Literature DB >> 30817033

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

Samuel S Snow1, Suzanne H Alonzo2, Maria R Servedio3, Richard O Prum1.   

Abstract

Sexual conflict over the indirect benefits of mate choice may arise when traits in one sex limit the ability of the other sex to freely choose mates but when these coercive traits are not necessarily directly harmful (i.e. forced fertilization per se). Although we might hypothesize that females can evolve resistance in order to retain the indirect, genetic benefits (reflected in offspring attractiveness) of mating with attractive males, up to now it has been difficult to evaluate potential underlying mechanisms. Traditional theoretical approaches do not usually conceptually distinguish between female preference for male mating display and female resistance to forced fertilization, yet sexual conflict over indirect benefits implies the simultaneous action of all of these traits. Here, we present an integrative theoretical framework that draws together concepts from both sexual selection and sexual conflict traditions, allowing for the simultaneous coevolution of displays and preferences, and of coercion and resistance. We demonstrate that it is possible for resistance to coercion to evolve in the absence of direct costs of mating to preserve the indirect benefits of mate choice. We find that resistance traits that improve the efficacy of female mating preference can evolve as long as females are able to attain some indirect benefits of mating with attractive males, even when both attractive and unattractive males can coerce. These results reveal new evolutionary outcomes that were not predicted by prior theories of indirect benefits or sexual conflict.
© 2019 European Society For Evolutionary Biology. Journal of Evolutionary Biology © 2019 European Society For Evolutionary Biology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  female preference; indirect benefits; population-genetic model; resistance; sexual conflict; sexually antagonistic coevolution; waterfowl

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30817033      PMCID: PMC7045708          DOI: 10.1111/jeb.13436

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Evol Biol        ISSN: 1010-061X            Impact factor:   2.411


  29 in total

1.  The origin of interlocus sexual conflict: is sex-linkage important?

Authors:  J A Andrés; E H Morrow
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 2.411

2.  Natural and sexual selection on many loci.

Authors:  N H Barton; M Turelli
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  Quantitative genetic models of sexual conflict based on interacting phenotypes.

Authors:  Allen J Moore; Tommaso Pizzari
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.926

4.  Evolutionary conflicts of interest: are female sexual decisions different?

Authors:  William G Eberhard
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.926

5.  Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process.

Authors:  A Grafen
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  1990-06-21       Impact factor: 2.691

6.  The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences.

Authors:  M Kirkpatrick; N H Barton
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1997-02-18       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  THE EVOLUTION OF COSTLY MATE PREFERENCES II. THE "HANDICAP" PRINCIPLE.

Authors:  Yoh Iwasa; Andrew Pomiankowski; Sean Nee
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 3.694

8.  CHASE-AWAY SEXUAL SELECTION: RESISTANCE TO "RESISTANCE".

Authors:  Gil G Rosenthal; Maria R Servedio
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.694

9.  REPLY TO COMMENTS ON THE CHASE-AWAY MODEL OF SEXUAL SELECTION.

Authors:  William R Rice; Brett Holland
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.694

10.  A Model of Mating Behavior in Flies.

Authors:  Aykut Kence; Edwin H Bryant
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  1978 Nov. - Dec.       Impact factor: 3.926

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.