Maternal sexual interactions affect offspring survival and ageing

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 88-97

  Dowling, D K ^a   Williams, B R ^a   Garcia Gonzalez, F ^b,c  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION BIOLOGY   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Ageing; Indirect benefits; Indirect costs; Life history; Lifespan; Maternal effects; Polyandry; Sexual conflict; Sexual selection; Trans generational

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; AGING POPULATION; COPULATION; FLY; MATERNAL HEALTH; MORTALITY; PROBABILITY; REPRODUCTION; SENESCENCE; SEXUAL CONFLICT; SURVIVORSHIP;

DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER;

AGING; ANIMAL; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; FEMALE; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; REPRODUCTION; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

AGING; ANIMALS; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; FEMALE; MALE; REPRODUCTION; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

EID: 84891624817     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12276     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Arnqvist, G. & Kirkpatrick, M. 2005. The evolution of infidelity in socially monogamous passerines: the strength of direct and indirect selection on extrapair copulation behavior in females. Am. Nat. 165: S26-S37.
2. Arnqvist, G. & Kirkpatrick, M. 2007. The evolution of infidelity in socially monogamous passerines revisited: a reply to Griffith. Am. Nat. 169: 282-283.
3. Arnqvist, G. & Nilsson, T. 2000. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim. Behav. 60: 145-164.
4. Arnqvist, G. & Rowe, L. 2005. Sexual Conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
5. Bates, D., Maechler, M. & Bolker, B. (2012) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999-2. http://cRAN.R-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.
6. Bonduriansky, R., Maklakov, A., Zajitschek, F. & Brooks, R. 2008. Sexual selection, sexual conflict and the evolution of ageing and life span. Funct. Ecol. 22: 443-453.
7. Bouwhuis, S., Charmantier, A., Verhulst, S. & Sheldon, B.C. 2010. Trans-generational effects on ageing in a wild bird population. J. Evol. Biol. 23: 636-642.
8. Brommer, J.E., Fricke, C., Edward, D.A. & Chapman, T. 2011. Interactions between genotype and sexual conflict environment influence transgenerational fitness in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 66: 517-531.
9. Cameron, E., Day, T. & Rowe, L. 2003. Sexual conflict and indirect benefits. J. Evol. Biol. 16: 1055-1060.
10. 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.
11. Chapman, T., Arnqvist, G., Bangham, J. & Rowe, L. 2003. Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18: 41-47.
12. Cordoba-Aguilar, A. & Contreras-Garduno, J. 2003. Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18: 439-440.
13. 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.
14. Eberhard, W.G. & Cordero, C. 2003. Sexual conflict and female choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18: 438-439.
15. Edvardsson, M. 2007. Female Callosobruchus maculatus mate when they are thirsty: resource-rich ejaculates as mating effort in a beetle. Anim. Behav. 74: 183-188.
16. Ejima, A., Smith, B.P.C., Lucas, C., Van Naters, W.V., Miller, C.J., Carlson, J.R. et al. 2007. Generalization of courtship learning in Drosophila is mediated by cis-vaccenyl acetate. Curr. Biol. 17: 599-605.
17. Everaerts, C., Farine, J.P., Cobb, M. & Ferveur, J.F. 2010. Drosophila Cuticular Hydrocarbons Revisited: mating Status Alters Cuticular Profiles. PLoS ONE 5: e9607.
18. Finch, C.E. 1990. Longevity, Senescence, and The Genome. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
19. Firman, R.C. & Simmons, L.W. 2012. Male house mice evolving with post-copulatory sexual selection sire embryos with increased viability. Ecol. Lett. 15: 42-46.
20. 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.
21. Fox, C.W., Bush, M.L. & Wallin, W.G. 2003. Maternal age affects offspring lifespan of the seed beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus. Funct. Ecol. 17: 811-820.
22. Garcia-Gonzalez, F. & Simmons, L.W. 2010. Male-induced costs of mating for females compensated by offspring viability benefits in an insect. J. Evol. Biol. 23: 2066-2075.
23. García-González, F. & Simmons, L.W. 2007. Paternal indirect genetic effects on offspring viability and the benefits of polyandry. Curr. Biol. 17: 32-36.
24. Gasparini, C., Devigili, A. & Pilastro, A. 2012. Cross-generational effects of sexual harassment on female fitness in the guppy. Evolution 66: 532-543.
25. Gavrilets, S., Arnqvist, G. & Friberg, U. 2001. The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc. Biol. Sci. 268: 531-539.
26. Gay, L., Hosken, D.J., Eady, P., Vasudev, R. & Tregenza, T. 2010. The evolution of harm-effect of sexual conflicts and population size. Evolution 65: 725-737.
27. Greenspan, R.J. & Ferveur, J.-F. 2000. Courtship in Drosophila. Ann. Rev. Genet. 34: 205-232.
28. Griffith, S.C. 2007. The evolution of infidelity in socially monogamous passerines: neglected components of direct and indirect selection. Am. Nat. 169: 274-281.
29. Head, M.L., Hunt, J., Jennions, M.D. & Brooks, R. 2005. The Indirect Benefits of Mating with Attractive Males Outweigh the Direct Costs. PLoS Biol. 3: e33.
30. Holland, B. & Rice, W.R. 1998. Perspective: chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52: 1-7.
31. 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.
32. Hothorn, T., Bretz, F. & Westfall, P. 2008. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical J. 50: 346-363.
33. Hughes, K.A. 1995. The Evolutionary Genetics of Male Life-History Characters in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 49: 521-537.
34. Innocenti, P. & Morrow, E.H. 2009. Immunogenic males: a genome-wide analysis of reproduction and the cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females. J. Evol. Biol. 22: 964-973.
35. Jennions, M.D. & Petrie, M. 2000. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. 75: 21-64.
36. Jiang, P.P., Bedhomme, S., Prasad, N.G. & Chippindale, A. 2011. Sperm competition and mate harm unresponsive to male-limited selection in Drosophila: an evolving genetic architecture under domestication. Evolution 65: 2448-2460.
37. Kirkpatrick, M. & Barton, N.H. 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94: 1282-1286.
38. Kirkwood, T.B. & Rose, M.R. 1991. Evolution of senescence: late survival sacrificed for reproduction. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 332: 15-24.
39. Kokko, H., Brooks, R., Jennions, M.D. & Morley, J. 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. Biol. Sci. 270: 653-664.
40. Konior, M., Radwan, J. & Kolodziejczyk, M. 2001. Polyandry increases offspring fecundity in the bulb mite. Evolution 55: 1893-1896.
41. Lansing, A.I. 1947. A transmissible, cumulative, and reversible factor in aging. J. Gerontol. 2: 228-239.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Long, T.A.F., Pischedda, A. & Rice, W.R. 2010. Remating in Drosophila melanogaster: are indirect benefits condition dependent? Evolution 64: 2767-2774.
45. Maklakov, A.A. & Arnqvist, G. 2009. Testing for Direct and Indirect Effects of Mate Choice by Manipulating Female Choosiness. Curr. Biol. 19: 1903-1906.
46. McRobert, S.P., Adams, C.R., Wuttke, M., Frank, J. & Jackson, L.L. 1997. A comparison of female postcopulatory behavior in Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila biarmipes. J. Insect Behav. 10: 761-770.
47. Moller, A.P. & Alatalo, R.V. 1999. Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. Biol. Sci. 266: 85-91.
48. Opit, G.P. & Throne, J.E. 2007. Influence of maternal age on the fitness of progeny in the rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Environ. Entomol. 36: 83-89.
49. Orteiza, N., Linder, J.E. & Rice, W.R. 2005. 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. 18: 1315-1323.
50. Partridge, L. & Fowler, K. 1990. Non-mating costs of exposure to males in female Drosophila melanogaster. J. Insect Physiol. 36: 419-425.
51. Pletcher, S.D. 1999. Model fitting and hypothesis testing for age-specific mortality data. J. Evol. Biol. 12: 430-439.
52. Priest, N.K., Mackowiak, B. & Promislow, D.E.L. 2002. The role of parental age effects on the evolution of aging. Evolution 56: 927-935.
53. Priest, N.K., Galloway, L.F. & Roach, D.A. 2008a. Mating frequency and inclusive fitness in Drosophila melanogaster. Am. Nat. 171: 10-21.
54. Priest, N.K., Roach, D.A. & Galloway, L.F. 2008b. Cross-generational fitness benefits of mating and male seminal fluid. Biol. Letters 4: 6-8.
55. Promislow, D. 2003. Mate choice, sexual conflict, and evolution of senescence. Behav. Genet. 33: 191-201.
56. R Development Core Team 2012. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
57. Reznick, D. 1985. Costs of reproduction - an evaluation of the empirical evidence. Oikos 44: 257-267.
58. Rice, W.R. 1996. Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 381: 232-234.
59. 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.
60. Rundle, H., Odeen, A. & Mooers, A. 2007. An experimental test for indirect benefits in Drosophila melanogaster. BMC Evol. Biol. 7: 36.
61. Slatyer, R.A., Mautz, B.S., Backwell, P.R.Y. & Jennions, M.D. 2012. Estimating genetic benefits of polyandry from experimental studies: a meta-analysis. Biol. Rev. 87: 1-33.
62. Stearns, S.C. 1989. Trade-offs in life-history evolution. Funct. Ecol. 3: 259-268.
63. Stewart, A.D., Morrow, E.H. & Rice, W.R. 2005. Assessing putative interlocus sexual conflict in Drosophila melanogaster using experimental evolution. Proc. Biol. Sci. 272: 2029-2035.
64. Stewart, A.D., Hannes, A.M., Mirzatuny, A. & Rice, W.R. 2008. Sexual conflict is not counterbalanced by good genes in the laboratory Drosophila melanogaster model system. J. Evol. Biol. 21: 1808-1813.
65. Taylor, M.L., Wigmore, C., Hodgson, D.J., Wedell, N. & Hosken, D.J. 2008. Multiple mating increases female fitness in Drosophila simulans. Anim. Behav. 76: 963-970.
66. Therneau, T. 2012. Coxme: mixed effects Cox models. R package version 2.2-3. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=coxme.
67. Wigby, S. & Chapman, T. 2005. Sex peptide causes mating costs in female Drosophila melanogaster. Curr. Biol. 15: 316-321.
68. Williams, G.C. 1957. Pleiotropy, natural selection, and the evolution of senescence. Evolution 11: 398-411.
69. Williams, G.C. 1966. Natural Selection, the Costs of Reproduction, and a Refinement of Lack's Principle. Am. Nat. 100: 687-690.
70. Williams, B.R., Van Heerwaarden, B., Dowling, D.K. & Sgro, C.M. 2012. A multivariate test of evolutionary constraints for thermal tolerance in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Evol. Biol. 25: 1415-1426.
71. Wolfner, M.F. 2002. The gifts that keep on giving: physiological functions and evolutionary dynamics of male seminal proteins in Drosophila. Heredity 88: 85-93.
72. Yilmaz, M., Ozsoy, E.D. & Bozcuk, A.N. 2008. Maternal age effects on longevity in Drosophila melanogaster populations of different origin. Biogerontology 9: 163-168.