The quantitative genetics and coevolution of male and female reproductive traits

Evolution

Volumn 64, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 1926-1934

  Snook, Rhonda R ^a   Bacigalupe, Leonardo D ^a,b   Moore, Allen J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSIDAD AUSTRAL DE CHILE   (Chile)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Experimental evolution; Female reproductive tract; Genetic architecture; Indirect genetic effects; Interacting phenotype; Quantitative genetics; Sperm

Indexed keywords

DROSOPHILA PSEUDOOBSCURA;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BREEDING; CYTOLOGY; DROSOPHILA; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; FEMALE GENITAL SYSTEM; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; HISTOLOGY; MALE; MATE CHOICE; METHODOLOGY; REPRODUCTION; SPERMATOZOON;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMALS; BREEDING; DROSOPHILA; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENETIC VARIATION; GENITALIA, FEMALE; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MODELS, GENETIC; REPRODUCTION; SPERMATOZOA;

EID: 78349288889     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.00958.x     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Amitin, E. G., and S. Pitnick. 2006. Influence of developmental environment on male- and female-mediated sperm precedence in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Evol. Biol. 20:381-391.
2. Astles, P. A., A. J. Moore, andR. F. Preziosi. 2006.Acomparison ofmethods to estimate cross-environment genetic correlations. J. Evol. Biol. 19:114-122.
3. Bacigalupe, L., H. S. Crudgington, J. Slate, A. J. Moore, and R. R. Snook. 2008. Sexual selection and interacting phenotypes in experimental evolution: a study of Drosophila pseudoobscura mating behavior. Evolution 62:1804-1812.
4. Bjork, A., W. T. Starmer, D. M. Higginson, C. J. Rhodes, and S. Pitnick. 2007. Complex interactions with females and rival males limit the evolution of sperm offence and defence. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 274:1779-1788.
5. Blows, M.W. 2007. A tale of two matrices: multivariate approaches in evolutionary biology. J. Evol. Biol. 20:1-8.
6. Blows, M. W., and A. A. Hoffmann. 2005. A reassessment of genetic limits to evolutionary change. Ecology 86:1371-1384.
7. Clark, A. G., E. T. Dermitzakis, and A. Civetta. 2000. Nontransitivity of sperm precedence in Drosophila. Evolution 54:1030-1035.
8. Cotton, S., K. Fowler, and A. Pomiankowski. 2004. Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271:771-783.
9. Crudgington, H. S., A. P. Beckerman, L. Brustle, K. Green, and R. R. Snook. 2005. Experimental removal and elevation of sexual selection: does sexual selection generate manipulative males and resistant females?Am. Nat. 165:S72-S87.
10. Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows, N. S. Badcock, and R. R. Snook. 2009. Experimental manipulation of sexual selection promotes greater mating capacity but does not alter sperm investment. Evolution 63:926-938.
11. Eberhard, W. G. 1996. Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, PA.
12. Green, K. 2003. Age-related variation inmean sperm length in the rove beetle, Aleochara bilineata. J. Insect Phys. 49:993-998.
13. Harris, W. E., A. J. Moore, and P. J. Moore. 2007. Variation in sperm size within and between ejaculates in a cockroach. Funct. Ecol. 21:598-602.
14. Holman, L., and R. R. Snook. 2008. A sterile sperm caste protects brother fertile sperm from female-mediated death in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Curr. Biol. 18:292-296.
15. Holman, L., R. P. Freckleton, and R. R. Snook. 2008. What use is an infertile sperm? A comparative examination of parasperm function in sperm heteromorphic Drosophila. Evolution 62:374-385.
16. Hosken, D. J., T. W. J. Garner, and P. I. Ward. 2001. Sexual conflict selects for male and female reproductive characters. Curr. Biol. 11:489-493.
17. Houle, D. 1992. Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130:195-204.
18. Houle, D., and L. Rowe. 2003. Natural selection in a bottle. Am. Nat. 161:50-67.
19. Miller, G. T., and S. Pitnick. 2002. Sperm-female coevolution in Drosophila. Science 298:1230-1233.
20. Miller, G. T., W. T. Starmer, and S. Pitnick. 2001. Quantitative genetic analysis of the size of the primary sperm-storage organ in Drosophila melanogaster. Heredity 86:25-32.
21. Montrose, V. T., W. E. Harris, and P. J. Moore. 2004. Sexual conflict and cooperation under naturally occurring male enforced monogamy. J. Evol. Biol. 17:443-452.
22. Moore, A. J., and T. Pizzari. 2005. Quantitative genetic models of sexual conflict based on interacting phenotypes. Am. Nat. 165:S88-S97.
23. Moore, A. J., E. D. Brodie, III, and J. B. Wolf. 1997. Interacting phenotypes and the evolutionary process: I. Direct and indirect genetics effects of social interactions. Evolution 51:1352-1362.
24. Moore, P. J., W. E. Harris, V. T. Montrose, D. Levin, and A. J. Moore. 2004. Constraints on evolution and post-copulatory sexual selection: trade-offs among ejaculate characteristics. Evolution 58:1773-1780.
25. Morrow, E. H., and M. J. G. Gage. 2001. Consistent significant variation between individualmales in spermatozoal morphometry. J. Zool. 254:147-153.
26. Parker, G. A. 1982. Why are there so many tiny sperm? Sperm competition and the maintenance of two sexes. J. Theor. Biol. 96:281-294.
27. Pitnick, S., G. T. Miller, J. Reagan, and B. Holland. 2001. Males' evolutionary responses to experimental removal of sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268:1071-1080.
28. Pitnick, S., M. F. Wolfner, S. S. Suarez. 2009a. Ejaculate-female and spermfemale interactions. Pp. 247-304 in T. R. Birkhead, D. J. Hosken, and S. Pitnick, eds. Sperm biology: an evolutionary perspective. Academic Press, New York.
29. Pitnick, S., D. J. Hosken, and T. R. Birkhead. 2009b. Sperm morphological diversity. Pp. 69-149 in T. R. Birkhead, D. J. Hosken, and S. Pitnick, eds. Sperm biology: an evolutionary perspective. Academic Press, New York.
30. Pizzari, T., and G. A. Parker. 2009. Sperm competition and sperm phenotype. Pp. 207-245 in T. R. Birkhead, D. J. Hosken, and S. Pitnick, eds. Sperm biology: an evolutionary perspective. Academic Press, New York.
31. Pomiankowski, A., and A. P. Møller. 1995. A resolution to the lek paradox. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 260:21-29.
32. Presgraves, D. C., R. H. Baker, and G. S. Wilkinson. 1999. Coevolution of sperm and female reproductive tract morphology in stalk-eyed flies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266:1041-1047.
33. Rowe, L., and D. Houle. 1996. The lek paradox, condition dependence and genetic variance in sexually selected traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263:1415-1421.
34. Simmons, L.W. 2001. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, PA.
35. Simmons, L. W., and J. S. Kotiaho. 2002. Evolution of ejaculates: patterns of phenotypic and genotypic variation and condition dependence in sperm competition traits. Evolution 56:1622-1631.
36. Simmons, L. W., and J. S. Kotiaho. 2007. Quantitative genetic correlation between trait and preference supports a sexually selected sperm process. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104:16604-16608.
37. Simmons, L.W., and A. J.Moore. 2009. Evolutionary quantitative genetics of sperm. Pp. 405-434 in T. R. Birkhead, D. J. Hosken, and S. Pitnick, eds. Sperm biology: an evolutionary perspective. Academic Press, New York.
38. Skinner, A. M. J., and P. J. Watt. 2007. Phenotypic correlates of spermatozoan quality in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 55:363-369.
39. Snook, R. R. 2005. Sperm in competition: not playing by the numbers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20:46-53.
40. Snook, R. R., and T. L. Karr. 1998. Only long sperm are fertilization-competent in six sperm-heteromorphic Drosophila species. Curr. Biol. 8:291-294.
41. Snook, R. R., and T. A. Markow. 2001. Mating system evolution in sperm heteromorphic Drosophila. J. Insect Phys. 47:957-964.
42. Snook, R. R., T. A.Markow, and T. L. Karr. 1994. Functional nonequivalence of sperm in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91:11222-11226.
43. Snook, R. R., L. Brustle, and J. Slate. 2009. A test and review of the role of effective population size on experimental sexual selection patterns. Evolution 63:1923-1933.
44. Till-Bottraud, I., D. Joly, D. Lachaise, and R. R. Snook. 2005. Pollen and sperm heteromorphism: convergence across kingdoms? J. Evol. Biol. 18:1-18.
45. Tregenza, T., F. Attia, and S. S. Buahaiba. 2009. Repeatability and heritability of sperm competition outcomes in males and females of Tribolium castaneum. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63:817-823.
46. West-Eberhard, M. J. 1979. Sexual selection, social competition, and evolution. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 51:222-234.
47. West-Eberhard, M. J. 1983. Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Q. Rev. Biol. 58:155-183.
48. Wigby, S., and T. Chapman. 2004. Female resistance to male harm evolves in response to manipulation of sexual selection. Evolution 58:1028-137.