Literature DB >> 33043452

Female-specific resource limitation does not make the opportunity for selection more female biased.

Ivain Martinossi-Allibert1,2, Johanna Liljestrand Rönn2, Elina Immonen3.   

Abstract

Competition for limiting resources and stress can magnify variance in fitness and therefore selection. But even in a common environment, the strength of selection can differ across the sexes, as their fitness is often limited by different factors. Indeed, most taxa show stronger selection in males, a bias often ascribed to intense competition for access to mating partners. This sex bias could reverberate on many aspects of evolution, from speed of adaptation to genome evolution. It is unclear, however, whether stronger opportunity for selection in males is a pattern robust to sex-specific stress or resource limitation. We test this in the model species Callosobruchus maculatus by comparing female and male opportunity for selection (i) with and without limitation of quality oviposition sites, and (ii) under delayed age at oviposition. Decreasing the abundance of the resource key to females or increasing their reproductive age was challenging, as shown by a reduction in mean fitness, but opportunity for selection remained stronger in males across all treatments, and even more so when oviposition sites were limiting. This suggests that males remain the more variable sex independent of context, and that the opportunity for selection through males is indirectly affected by female-specific resource limitation.
© 2020 The Authors. Evolution © 2020 The Society for the Study of Evolution.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Laboratory settings; opportunity for selection; sex bias; sex-specific selection; sexual dimorphism; sexual selection

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33043452      PMCID: PMC7821317          DOI: 10.1111/evo.14106

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


  28 in total

Review 1.  Environmental duress and epistasis: how does stress affect the strength of selection on new mutations?

Authors:  Aneil F Agrawal; Michael C Whitlock
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2010-06-09       Impact factor: 17.712

2.  A reappraisal of Bateman's classic study of intrasexual selection.

Authors:  Brian F Snyder; Patricia Adair Gowaty
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2007-08-23       Impact factor: 3.694

Review 3.  Fundamental concepts in genetics: effective population size and patterns of molecular evolution and variation.

Authors:  Brian Charlesworth
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 53.242

Review 4.  Purging the genome with sexual selection: reducing mutation load through selection on males.

Authors:  Michael C Whitlock; Aneil F Agrawal
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2008-12-12       Impact factor: 3.694

5.  Sex differences, sexual selection, and ageing: an experimental evolution approach.

Authors:  Alexei A Maklakov; Russell Bonduriansky; Robert C Brooks
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2009-06-10       Impact factor: 3.694

6.  Elevated stress hormone diminishes the strength of female preferences for acoustic signals in the green treefrog.

Authors:  A Gabriell Davis; Christopher J Leary
Journal:  Horm Behav       Date:  2015-01-30       Impact factor: 3.587

7.  The efficacy of good genes sexual selection under environmental change.

Authors:  Ivain Martinossi-Allibert; Claus Rueffler; Göran Arnqvist; David Berger
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-02-13       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  On the effective size of populations with separate sexes, with particular reference to sex-linked genes.

Authors:  A Caballero
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 4.562

9.  BREEDING COMPETITION IN A PACIFIC SALMON (COHO: ONCORHYNCHUS KISUTCH): MEASURES OF NATURAL AND SEXUAL SELECTION.

Authors:  Ian A Fleming; Mart R Gross
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 3.694

10.  The scope and strength of sex-specific selection in genome evolution.

Authors:  A E Wright; J E Mank
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2013-07-13       Impact factor: 2.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.