Sexual Conflict and Antagonistic Coevolution Across Water Strider Populations

Perry, Jennifer C.; Rowe, Locke

doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01464.x

Cited by 49 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent study of SAC at the population level may be a step toward connect-ing these two scales. Perry and Rowe (2012b) report a pattern of coevolution in grasping and antigrasping traits, and mating behaviors at the population level that matches that reported at the species level. A similar study in a closely related species, Gerris gillettei, reported evidence of correlated evolution between the sexes in potentially antagonistic sexual traits (Gagnon and Turgeon 2011).…”

Section: The Evolution Of Sexually Antagonistic Phenotypessupporting

confidence: 72%

“…A similar study in a closely related species, Gerris gillettei, reported evidence of correlated evolution between the sexes in potentially antagonistic sexual traits (Gagnon and Turgeon 2011). However, in contrast to interspecific studies of Gerris (Rowe and Arnqvist 2002;Arnqvist and Rowe 2002b) and the interpopulation study of Perry and Rowe (2012b), the evolution of female spine size was not correlated to male genital traits. The next step in these interpopulation studies will be to directly examine local ecological (and social) conditions and attempt to connect them to the state of SA traits in the populations.…”

Section: The Evolution Of Sexually Antagonistic Phenotypesmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…This prediction corresponds well with the substantial phenotypic diversity of male persistence traits, both among populations and species. As examples, both water striders and diving beetles show striking diversity across both populations and species in male grasping armaments (Bergsten et al 2001;Bergsten and Miller 2007;Khila et al 2012;Perry and Rowe 2012b), as do traumatically inseminating bug species in their stabbing aedeagus (Tatarnic and Cassis 2010), and there is population-level variation in the effects of male seminal substances on female fecundity and longevity in adzuki bean beetles (Yamane 2013). This phenotypic diversity is matched by the substantial standing genetic variation in male SA traits found in several experimental evolution studies.…”

Section: Male Sexual Armamentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2), both of which vary among populations and species and affect mating outcomes (Arnqvist and Rowe 2005;Ronkainen et al 2005;Perry and Rowe 2012b). Han and Jablonski (2009) have identified a new trait in females that may have a substantial effect on SAC.…”

Section: The Evolution Of Sexually Antagonistic Phenotypesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Evolution of Sexually Antagonistic Phenotypes

Perry¹,

Rowe²

2015

Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sexual conflict occurs whenever there is sexually antagonistic selection on shared traits. When shared traits result from interactions (e.g., mating rate) and have a different genetic basis in each sex (i.e., interlocus conflict), then sex-specific traits that shift the value of these interaction traits toward the sex-specific optimum will be favored. Male traits can be favored that increase the fitness of their male bearers, but decrease the fitness of interacting females. Likewise, female traits that reduce the costs of interacting with harmful males may simultaneously impose costs on males. If the evolution of these antagonistic traits changes the nature of selection acting on the opposite sex, interesting coevolutionary dynamics will result. Here we examine three current issues in the study of sexually antagonistic interactions: the female side of sexual conflict, the ecological context of sexual conflict, and the strength of evidence for sexually antagonistic coevolution.

show abstract

Section: The Evolution Of Sexually Antagonistic Phenotypessupporting

confidence: 72%

Section: The Evolution Of Sexually Antagonistic Phenotypesmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Male Sexual Armamentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Evolution Of Sexually Antagonistic Phenotypesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Evolution of Sexually Antagonistic Phenotypes

Perry¹,

Rowe²

2015

Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This prediction, however, has failed for a large sample of insects and spiders (Eberhard 2004). At the same time, recent comparative studies of water strider populations provide strong evidence for a persistent coevolutionary chase between male and female sexual traits affecting reproductive isolation (Ronn et al 2007;Perry and Rowe 2012).…”

Section: Fertilization Traits and Proteinsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Sexual Conflict an "Engine of Speciation"?

Gavrilets

2014

Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the end of the last century, sexual conflict was identified as a powerful engine of speciation, potentially even more important than ecological selection. Earlier work that followed-experimental, comparative, and mathematical-provided strong initial support for this assertion. However, as the field matures, both the power of sexual conflict and constraints on the evolution of reproductive isolation as driven by sexual conflict are becoming better understood. From theoretical studies, we now know that speciation is only one of several possible evolutionary outcomes of sexual conflict. In line with these predictions, both experimental evolution studies and comparative analyses of fertilization proteins and of species richness show that sexual conflict leads to, or is associated with, reproductive isolation and speciation in some cases but not in others. Increased genetic variation (especially in females) without reproductive isolation is an underappreciated consequence of sexually antagonistic selection. By the end of 1990s, studies of sexual conflict and sexually antagonistic coevolution moved to the forefront of experimental and theoretical research in evolutionary biology (Rice and Holland 1997;Holland and Rice 1998;Rice 1998). Although the potential evolutionary importance of sexual conflict was anticipated and articulated from a theoretical point of view by Geoff Parker 20 years earlier (Parker 1979), the explosive interest in this topic was a result of groundbreaking experimental work with Drosophila melanogaster by Bill Rice (1993Rice ( , 1996, which directly showed high potential for sexually antagonistic coevolution.Sexual conflict is a special case of intragenomic conflict (Rice and Holland 1997;Rice 1998;Crespi and Nosil 2013). Sexual conflict occurs if the interests of the sexes with regard to certain aspects of reproduction differ (Parker 1979;Arnqvist and Rowe 2005). Ultimately, sexual conflict arises because of the differences in the roles played by the sexes in the process of reproduction, which in turn lead to the differences between the sexes in the costs and benefits of mating and reproduction (Bateman 1948;Trivers 1972;Parker 1979). Sexual conflict can occur over mating rate (Rice and Holland 1997;Holland and Rice 1998;Rice 1998) ker and Partridge 1998). Within-locus conflict occurs when the locus controls a trait expressed in both sexes and the optimum trait values differ between the sexes. As a result, optimizing the trait value in one sex will lead to a fitness reduction in the other sex. Within-locus conflict can be resolved via a number of mechanisms, including the evolution of sex linkage, sex-specific expression of genes, gene duplication, and condition dependence (Bonduriansky and Chenoweth 2009;van Doorn 2009). Between-locus conflict occurs when there are two different (sets of ) traits each expressed in one sex only but affecting the fitness of both sexes in opposite directions. In this case, adaptive changes in a trait of one sex cause deleterious fitness consequences for the othe...

show abstract

Latitudinal variation and coevolutionary diversification of sexually dimorphic traits in the false blister beetle Oedemera sexualis

Satomi

Koshio

Tatsuta

et al. 2019

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sexual traits are subject to evolutionary forces that maximize reproductive benefits and minimize survival costs, both of which can depend on environmental conditions. Latitude explains substantial variation in environmental conditions. However, little is known about the relationship between sexual trait variation and latitude, although body size often correlates with latitude. We examined latitudinal variation in male and female sexual traits in 22 populations of the false blister beetle Oedemera sexualis in the Japanese Archipelago. Males possess massive hind legs that function as a female‐grasping apparatus, while females possess slender hind legs that are used to dislodge mounting males. Morphometric analyses revealed that male and female body size (elytron length), length and width of the hind femur and tibia, and allometric slopes of these four hind leg dimensions differed significantly among populations. Of these, three traits showed latitudinal variation, namely, male hind femur was stouter; female hind tibia was slenderer, and female body was smaller at lower latitudes than at higher latitudes. Hind leg sizes and shapes, as measured by principal component analysis of these four hind leg dimensions in each sex, covaried significantly between sexes, suggesting coevolutionary diversification in sexual traits. Covariation between sexes was weaker when variation in these traits with latitude was removed. These results suggest that coevolutionary diversification between male and female sexual traits is mediated by environmental conditions that vary with latitude.

show abstract

Sexual Conflict and Antagonistic Coevolution Across Water Strider Populations

Cited by 49 publications

References 65 publications

The Evolution of Sexually Antagonistic Phenotypes

The Evolution of Sexually Antagonistic Phenotypes

Is Sexual Conflict an "Engine of Speciation"?

Latitudinal variation and coevolutionary diversification of sexually dimorphic traits in the false blister beetle Oedemera sexualis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About