Literature DB >> 27861841

Sexual selection can both increase and decrease extinction probability: reconciling demographic and evolutionary factors.

Carlos Martínez-Ruiz1, Robert J Knell1.   

Abstract

Previous theoretical models of the effect of sexual selection on average individual fitness in a population have mostly predicted that sexually selected populations should adapt faster and clear deleterious mutations more quickly than populations where sexual selection is not operating. While some laboratory studies have supported these predictions, others have not and studies of field systems have tended to find negative effects of sexual selection, or no effect. The negative effects of sexual selection found in field and other studies are usually ascribed to the costs associated with strong sexual selection acting on the population. Here, using an individual-based model that allows feedback between demographic and evolutionary processes, we find that sexual selection can lead to both increases and decreases in population-level fitness measures such as extinction probability and adaptation rate. Whether fitness increases or decreases depends on a variety of environmental and demographic factors including the nature of environmental change, the carrying capacity of the environment, the average fecundity of the population in question and the strength of condition dependence. In many cases, our model predicts that sexual selection leads to higher extinction probability in small populations because of an increased risk of demographic stochasticity, but lower extinction probability in larger populations because of faster adaptation rates. This is consistent with field studies that have mostly focussed on very small populations such as recently introduced birds, and tend to find negative effects, and also with laboratory studies that tend to use larger populations and have tended to find positive effects. These findings go at least some way towards an understanding of the apparent contradictions between theoretical predictions, laboratory studies and field data.
© 2016 The Authors. Journal of Animal Ecology © 2016 British Ecological Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  adaptation; climate change; environmental change; evolution; extinction; individual-based model; sexual selection

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27861841     DOI: 10.1111/1365-2656.12601

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Ecol        ISSN: 0021-8790            Impact factor:   5.091


  18 in total

1.  Ageing via perception costs of reproduction magnifies sexual selection.

Authors:  Roberto García-Roa; Manuel Serra; Pau Carazo
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-11-28       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 2.  Direct and indirect effects of chemical contaminants on the behaviour, ecology and evolution of wildlife.

Authors:  Minna Saaristo; Tomas Brodin; Sigal Balshine; Michael G Bertram; Bryan W Brooks; Sean M Ehlman; Erin S McCallum; Andrew Sih; Josefin Sundin; Bob B M Wong; Kathryn E Arnold
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-08-22       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Selective harvest focused on sexual signal traits can lead to extinction under directional environmental change.

Authors:  Robert J Knell; Carlos Martínez-Ruiz
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  The effect of sexual selection on adaptation and extinction under increasing temperatures.

Authors:  Jonathan M Parrett; Robert J Knell
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-04-25       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Genomic evidence that a sexually selected trait captures genome-wide variation and facilitates the purging of genetic load.

Authors:  Jonathan M Parrett; Sebastian Chmielewski; Eylem Aydogdu; Aleksandra Łukasiewicz; Stephane Rombauts; Agnieszka Szubert-Kruszyńska; Wiesław Babik; Mateusz Konczal; Jacek Radwan
Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-07-18       Impact factor: 19.100

6.  Strong spatial population structure shapes the temporal coevolutionary dynamics of costly female preference and male display.

Authors:  Maximilian Tschol; Jane M Reid; Greta Bocedi
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 4.171

7.  What do orange spots reveal about male (and female) guppies? A test using correlated responses to selection.

Authors:  Magdalena Herdegen-Radwan; Silvia Cattelan; Jakub Buda; Jarosław Raubic; Jacek Radwan
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2021-11-13       Impact factor: 4.171

8.  Male-benefit sexually antagonistic genotypes show elevated vulnerability to inbreeding.

Authors:  Karl Grieshop; David Berger; Göran Arnqvist
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2017-06-12       Impact factor: 3.260

9.  Mating increases Drosophila melanogaster females' choosiness by reducing olfactory sensitivity to a male pheromone.

Authors:  Philip Kohlmeier; Ye Zhang; Jenke A Gorter; Chih-Ying Su; Jean-Christophe Billeter
Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 19.100

10.  Sexually dimorphic swallows have higher extinction risk.

Authors:  Masaru Hasegawa; Emi Arai
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-12-12       Impact factor: 2.912

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.