 2009, 20:1307-1314.
57. Reinhardt K, Naylor RA, Siva-Jothy MT. Ejaculate components delay reproductive senescence while elevating female reproductive rate in an insect. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106:21743-21747.
58. Rodríguez-Muñoz R, Bretman A, Slate J, Walling CA, Tregenza T. Natural and sexual selection in a wild insect population. Science 2010, 328:1269-1272.
59. Rundle H, Ödeen A, Mooers A. An experimental test for indirect benefits in Drosophila melanogaster. BMC Evol. Biol. 2007, 7:36.
60. Sakaluk SK, Avery RL, Weddle CB. Cryptic sexual conflict in gift-giving insects: chasing the chase-away. Am. Nat. 2006, 167:94-104.
61. Simmons LW. The contribution of multiple mating and spermatophore consumption to the lifetime reproductive success of female field crickets (Gryllus bimaculatus). Ecol. Entomol. 1988, 13:57-69.
62. Simmons LW. The evolution of polyandry: an examination of the genetic incompatibility and good-sperm hypotheses. J. Evol. Biol. 2001a, 14:585-594.
63. Simmons LW. Sperm Competition and its Evolutionary Consequences in the Insects 2001b, Princeton University Press, Princeton
64. Simmons LW. The evolution of polyandry: patterns of genotypic variation in female mating frequency, male fertilization success and a test of the sexy-sperm hypothesis. J. Evol. Biol. 2003, 16:624-634.
65. Simmons LW. The evolution of polyandry: sperm competition, sperm selection, and offspring viability. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2005, 36:125-146.
66. Simmons LW, García-González F. Female crickets trade offspring viability for fecundity. J. Evol. Biol. 2007, 20:1617-1623.
67. Simmons LW, Zuk M. Age structure of parasitized and unparasitized populations of the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. Ethology 1994, 98:333-340.
68. Simmons LW, Wernham J, García-González F, Kamien D. Variation in paternity in the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus: no detectable influence of sperm numbers or sperm length. Behav. Ecol. 2003, 14:539-545.
69. Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Animal Mating Systems 1984, Smith RL. ed, Academic Press, New York
70. Smith CC, Fretwell SD. The optimal balance between size and number of offspring. Am. Nat. 1974, 108:499-506.
71. Stanley-Samuelson DW, Loher W. Arachidonic and other long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in spermatophores and spermathecae of Teleogryllus commodus: significance in prostaglandin-mediated reproductive behaviour. J. Insect Behav. 1983, 29:41-45.
72. Stanley-Samuelson DW, Loher W. Prostaglandins in insect reproduction. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1986, 79:841-853.
73. Stanley-Samuelson DW, Peloquin JJ, Loher W. Egg-laying in response to prostaglandin injections in the Australian filed cricket, Teleogryllus commodus. Physiol. Entomol. 1986, 11:213-219.
74. Stanley-Samuelson DW, Jurenka RA, Blomquist GJ, Loher W. Sexual transfer of prostaglandin precursor in the field cricket Teleogryllus commodus. Physiol. Entomol. 1987, 12:347-354.
75. StatSoft I. STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 6. 2001, http://www.statsoft.com
76. Stewart AD, Morrow EH, Rice WR. Assessing putative interlocus sexual conflict in Drosophila melanogaster using experimental evolution. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2005, 272:2029-2035.
77. Stewart AD, Hannes AM, Mirzatuny A, Rice WR. Sexual conflict is not counterbalanced by good genes in the laboratory Drosophila melanogaster model system. J. Evol. Biol. 2008, 21:1808-1813.
78. Stutt AD, Siva-Jothy MT. Traumatic insemination and sexual conflict in the bed bug Cimex lectularius. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98:5683-5687.
79. Taylor ML, Wedell N, Hosken DJ. Sexual selection and female fitness in Drosophila simulans. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2008, 62:721-728.
80. Thomas ML, Simmons LW. Sexual selection on cuticular hydrocarbons in the Australian field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus. BMC Evol. Biol. 2009, 9:162.
81. Trivers RL. Parental investment and sexual selection. Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1972, 136-179. Campbell R. In, ed, pp, Heinemann, London
82. Vahed K. The function of nuptial feeding in insects: review of empirical studies. Biol. Rev. 1998, 73:43-78.
83. Wagner WE, Harper CJ. Female life span and fertility are increased by the ejaculates of preferred males. Evolution 2003, 57:2054-2066.
84. Wagner WE, Kelley RJ, Tucker KR, Harper CJ. Females receive a life-span benefit from male ejaculates in a field cricket. Evolution 2001, 55:994-1001.
85. Wedell N, Tregenza T, Simmons LW. Nuptial gifts fail to resolve a sexual conflict in an insect. BMC Evol. Biol. 2008, 8:204.
86. Wigby S, Sirot LK, Linklater JR, Buehner N, Calboli FCF, Bretman A, Wolfner MF, Chapman T. Seminal fluid protein allocation and male reproductive success. Curr. Biol. 2009, 19:751-757.
87. Wolfner MF. The gifts that keep on giving: physiological functions and evolutionary dynamics of male seminal proteins in Drosophila. Heredity 2002, 88:85-93.
88. Wolfner MF. Battle and ballet: molecular interactions between the sexes in Drosophila. J. Hered. 2009, 100:399-410.
89. Zajitschek F, Bonduriansky R, Zajitschek SRK, Brooks RC. Sexual dimorphism in life history: age, survival, and reproduction in male and female field crickets Teleogryllus commodus under seminatural conditions. Am. Nat. 2009, 173:792-802.