Covariance among premating, post-copulatory and viability fitness components in Drosophila melanogaster and their influence on paternity measurement

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 25, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 1555-1563

  Droge Young, E M ^a   Manier, M K ^a   Lupold S ^a   Belote, J M ^a   Pitnick, S ^a  

^a SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Post copulatory sexual selection; Reproductive traits; Sexual selection; Sperm competition; Viability selection.

Indexed keywords

COPULATION; COVARIANCE ANALYSIS; FITNESS; FLY; GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; PARENT-OFFSPRING INTERACTION; PATERNITY; POLYANDRY; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; FEMALE; GENETICS; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; REPRODUCTION; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SURVIVAL; TRANSGENIC ANIMAL;

ANIMALS; ANIMALS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; FEMALE; MALE; REPRODUCTION; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER;

EID: 84864000093     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02540.x     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
2. Barber, I., Arnott, S., Braithwaite, V., Andrew, J. & Huntingford, F. 2001. Indirect fitness consequences of mate choice in sticklebacks: offspring of brighter males grow slowly but resist parasitic infections. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268: 71-76.
3. Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Statist. Soc. B 57: 289-300.
4. Bilde, T., Foged, A., Schilling, N. & Arnqvist, G. 2009. Postmating sexual selection favors males that sire offspring with low fitness. Science 324: 1705-1706.
5. Birkhead, T.R. & Møller, A.P. 1998. Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection. Academic Press, San Diego.
6. Bjork, A., Starmer, W.T., Higginson, D.M., Rhodes, C.J. & Pitnick, S. 2007. Complex interactions with females and rival males limit the evolution of sperm offence and defence. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 274: 1779-1788.
7. Bretman, A., Fricke, C. & Chapman, T. 2009. Plastic responses of male Drosophila melanogaster to the level of sperm competition increase male reproductive fitness. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 276: 1705-1711.
8. Chang, A.S. 2004. Conspecific sperm precedence in sister species of Drosophila with overlapping ranges. Evolution 58: 781-789.
9. Clark, A.G., Begun, D.J. & Prout, T. 1999. Female × male interactions in Drosophila sperm competition. Science 283: 217-220.
10. Crawley, M.J. 2007. The R Book. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex, UK.
11. Danielsson, I. 2001. Antagonistic pre- and post-copulatory sexual selection on male body size in a water strider (Gerris lacustris). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268: 77-81.
12. Eberhard, W.G. 1996. Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
13. Evans, J.P. 2010. Quantitative genetic evidence that males trade attractiveness for ejaculate quality in guppies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 277: 3195-3201.
14. Evans, J.P., Zane, L., Francescato, S. & Pilastro, A. 2003. Directional postcopulatory sexual selection revealed by artificial insemination. Nature 421: 360-363.
15. Evans, J.P., Kelley, J.L., Bisazza, A., Finazzo, E. & Pilastro, A. 2004. Sire attractiveness influences offspring performance in guppies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271: 2035-2042.
16. Evans, J.P., García-González, F. & Marshall, D.J. 2007. Sources of genetic and phenotypic variance in fertilization rates and larval traits in a sea urchin. Evolution 61: 2832-2838.
17. Fisher, D.O., Double, M.C., Blomberg, S.P., Jennions, M.D. & Cockburn, A. 2006. Post-mating sexual selection increases lifetime fitness of polyandrous females in the wild. Nature 444: 89-92.
18. Fricke, C., Martin, O.Y., Bretman, A., Bussière, L.F. & Chapman, T. 2010. Sperm competitive ability and indices of lifetime reproductive success. Evolution 64: 2746-2757.
19. García-González, F. 2008. Male genetic quality and the inequality between paternity success and fertilization success: consequences for studies of sperm competition and the evolution of polyandry. Evolution 62: 1653-1665.
20. García-González, F. & Simmons, L.W. 2007. Paternal indirect genetic effects on offspring viability and the benefits of polyandry. Curr. Biol. 17: 32-36.
21. García-González, F. & Simmons, L.W. 2011. Good genes and sexual selection in dung beetles (Onthophagus taurus): genetic variance in egg-to-adult and adult viability. PLoS ONE 6: e16233.
22. Gilchrist, A.S. & Partridge, L. 1997. Heritability of pre-adult viability differences can explain apparent heritability of sperm displacement ability in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264: 1271-1275.
23. Handler, A.M. & Harrell, R.A. 1999. Germline transformation of Drosophila melanogaster with the piggyBac transposon vector. Insect Mol. Biol. 8: 449-457.
24. Head, M.L., Hunt, J., Jennions, M.D. & Brooks, R.C. 2005. The indirect benefits of mating with attractive males outweigh the direct costs. PLoS Biol. 3: e33.
25. Hosken, D.J., Garner, T.W.J., Tregenza, T., Wedell, N. & Ward, P.I. 2003. Superior sperm competitors sire higher-quality young. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270: 1933-1938.
26. Hosken, D.J., Taylor, M.L., Hoyle, K., Higgins, S. & Wedell, N. 2008. Attractive males have greater success in sperm competition. Curr. Biol. 18: R553-R554.
27. Legendre, P. & Legendre, L. 2000. Numerical Ecology. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
28. Lessells, C. & Boag, P. 1987. Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. Auk 104: 116-121.
29. Lewis, S.M. & Austad, S.N. 1994. Sexual selection in flour beetles: the relationship between sperm precedence and male olfactory attractiveness. Behav. Ecol. 5: 223-224.
30. Locatello, L., Rasotto, M.B., Evans, J.P. & Pilastro, A. 2006. Colourful male guppies produce faster and more viable sperm. J. Evol. Biol. 19: 1595-1602.
31. Lüpold, S., Manier, M.K., Ala-Honkola, O., Belote, J.M. & Pitnick, S. 2011. Male Drosophila melanogaster adjust ejaculate size based on female mating status, fecundity, and age. Behav. Ecol. 22: 184-191.
32. Madsen, T., Shine, R., Loman, J. & Håkansson, T. 1992. Why do female adders copulate so frequently? Nature 335: 440-441.
33. Manier, M.K., Belote, J.M., Berben, K.S., Novikov, D., Stuart, W.T. & Pitnick, S. 2010. Resolving mechanisms of competitive fertilization success in Drosophila melanogaster. Science 328: 354-357.
34. Møller, A.P. & Alatalo, R.V. 1999. Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266: 85-91.
35. Neff, B.D. & Pitcher, T.E. 2005. Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Mol. Ecol. 14: 19-38.
36. Partridge, L. 1988. Lifetime reproductive success in Drosophila. In: Reproductive Success: Studies of Individual Variation in Contrasting Breeding Systems (T. Clutton-Brock, ed), pp. 11-23. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
37. Pilastro, A., Simonato, M., Bisazza, A. & Evans, J.P. 2004. Cryptic female preference for colorful males in guppies. Evolution 58: 665-669.
38. Pischedda, A. & Chippindale, A.K. 2006. Intralocus sexual conflict diminishes the benefits of sexual selection. PLoS Biol. 4: e356.
39. Pischedda, A. & Rice, W.R. 2012. Partitioning sexual selection into its mating success and fertilization success components. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109: 2049-2053.
40. R Development Core Team 2011. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
41. Roff, D.A. 2002. Life History Evolution. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
42. Sirot, L.K., Wolfner, M.F. & Wigby, S. 2011. Protein-specific manipulation of ejaculate composition in response to female mating status in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108: 9922-9926.
43. Sivinski, J. 1984. Sperm in competition. In: Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Animal Mating Systems (R.L. Smith, ed.), pp. 85-115. Academic Press, New York.
44. Taylor, C., Pereda, A. & Ferrari, J. 1987. On the correlation between mating success and offspring quality in Drosophila melanogaster. Am. Nat. 129: 721-729.
45. Wedekind, C., Muller, R. & Spicher, H. 2001. Potential genetic benefits of mate selection in whitefish. J. Evol. Biol. 14: 980-986.
46. Wedell, N. & Tregenza, T. 1999. Successful fathers sire successful sons. Evolution 53: 620-625.
47. Yasui, Y. 1997. A "good-sperm" model can explain the evolution of costly multiple mating by females. Am. Nat. 149: 573-584.