Males' evolutionary responses to experimental removal of sexual selection

Pitnick, Scott; Miller, Gary T.; Reagan, Jennifer K.; Holland, Brett

doi:10.1098/rspb.2001.1621

Cited by 199 publications

(211 citation statements)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

193

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, inadvertent selection for body size was suggested to be a possible confounding factor influencing performance of males from Drosophila melanogaster lines selected by Holland and Rice (1999;Pitnick and GarciaGonzalez 2002; but see Rice and Holland 2005). Such selection could result from selection for fast development (and maturation at lower size), which in polygamous lines could be opposed by sexual selection for increased body size (Pitnick et al 2001). Indeed, we found that after 37 generations of experimental evolution both males and females from monogamous lines were smaller than those from polygamous lines.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution Under Relaxed Sexual Conflict in the Bulb Mite Rhizoglyphus Robini

Tilszer¹,

Antoszczyk²,

Ssaek³

et al. 2006

Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The experimental evolution under different levels of sexual conflict have been used to demonstrate antagonistic coevolution in muscids, but among other taxa a similar approach has not been employed. Here, we describe the results of 37 generations of evolution under either experimentally enforced monogamy or polygamy in the bulb mite Rhizoglyphus robini. Three replicates were maintained for each treatment. Monogamy makes male and female interests congruent; thus selection is expected to decrease harmfulness of males to their partners. Our results were consistent with this prediction in that females from monogamous lines achieved lower fecundity when housed with males from polygamous lines. Fecundity of polygamous females was not affected by mating system under which their partners evolved, which suggests that they were more resistant to male-induced harm. As predicted by the antagonistic coevolution hypothesis, the decrease in harmfulness of monogamous males was accompanied by a decline in reproductive competitiveness. In contrast, female fecundity and embryonic viability, which were not expected to be correlated with male harmfulness, did not differ between monogamous and polygamous lines. None of the fitness components assayed differed between individuals obtained from crosses between parents from the same line and those obtained from crosses between parents from different lines within the same mating system. This indicates that inbreeding depression did not confound our results. However, interpretation of our results is complicated by the fact that both males and females from monogamous lines evolved smaller body size compared to individuals from polygamous lines. Although a decrease in reproductive performance of males from monogamous lines was still significant when body size was taken into account, we were not able to separate the effects of male body size and mating system in their influence on fecundity of their female partners.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution Under Relaxed Sexual Conflict in the Bulb Mite Rhizoglyphus Robini

Tilszer¹,

Antoszczyk²,

Ssaek³

et al. 2006

Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thirdly, relative testes size exhibits rapid evolutionary responses to the level of sperm competition in experimental evolution studies. For example, in the yellow dung fly Scathopaga stercoraria (Hosken & Ward 2001), Drosophila melanogaster (Pitnick et al 2001), and the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus (Simmons & García-Gonzá lez 2008), experimental populations where monogamous mating conditions were enforced showed decreases in relative testes size over multiple generations compared with experimental populations that evolved under polyandrous mating conditions (but see Wigby & Chapman (2004), Crudgington et al (2009) and Firman & Simmons (2010b) for experimental evolution studies where changes in relative testes size in response to sperm competition were not observed). Finally, clear within species evidence for the influence of sperm competition on testes size comes from studies in insects ) and fishes (Montgomerie & Fitzpatrick 2009) with alternative reproductive tactics.…”

Section: Sperm: Solders In the Battle For Fertilizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sperm wars and the evolution of male fertility

Simmons¹,

Fitzpatrick²

2012

Reproduction

300

343

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Females frequently mate with several males, whose sperm then compete to fertilize available ova. Sperm competition represents a potent selective force that is expected to shape male expenditure on the ejaculate. Here, we review empirical data that illustrate the evolutionary consequences of sperm competition. Sperm competition favors the evolution of increased testes size and sperm production. In some species, males appear capable of adjusting the number of sperm ejaculated, depending on the perceived levels of sperm competition. Selection is also expected to act on sperm form and function, although the evidence for this remains equivocal. Comparative studies suggest that sperm length and swimming speed may increase in response to selection from sperm competition. However, the mechanisms driving this pattern remain unclear. Evidence that sperm length influences sperm swimming speed is mixed and fertilization trials performed across a broad range of species demonstrate inconsistent relationships between sperm form and function. This ambiguity may in part reflect the important role that seminal fluid proteins (sfps) play in affecting sperm function. There is good evidence that sfps are subject to selection from sperm competition, and recent work is pointing to an ability of males to adjust their seminal fluid chemistry in response to sperm competition from rival males. We argue that future research must consider sperm and seminal fluid components of the ejaculate as a functional unity. Research at the genomic level will identify the genes that ultimately control male fertility.

show abstract

“…Some evolutionary phenomena that were previously explained by mate choice may be better explained by coevolution of males and females resulting from conflicts of interest between the sexes over control of copulation and fertilization (Parker, 1979;Chapman et al, 1995Chapman et al, , 2003Rice, 1996;Alexander, Marshall & Cooley, 1997;Holland & Rice, 1998Rice & HoUand, 1999;Johnstone & Keller, 2000;Michiels, 1998;Gavrilets, Arnqvist & Friberg, 2001;Pitnick, Brown & Miller, 2001 a;Pitnick, Reagan & Holland, 2001 ¿;Stutt & Siva-Jothy, 2001; Moore et al, 2001). These recent discussions emphasize one particular class of direct benefits that a female could derive from resisting male sexual behaviour: avoidance of male-inflicted reductions in her ability to produce offspring.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Male–female conflict and genitalia: failure to confirm predictions in insects and spiders

Eberhard¹

2004

Biological Reviews

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some recent models suggest a new role for evolutionary arms races between males and females in sexual selection. Female resistance to males is proposed to be driven by the direct advantage to the female of avoiding maleimposed reductions in the number of offspring she can produce, rather than by the indirect advantage of selecting among possible sires for her offspring, as in some traditional models of sexual selection by female choice. This article uses the massive but hitherto under-utilized taxonomic literature on genitalic evolution to test, in a twostep process, whether such new models of arms races between males and females have been responsible for rapid divergent evolution of male genitalia. The test revolves around the prediction that 'new arms races' are less likely to occur in species in which females are largely or completely protected from unwanted sexual attentions from males (e.g. species which mate in leks or in male swarms, in which males attract females from a distance, or in which females initiate contact by attracting males from a distance).The multiple possible mechanical functions of male genitalia are summarized, and functions of male genitalic structures in 43 species in 21 families of Diptera are compiled. Functions associated with intromission and insemination (e.g. seizing and positioning the female appropriately, pushing past possible barriers within the female, orienting within the female to achieve sperm transfer), which are unlikely to be involved in new arms races when females are protected, are shown to be common ( > 50 % of documented cases). This information is then used to generate the new arms race prediction: differences in genitalic form among congeneric species in which females are protected should be less common than differences among congeneric species in which females are vulnerable to harassment by males. This prediction was tested using a sample of 361 genera of insects and spiders. The prediction clearly failed, even when the data were adjusted to take into account several possible biases. Comparative analyses within particular taxonomic groups also failed to show the predicted trends, as did less extensive data on other non-genitalic male display traits. Arms races, as defined in some recent models, seem to have been less important in male•female coevolution of genitalic structures than has been suggested. By elimination, alternative interpretations, such as traditional female choice, which do not predict associations between female protection from harassment and rapid divergent evolution, are strengthened.

show abstract

Males' evolutionary responses to experimental removal of sexual selection

Cited by 199 publications

References 84 publications

Evolution Under Relaxed Sexual Conflict in the Bulb Mite Rhizoglyphus Robini

Evolution Under Relaxed Sexual Conflict in the Bulb Mite Rhizoglyphus Robini

Sperm wars and the evolution of male fertility

Male–female conflict and genitalia: failure to confirm predictions in insects and spiders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About