Literature DB >> 15212383

Female resistance to male harm evolves in response to manipulation of sexual conflict.

Stuart Wigby1, Tracey Chapman.   

Abstract

The interests of males and females over reproduction rarely coincide and conflicts between the sexes over mate choice, mating frequency, reproductive investment, and parental care are common in many taxa. In Drosophila melanogaster, the optimum mating frequency is higher for males than it is for females. Furthermore, females that mate at high frequencies suffer significant mating costs due to the actions of male seminal fluid proteins. Sexual conflict is predicted to lead to sexually antagonistic coevolution, in which selection for adaptations that benefit males but harm females is balanced by counterselection in females to minimize the extent of male-induced harm. We tested the prediction that elevated sexual conflict should select for increased female resistance to male-induced harm and vice versa. We manipulated the intensity of sexual conflict by experimentally altering adult sex ratio. We created replicated lines of D. melanogaster in which the adult sex ratio was male biased (high conflict lines), equal (intermediate conflict lines), or female biased (low conflict lines). As predicted, females from high sexual conflict lines lived significantly longer in the presence of males than did females from low conflict lines. Our conclusion that the evolutionary response in females was to the level of male-induced harm is supported by the finding that there were no female longevity differences in the absence of males. Differences between males in female harming ability were not detected. This suggests that the response in females was to differences between selection treatments in mating frequency, and not to differences in male harmfulness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15212383     DOI: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb00436.x

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


  55 in total

1.  Mating with large males decreases the immune defence of females in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  K Imroze; N G Prasad
Journal:  J Genet       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.166

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.  Adaptations to sexual selection and sexual conflict: insights from experimental evolution and artificial selection.

Authors:  Dominic A Edward; Claudia Fricke; Tracey Chapman
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2010-08-27       Impact factor: 6.237

4.  Assessing putative interlocus sexual conflict in Drosophila melanogaster using experimental evolution.

Authors:  Andrew D Stewart; Edward H Morrow; William R Rice
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2005-10-07       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 5.  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 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.  Sex ratio bias, male aggression, and population collapse in lizards.

Authors:  Jean-François Le Galliard; Patrick S Fitze; Régis Ferrière; Jean Clobert
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Sexual conflict and reproductive isolation in flies.

Authors:  D J Hosken; O Y Martin; S Wigby; T Chapman; D J Hodgson
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2009-03-25       Impact factor: 3.703

9.  Sex allocation conflict in insect societies: who wins?

Authors:  Heikki Helanterä; Francis L W Ratnieks
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2009-08-05       Impact factor: 3.703

10.  Sexual selection protects against extinction.

Authors:  Alyson J Lumley; Łukasz Michalczyk; James J N Kitson; Lewis G Spurgin; Catriona A Morrison; Joanne L Godwin; Matthew E Dickinson; Oliver Y Martin; Brent C Emerson; Tracey Chapman; Matthew J G Gage
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-05-18       Impact factor: 49.962

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.