Literature DB >> 12894931

Perspective: sexual conflict and sexual selection: chasing away paradigm shifts.

Tommaso Pizzari1, Rhonda R Snook.   

Abstract

Traditional models of sexual selection propose that partner choice increases both average male and average female fitness in a population. Recent theoretical and empirical work, however, has stressed that sexual conflict may be a potent broker of sexual selection. When the fitness interests of males and females diverge, a reproductive strategy that increases the fitness of one sex may decrease the fitness of the other sex. The chase-away hypothesis proposes that sexual conflict promotes sexually antagonistic, rather than mutualistic, coevolution, whereby manipulative reproductive strategies in one sex are counteracted by the evolution of resistance to such strategies in the other sex. In this paper, we consider the criteria necessary to demonstrate the chase-away hypothesis. Specifically, we review sexual conflict with particular emphasis on the chase-away hypothesis; discuss the problems associated with testing the predictions of the chase-away hypothesis and the extent to which these predictions and the predictions of traditional models of sexual selection are mutually exclusive; discuss misconceptions and mismeasures of sexual conflict; and suggest an alternative approach to demonstrate sexual conflict, measure the intensity of sexually antagonistic selection in a population, and elucidate the coevolutionary trajectories of the sexes.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12894931     DOI: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00331.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evolution        ISSN: 0014-3820            Impact factor:   3.694


  35 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.  The sociobiology of sex: inclusive fitness consequences of inter-sexual interactions.

Authors:  Tommaso Pizzari; Andy Gardner
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2012-08-19       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  Sexy sons: a dead end for cytoplasmic genes.

Authors:  Jeanne A Zeh
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2004-08-07       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 4.  Detecting sexual conflict and sexually antagonistic coevolution.

Authors:  Locke Rowe; Troy Day
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2006-02-28       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 5.  The dynamics of two- and three-way sexual conflicts over mating.

Authors:  Sergey Gavrilets; Takehiko I Hayashi
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2006-02-28       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 6.  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

7.  Ecological divergence promotes the evolution of cryptic reproductive isolation.

Authors:  Patrik Nosil; Bernard J Crespi
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2006-04-22       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 8.  Evolution of genitalia: theories, evidence, and new directions.

Authors:  William G Eberhard
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.082

9.  Copy number variation in intron 1 of SOX5 causes the Pea-comb phenotype in chickens.

Authors:  Dominic Wright; Henrik Boije; Jennifer R S Meadows; Bertrand Bed'hom; David Gourichon; Agathe Vieaud; Michèle Tixier-Boichard; Carl-Johan Rubin; Freyja Imsland; Finn Hallböök; Leif Andersson
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2009-06-12       Impact factor: 5.917

10.  Sexual conflict over the duration of copulation in Drosophila montana: why is longer better?

Authors:  Dominique Mazzi; Jenni Kesäniemi; Anneli Hoikkala; Kirsten Klappert
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2009-06-12       Impact factor: 3.260

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.