The genetic architecture of sexual conflict: Male harm and female resistance in Callosobruchus maculatus

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 449-456

  Gay, L ^a,b   Brown, E ^c   Tregenza, T ^a   Pincheira Donoso, D ^a   Eady, P E ^d   Vasudev, R ^d   Hunt, J ^a   Hosken, D J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^b Domaine de Melgueil   (France)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LINCOLN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Coleoptera; Genital damage; Harm; Intralocus conflict; Resistance; Sexual conflict

Indexed keywords

ANTAGONISM; ASSESSMENT METHOD; BEETLE; BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; COEVOLUTION; COPULATION; FEMALE; GENETIC STRUCTURE; GENETIC VARIATION; HERITABILITY; MALE; RANGE EXPANSION; REPRODUCTIVE COST; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; SEXUAL CONFLICT;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BEETLE; COPULATION; FEMALE; FEMALE GENITAL SYSTEM; HISTOLOGY; MALE; MALE GENITAL SYSTEM; PATHOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALS; BEETLES; COPULATION; FEMALE; GENITALIA, FEMALE; GENITALIA, MALE; MALE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

CALLOSOBRUCHUS MACULATUS; COLEOPTERA;

EID: 78651415601     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02182.x     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Agrawal, A.F. & Stinchcombe, J.R. 2009. How much do genetic covariances alter the rate of adaptation? Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 276: 1183-1191.
2. Arnqvist, G. & Rowe, L. 2005. Sexual Conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
3. Bakker, T.C.M. 1993. Positive genetic correlation between female preference and preferred male ornament in sticklebacks. Nature 363: 255-257.
4. Blanckenhorn, W.U., Hosken, D.J., Martin, O.Y., Reim, C., Teuschl, Y. & Ward, P.I. 2002. The costs of copulating in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Behav. Ecol. 13: 353-358.
5. Bonduriansky, R. & Chenoweth, S.F. 2009. Intralocus sexual conflict. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24: 280-288.
6. Brown, E.A., Gay, L., Vasudev, R., Tregenza, T., Eady, P.E. & Hosken, D.J. 2009. Negative phenotypic and genetic associations between copulation duration and longevity in male seed beetles. Heredity 103: 340-345.
7. Chapman, T., Liddle, L.F., Kalb, J.M., Wolfner, M.F. & Partridge, L. 1995. Cost of mating in Drosophila Melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 373: 241-244.
8. Chippindale, A.K., Gibson, J.R. & Rice, W.R. 2001. Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98: 1671-1675.
9. Civetta, A. & Clark, A.G. 2000. Correlated effects of sperm competition and postmating female mortality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97: 13162-13165.
10. Clutton-Brock, T.H. & Parker, G.A. 1995. Sexual coercion in animal societies. Anim. Behav. 49: 1345-1365.
11. Crudgington, H.S. & Siva-Jothy, M.T. 2000. Genital damage, kicking and early death - the battle of the sexes takes a sinister turn in the bean weevil. Nature 407: 855-856.
12. Day, T. & Bonduriansky, R. 2004. Intralocus sexual conflict can drive the evolution of genomic imprinting. Genetics 167: 1537-1546.
13. Eady, P.E., Hamilton, L. & Lyons, R.E. 2007. Copulation, genital damage and early death in Callosobruchus maculatus. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 274: 247-252.
14. Fairbairn, D.J., Blanckenhorn, W.U. & Szekely, T. 2007. Sex, Size and Gender Roles. Evolutionary Studies of Sexual Size Dimorphism. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
15. Falconer, D.S. 1981. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 2nd edn. Longmans Green, London/New York.
16. Fox, C.W. 1993. Multiple mating, lifetime fecundity and female mortality of the bruchid beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera, Bruchidae). Funct. Ecol. 7: 203-208.
17. Fox, C.W. & Wolf, J.B. 2006. Evolutionary Genetics: Concepts and Case Studies. Oxford University Press, New York.
18. Gavrilets, S. & Hayashi, T.I. 2005. Speciation and sexual conflict. Evol. Ecol. 19: 167-198.
19. Gay, L., Hosken, D.J., Eady, P., Vasudev, R. & Tregenza, T. 2010. The evolution of harm - effect of sexual conflicts and population size. Evolution, in press, doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01181.x.
20. Gilmour, A.R., Gogel, B.J., Cullis, B.R. & Thompson, R. 2006. ASREML User Guide. Release 2.0. VSN International, Hemel Hempstead, UK.
21. Harano, T., Okada, K., Nakayama, S., Miyatako, T. & Hosken, D.J. 2010. Intralocus sexual conflict unresolved by sex-limited trait expression. Curr. Biol., in press, doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.10.023.
22. Holland, B. & Rice, W.R. 1998. Perspective: chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52: 1-7.
23. 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.
24. Horng, S.-B. 1997. Larval competition and egg-laying decisions by the bean weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus. Anim. Behav. 53: 1-12.
25. 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.
26. Hosken, D.J., Martin, O.Y., Born, J. & Huber, F. 2003. Sexual conflict in Sepsis cynipsea: female reluctance, fertility and mate choice. J. Evol. Biol. 16: 485-490.
27. Hotzy, C. & Arnqvist, G. 2009. Sperm competition favors harmful males in seed beetles. Curr. Biol. 19: 404-407.
28. Houle, D. 1992. Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130: 195-204.
29. Johnstone, R.A. & Keller, L. 2000. How males can gain by harming their mates: sexual conflict, seminal toxins and the cost of mating. Am. Nat. 156: 368-377.
30. Kirkpatrick, M. & Barton, N.H. 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 94: 1282-1286.
31. Lande, R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 78: 3721-3725.
32. Leboeuf, B.J. & Mesnick, S. 1991. Sexual behavior of male northern elephant seals. 1. Lethal injuries to adult females. Behaviour 116: 143-162.
33. Lessells, C.M. 2005. Why are males bad for females? Models for the evolution of damaging male mating behavior. Am. Nat. 165: S46-S63.
34. Lew, T.A., Morrow, E.H. & Rice, W.R. 2006. Standing genetic variance for female resistance to harm from males and its relationship to intralocus sexual conflict. Evolution 60: 97-105.
35. Linder, J.E. & Rice, W.R. 2005. Natural selection and genetic variation for female resistance to harm from males. J. Evol. Biol. 18: 568-575.
36. Lynch, M. & Walsh, B. 1998. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
37. Martin, O.Y. & Hosken, D.J. 2003. Costs and benefits of evolving under experimentally enforced polyandry or monogamy. Evolution 57: 2765-2772.
38. 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 Biol. Sci. 271: 353-359.
39. Merila, J., Sheldon, B.C. & Ellegren, H. 1997. Antagonistic natural selection revealed by molecular sex identification of nestling collared flycatchers. Mol. Ecol. 6: 1167-1175.
40. Moore, A.J. & Pizzari, T. 2005. Quantitative genetic models of sexual conflict based on interacting phenotypes. Am. Nat. 165: S88-S97.
41. Morrow, E.H. & Arnqvist, G. 2003. Costly traumatic insemination and a female counter-adaptation in bed bugs. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 270: 2377-2381.
42. Morrow, E.H., Arnqvist, G. & Pitnick, S. 2003. Adaptation versus pleiotropy: why do males harm their mates? Behav. Ecol. 14: 802-806.
43. Parker, G.A. 1978. Evolution of competitive mate searching. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 23: 173-196.
44. Parker, G.A. 1979. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects (M. Blum & N. Blum, eds), pp. 123-166. London Academic Press, London.
45. 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 Biol. Sci. 268: 557-563.
46. Price, T. & Schluter, D. 1991. On the low heritability of life-history traits. Evolution 45: 853-861.
47. Rankin, D.J. & Arnqvist, G. 2008. Sexual dimorphism is associated with population fitness in the seed beetle Callosobruchus maculatus. Evolution 62: 622-630.
48. Rice, W.R. 1996. Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 381: 232-234.
49. Rice, W.R. & Chippindale, A.K. 2001. Intersexual ontogenetic conflict. J. Evol. Biol. 14: 685-693.
50. Rönn, J., Katvala, M. & Arnqvist, G. 2006. The costs of mating and egg production in Callosobruchus seed beetles. Anim. Behav. 72: 335-342.
51. Rönn, J., Katvala, M. & Arnqvist, G. 2007. Coevolution between harmful male genitalia and female resistance in seed beetles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104: 10921-10925.
52. Rowe, L., Cameron, E. & Day, T. 2005. Escalation, retreat, and female indifference as alternative outcomes of sexually antagonistic coevolution. Am. Nat. 165: S5-S18.
53. Savalli, U.M. & Fox, C.W. 1999. The effect of male mating history on paternal investment, fecundity and female remating in the seed beetle Callosobruchus maculatus. Funct. Ecol. 13: 169-177.
54. Sawby, R. & Hughes, K.A. 2001. Male genotype affects female longevity in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 55: 834-839.
55. Siva-Jothy, M.T. 2006. Trauma, disease and collateral damage: conflict in cimicids. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 361: 269-275.
56. Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, P.J. 1994. Biometry, 3rd edn. Freeman & Co., San Francisco.
57. Tatarnic, N.J. & Cassis, G. 2010. Sexual coevolution in the traumatically inseminating plant bug genus Coridromius. J. Evol. Biol. 23: 1321-1326.
58. Tregenza, T., Wedell, N. & Chapman, T. 2006. Introduction? Sexual conflict: a new paradigm? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 361: 229-234.
59. Wigby, S. & Chapman, T. 2004. Female resistance to male harm evolves in response to manipulation of sexual conflict. Evolution 58: 1028-1037.