Offspring viability benefits but no apparent costs of mating with high quality males

Biology Letters

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 419-421

  Simmons, Leigh W ^a   Holley, Rebecca ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Courtship rate; Female choice; Genetic benefits; Sexual conflict

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANTAGONISM; BEETLE; COEVOLUTION; COURTSHIP; EGG; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MALE BEHAVIOR; REPRODUCTIVE COST; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BEETLE; FEMALE; LONGEVITY; MALE; MATE CHOICE; OVIPARITY; PHYSIOLOGY;

ANIMALS; BEETLES; FEMALE; LONGEVITY; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; OVIPARITY;

COLEOPTERA; ONTHOPHAGUS TAURUS;

EID: 79960075298     PISSN: 17449561     EISSN: 1744957X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2010.0976     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Andersson, M. 1994 Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2. Kokko, H., Jennions, M. D. & Brooks, R. 2006 Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 43-66. (doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37. 091305.110259) (Pubitemid 44907612)
3. Partridge, L. & Fowler, K. 1990 Non-mating costs of exposure to males in female Drosophila melanogaster. J. Insect Physiol. 36, 419-425. (doi:10.1016/0022- 1910(90)90059-O)
4. 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. (doi:10.1038/ 373241a0)
5. Parker, G. A. 1979 Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects (eds M. S. Blum & N. A. Blum), pp. 123-166. London, UK: Academic Press.
6. Holland, B. & Rice, W. R. 1998 Chase-away sexual selection: Antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52, 1-7. (doi:10.2307/2410914) (Pubitemid 28195144)
7. Kotiaho, J. S., Simmons, L. W. & Tomkins, J. L. 2001 Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410, 684-686. (doi:10.1038/35070557) (Pubitemid 32290353)
8. Simmons, L. W. & Kotiaho, J. S. 2002 Evolution of ejaculates: Patterns of phenotypic and genotypic variation and condition dependence in sperm competition traits. Evolution 56, 1622-1631. (doi:10.1554/0014- 3820(2002)056[1622:EOEPOP]2.0.CO;2)
9. Simmons, L. W. 2011 Sexual selection after mating: The evolutionary consequences of sperm competition and cryptic female choice in onthophagines. In Ecology and evolution of dung beetles (eds L. W. Simmons & J. Ridsdill-Smith). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
10. Cameron, E., Day, T. & Rowe, L. 2003 Sexual conflict and indirect benefits. J. Evol. Biol. 16, 1055-1060. (doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00584.x) (Pubitemid 37073874)
11. Simmons, L. W. & García-González, F. 2008 Evolutionary reduction in testes size and competitive fertilization success in response to the experimental removal of sexual selection in dung beetles. Evolution 62, 2580-2591. (doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00479.x)
12. Kotiaho, J. S. 2002 Sexual selection and condition dependence of courtship display in three species of horned dung beetle. Behav. Ecol. 13, 791-799. (doi:10. 1093/beheco/13.6.791) (Pubitemid 35464867)
13. Becker, W. A. 1984 Manual of quantitative genetics. Washington, DC: Pullman.
14. Crawley, M. J. 1993 GLIM for ecologists. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
15. Bilde, T., Foged, A., Schilling, N. & Arnqvist, G. 2009 Postmating sexual selection favors males that sire offspring with low fitness. Science 324, 1705-1706. (doi:10.1126/science.1171675)
16. García-González, F. & Simmons, L. W. 2007 Paternal indirect genetic effects on offspring viability and the benefits of polyandry. Curr. Biol. 17, 32-36. (doi:10. 1016/j.cub.2006.10.054) (Pubitemid 46039876)
17. Bilde, T., Friberg, U., Maklakov, A. A., Fry, J. D. & Arnqvist, G. 2008 The genetic architecture of fitness in a seed beetle: Assessing the potential for indirect genetic benefits of female choice. BMC Evol. Biol. 8, 295. (doi:10.1186/1471-2148-8-295)
18. Sheldon, B. C. 2000 Differential allocation: Tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 15, 397-402. (doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(00)01953- 4)
19. Kotiaho, J. S., Simmons, L.W., Hunt, J. & Tomkins, J. L. 2003 Males influence maternal effects that promote sexual selection: A quantitative genetic experiment with dung beetles Onthophagus taurus. Am. Nat. 161, 852-859. (doi:10.1086/375173) (Pubitemid 36821259)
20. Kozielska, M., Krzeminska, A. & Radwan, J. 2003 Good genes and the maternal effects of polyandry on offspring reproductive success in the bulb mite. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 165-170. (doi:10.1098/ rspb.2003.2585) (Pubitemid 38121761)