Literature DB >> 12298280

The function of female resistance behavior: intromission by male coercion vs. female cooperation in sepsis flies (Diptera: Sepsidae).

William G Eberhard1.   

Abstract

Female resistance behavior that occurs prior to intromission does not by itself imply forced copulation. Such behavior may function instead as a test of the male in order to favor some males over others, or to induce the male to desist. Thus, male persistence and forcefullness may sometimes be better described as persuasion rather than coercion. Under the persuasion hypothesis, the male only gains intromission due to an active response of the female. Under the coercion hypothesis, male and female are opposed in a physical battle which the female loses if copulation occurs. In species in which males are morphologically incapable of forcing intromission without active female cooperation (I argue here that this is probably a very common situation), data on the behavioral and ecological context in which resistance occurs can distinguish between the two possibilities. Partially congruent functions of resistance, seen from the female point of view, are female resistance to screen (male persuasion), and female resistance to avoid males non-selectively (male coercion). Sepsis flies illustrate these ideas. Females often struggle energetically in apparent attempts to dislodge mounted males and to prevent intromission, and males grasp females with powerful species-specific structures on their front legs and genitalia. This suggests the possibility of coerced intromission. But behavioral and morphological evidence demonstrate that active female cooperation occurs at the moment of intromission, and that males are probably dependent on this cooperation because they are not morphologically equipped to force their genitalia into those of an uncooperative female. Despite the impression from previous publications, male insects in general may seldom be able to achieve intromission by genitalic force. The species-specific forms of the grasping genitalia of male sepsis are probably not the result of an evolutionary arms race between coercive males and unselectively resistant females.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12298280

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rev Biol Trop        ISSN: 0034-7744            Impact factor:   0.723


  13 in total

Review 1.  The limits of sexual conflict in the narrow sense: new insights from waterfowl biology.

Authors:  Patricia L R Brennan; Richard O Prum
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2012-08-19       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 2.  Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview.

Authors:  G A Parker
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2006-02-28       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  Extrapair mating and the strength of sexual selection: insights from a polymorphic species.

Authors:  Andrea S Grunst; Melissa L Grunst; Marisa L Korody; Lindsay M Forrette; Rusty A Gonser; Elaine M Tuttle
Journal:  Behav Ecol       Date:  2019-02-09       Impact factor: 2.671

4.  Female resistance to sexual coercion can evolve to preserve the indirect benefits of mate choice.

Authors:  Samuel S Snow; Suzanne H Alonzo; Maria R Servedio; Richard O Prum
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2019-04-02       Impact factor: 2.411

5.  Male Armaments and Reproductive Behavior in "Nutcracker" Camel Crickets (Rhaphidophoridae, Pristoceuthophilus).

Authors:  Lauren P Conroy; David A Gray
Journal:  Insects       Date:  2015-01-07       Impact factor: 2.769

6.  Mating behaviour, mate choice and female resistance in the bean flower thrips (Megalurothrips sjostedti).

Authors:  Adeyemi O Akinyemi; Sevgan Subramanian; David K Mfuti; Tom W Pope; Amanuel Tamiru; William D J Kirk
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-15       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Female genitalia concealment promotes intimate male courtship in a water strider.

Authors:  Chang S Han; Piotr G Jablonski
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-06-10       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Is reduced female survival after mating a by-product of male-male competition in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea?

Authors:  Y Teuschl; D J Hosken; W U Blanckenhorn
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2007-10-17       Impact factor: 3.260

9.  Bending for love: losses and gains of sexual dimorphisms are strictly correlated with changes in the mounting position of sepsid flies (Sepsidae: Diptera).

Authors:  Nalini Puniamoorthy; Kathy Feng-Yi Su; Rudolf Meier
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2008-05-21       Impact factor: 3.260

10.  Predictors of male insemination success in the mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki).

Authors:  Megan L Head; Regina Vega-Trejo; Frances Jacomb; Michael D Jennions
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2015-10-15       Impact factor: 2.912

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.