Literature DB >> 25056617

Demography can favour female-advantageous alleles.

Anna M F Harts1, Lisa E Schwanz2, Hanna Kokko3.   

Abstract

When female fecundity is relatively independent of male abundance, while male reproduction is proportional to female abundance, females have a larger effect on population dynamics than males (i.e. female demographic dominance). This population dynamic phenomenon might not appear to influence evolution, because male and female genomes still contribute equally much to the next generation. However, here we examine two evolutionary scenarios to provide a proof of principle that spatial structure can make female demographic dominance matter. Our two simulation models combine dispersal evolution with local adaptation subjected to intralocus sexual conflict and environmentally driven sex ratio biases, respectively. Both models have equilibria where one environment (without being intrinsically poorer) has so few reproductive females that trait evolution becomes disproportionately determined by those environments where females survive better (intralocus sexual conflict model), or where daughters are overproduced (environmental sex determination model). Surprisingly, however, the two facts that selection favours alleles that benefit females, and population growth is improved when female fitness is high, together do not imply that all measures of population performance are improved. The sex-specificity of the source-sink dynamics predicts that populations can evolve to fail to persist in habitats where alleles do poorly when expressed in females.
© 2014 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  demography; intralocus sexual conflict; multiple equilibria; source–sink dynamics; temperature-dependent sex determination

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25056617      PMCID: PMC4123692          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2014.0005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  18 in total

1.  Population mixing and the adaptive divergence of quantitative traits in discrete populations: a theoretical framework for empirical tests.

Authors:  A P Hendry; T Day; E B Taylor
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 3.694

2.  The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects.

Authors: 
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 2.844

3.  Sexual conflict and sexual selection: lost in the chase.

Authors:  Göran Arnqvist
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.694

4.  Evolution of migration under kin selection and local adaptation.

Authors:  Sylvain Billiard; Thomas Lenormand
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.694

5.  An evolutionary cost of separate genders revealed by male-limited evolution.

Authors:  N G Prasad; S Bedhomme; T Day; A K Chippindale
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2006-11-28       Impact factor: 3.926

6.  Dispersal: risk spreading versus local adaptation.

Authors:  Eva Kisdi
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.926

7.  The evolution of unconditional strategies via the 'multiplier effect'.

Authors:  John M McNamara; Sasha R X Dall
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2011-01-19       Impact factor: 9.492

8.  Evolution in heterogeneous environments: between soft and hard selection.

Authors:  Florence Débarre; Sylvain Gandon
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.926

Review 9.  The role of genotype-by-environment interactions in sexual selection.

Authors:  F C Ingleby; J Hunt; D J Hosken
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2010-08-17       Impact factor: 2.411

10.  Large-scale age-dependent skewed sex ratio in a sexually dimorphic avian scavenger.

Authors:  Sergio A Lambertucci; Martina Carrete; José Antonio Donázar; Fernando Hiraldo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-27       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  21 in total

1.  Sex differences in developmental plasticity and canalization shape population divergence in mate preferences.

Authors:  Erik I Svensson; Anna Runemark; Machteld N Verzijden; Maren Wellenreuther
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-12-22       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Quantifying maladaptation during the evolution of sexual dimorphism.

Authors:  Genevieve Matthews; Sandra Hangartner; David G Chapple; Tim Connallon
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-08-14       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 3.  Linking local adaptation with the evolution of sex differences.

Authors:  Tim Connallon; Florence Débarre; Xiang-Yi Li
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 4.  Hybridization, sex-specific genomic architecture and local adaptation.

Authors:  Anna Runemark; Fabrice Eroukhmanoff; Angela Nava-Bolaños; Jo S Hermansen; Joana I Meier
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 5.  Sex differences in local adaptation: what can we learn from reciprocal transplant experiments?

Authors:  Erik I Svensson; Debora Goedert; Miguel A Gómez-Llano; Foteini Spagopoulou; Angela Nava-Bolaños; Isobel Booksmythe
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 6.237

6.  Climatic factors and species range position predict sexually antagonistic selection across taxa.

Authors:  Stephen P De Lisle; Debora Goedert; Aaron M Reedy; Erik I Svensson
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 6.237

7.  Selection on phenotypic plasticity favors thermal canalization.

Authors:  Erik I Svensson; Miguel Gomez-Llano; John T Waller
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-11-09       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 8.  Population genetics of sexual conflict in the genomic era.

Authors:  Judith E Mank
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 53.242

9.  The interaction between sex-specific selection and local adaptation in species without separate sexes.

Authors:  Colin Olito; Jessica K Abbott; Crispin Y Jordan
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 6.237

10.  What do men want? Re-examining whether men benefit from higher fertility than is optimal for women.

Authors:  Cristina Moya; Kristin Snopkowski; Rebecca Sear
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2016-04-19       Impact factor: 6.237

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.