Sexual conflict and the evolutionary ecology of mating patterns: water striders as a model system

Rowe, Locke; Arnqvist, Göran; Sih, Andrew; Krupa, James J.

doi:10.1016/0169-5347(94)90032-9

Cited by 411 publications

(391 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

377

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, with antagonistic coevolution, adaptation at one locus causes the lag-load at the other, interacting locus to increase, and hence a perpetual cycle of adaptation and counter adaptation ensues due to an evolutionary chase-away process. Interlocus sexually antagonistic coevolution is a special form of this process (Dawkins 1976;Parker 1979;Rowe et al 1994;Rice & Holland 1997;Holland & Rice 1998;Rice 1998;Chapman et al 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing sexual conflict in theDrosophila melanogasterlaboratory model system

Rice

Stewart

Morrow

et al. 2006

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

113

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe a graphical model of interlocus coevolution used to distinguish between the interlocus sexual conflict that leads to sexually antagonistic coevolution, and the intrinsic conflict over mating rate that is an integral part of traditional models of sexual selection. We next distinguish the 'laboratory island' approach from the study of both inbred lines and laboratory populations that are newly derived from nature, discuss why we consider it to be one of the most fitting forms of laboratory analysis to study interlocus sexual conflict, and then describe four experiments using this approach with Drosophila melanogaster. The first experiment evaluates the efficacy of the laboratory model system to study interlocus sexual conflict by comparing remating rates of females when they are, or are not, provided with a spatial refuge from persistent male courtship. The second experiment tests for a lag-load in males that is due to adaptations that have accumulated in females, which diminish male-induced harm while simultaneously interfering with a male's ability to compete in the context of sexual selection. The third and fourth experiments test for a lag-load in females owing to direct costs from their interactions with males, and for the capacity for indirect benefits to compensate for these direct costs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing sexual conflict in theDrosophila melanogasterlaboratory model system

Rice

Stewart

Morrow

et al. 2006

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

113

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although this possibility is implicit in many of the early contributions in this field (Wickler 1968;West-Eberhard 1979, 1984Ryan 1990) and in the terminology itself (e.g. exploitation, manipulation, deception, capitalizing), it was Rowe et al (1994) and in particular Holland & Rice (1998) that first pointed out that this will lead to sexual conflict. Whenever this is true, we expect to see bursts of SAC.…”

Section: Subsequent Coevolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensory exploitation and sexual conflict

Arnqvist

2006

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

Self Cite

157

177

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much of the literature on male-female coevolution concerns the processes by which male traits and female preferences for these can coevolve and be maintained by selection. There has been less explicit focus on the origin of male traits and female preferences. Here, I argue that it is important to distinguish origin from subsequent coevolution and that insights into the origin can help us appreciate the relative roles of various coevolutionary processes for the evolution of diversity in sexual dimorphism. I delineate four distinct scenarios for the origin of male traits and female preferences that build on past contributions, two of which are based on pre-existing variation in quality indicators among males and two on exploitation of pre-existing sensory biases among females. Recent empirical research, and theoretical models, suggest that origin by sensory exploitation has been widespread. I argue that this points to a key, but perhaps transient, role for sexually antagonistic coevolution (SAC) in the subsequent evolutionary elaboration of sexual traits, because (i) sensory exploitation is often likely to be initially costly for individuals of the exploited sex and (ii) the subsequent evolution of resistance to sensory exploitation should often be associated with costs due to selective constraints. A review of a few case studies is used to illustrate these points. Empirical data directly relevant to the costs of being sensory exploited and the costs of evolving resistance is largely lacking, and I stress that such data would help determining the general importance of sexual conflict and SAC for the evolution of sexual dimorphism.

show abstract

“…Conflicts occur over a wide variety of traits, including mating rate (Rowe et al 1994;Choe & Crespi 1997;, oviposition rate (Chapman et al 1995;Eberhard 1996) and offspring provisioning (Trivers 1972;Haig 2000). Traits apparently coevolving to further the interests of one sex over the other in these conflicts include grasping and antigrasping structures (Bergsten et al 2001;Arnqvist & Rowe 2002a), male seminal signals and female receptors (Chapman 2001;Swanson & Vacquier 2002), reproductive tract morphology (Presgraves et al 1999;Miller & Pitnick 2002;Miller & Pitnick 2003) and mating behaviours (Rowe & Arnqvist 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detecting sexually antagonistic coevolution with population crosses

Rowe

Cameron

Day

2003

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The result of population crosses on traits such as mating rate, oviposition rate and survivorship are increasingly used to distinguish between modes of coevolution between the sexes. Two key hypotheses, erected from a verbal theory of sexually antagonistic coevolution, have been the subject of several recent tests. First, statistical interactions arising in population crosses are suggested to be indicative of a complex signal/receiver system. In the case of oviposition rates, an interaction between populations (x, y and z) would be indicated by the rank order of female oviposition rates achieved by x, y and z males changing depending upon the female (x, y or z) with which they mated. Second, under sexually antagonistic coevolution females will do 'best' when mated with their own males, where best is defined by the weakest response to the signal and the highest fitness. We test these hypotheses by crossing strains generated from a formal model of sexually antagonistic coevolution. Strains differ in the strength of natural selection acting on male and female traits. In our model, we assume sexually antagonistic coevolution of a single male signal and female receptor. The female receptor is treated as a preference function where both the slope and intercept of the function can evolve. Our results suggest that neither prediction is consistently supported. Interactions are not diagnostic of complex signal-receiver systems, and even under sexually antagonistic coevolution, females may do better mating with males of strains other than their own. These results suggest a reinterpretation of several recent experiments and have important implications for developing theories of speciation when sexually antagonistic coevolution is involved.

show abstract

Sexual conflict and the evolutionary ecology of mating patterns: water striders as a model system

Cited by 411 publications

References 34 publications

Assessing sexual conflict in theDrosophila melanogasterlaboratory model system

Assessing sexual conflict in theDrosophila melanogasterlaboratory model system

Sensory exploitation and sexual conflict

Detecting sexually antagonistic coevolution with population crosses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About