Environmental Variance in Lifetime Mating Success, Mate Choice, and Sexual Selection

Hubbell, Stephen P.; Johnson, Leslie K.

doi:10.1086/284700

Cited by 155 publications

(121 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

116

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Female competition for breeding opportunities is also intense in a number of social mammals where female rank and breeding success are closely correlated, including (B) Kalahari meerkats (Suricata suricatta) and (C) spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta). both sexes is often caused by age, by random processes that do not contribute to selection, or by phenotypic differences that have no heritable basis (7,13,14,(25)(26)(27), and these effects may often differ between the sexes. For example, the higher PRR of males may generate increased random variance in breeding success in males compared to females (25).…”

Section: Sexual Selection In Malesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sexual Selection in Males and Females

Clutton‐Brock

2007

Science

795

609

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Sexual Selection In Malesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sexual Selection in Males and Females

Clutton‐Brock

2007

Science

795

609

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bateman's [2] conclusions have been criticized on experimental and technical grounds [38], or on the grounds that the difference in variance in reproductive success between the sexes can be attributed to purely random processes [39,40], or for other reasons does not reflect the intensity of sexual selection [41,42]. In re-analyses of Bateman's data, both Arnold & Duvall [43] and Snyder & Gowaty [38] concluded that in his experiments, female reproductive success also increases with number of mates (a finding that is now proving commonplace, see [31]), and that number of mates also explains a significant amount of variation in female reproductive success.…”

Section: Bateman's Principlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polyandry: the history of a revolution

Parker

Birkhead

2013

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

205

238

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We give a historic overview and critical perspective of polyandry in the context of sexual selection. Early approaches tended to obfuscate the fact that the total matings (copulations) by the two sexes is equal, neglecting female interests and that females often mate with (or receive ejaculates from) more than one male (polyandry). In recent years, we have gained much more insight into adaptive reasons for polyandry, particularly from the female perspective. However, costs and benefits of multiple mating are unlikely to be equal for males and females. These must be assessed for each partner at each potential mating between male i and female j , and will often be highly asymmetric. Interests of i and j may be in conflict, with (typically, ultimately because of primordial sex differences) i benefitting and j losing from mating, although theoretically the reverse can also obtain. Polyandry reduces the sex difference in Bateman gradients, and the probability of sexual conflict over mating by: (i) reducing the potential expected value of each mating to males in inverse proportion to the number of mates per female per clutch, and also often by (ii) increasing ejaculate costs through increased sperm allocation. It can nevertheless create conflict over fertilization and increase conflict over parental investment. The observed mean mating frequency for the population (and hence the degree of polyandry) is likely, at least in part, to reflect a resolution of sexual conflict. Immense diversity exists across and within taxa in the extent of polyandry, and views on its significance have changed radically, as we illustrate using avian polyandry as a case study. Despite recent criticisms, the contribution of the early pioneers of sexual selection, Darwin and Bateman, remains generally valid, and should not, therefore, be negated; as with much in science, pioneering advances are more often amplified and refined, rather than replaced with entirely new paradigms.

show abstract

“…If there are unbiased descriptions of who mated with whom, then it is reasonable to evaluate two other nonmutually exclusive hypotheses: (ii) stochastic demography (chance effects on survival and reproduction) in the absence of mate choice or within-sex behavioral or physiological competition resulted in observed V NM and V RS (10,11); and (iii) sexual selection among males resulted in observed sex differences in NM and RS.…”

Section: Three Explanations For Bateman's Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given its paradigmatic status, Bateman's paper has inspired further studies of V NM and V RS (6,7), many of which are consistent with Bateman's main conclusions. Despite consistency in some studies and the apparent simplicity of Bateman's original design, Bateman's methods, the generality of Bateman's conclusions, and their implications are controversial (3,(8)(9)(10)(11) (SI Text), suggesting that "Bateman's Principles" might be better phrased as "Bateman's Hypotheses." Thus, it is interesting that the present report is unique in being a replication of Bateman's experiment that explicitly used his methodology of inferring who mated with whom by assigning parentage to offspring inheriting dramatic parental mutant phenotypes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

No evidence of sexual selection in a repetition of Bateman’s classic study of Drosophila melanogaster

Gowaty

Kim²,

Anderson³

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We are unique in reporting a repetition of Bateman [Bateman AJ (1948) Heredity (Edinb) 2:349-368] using his methods of parentage assignment, which linked sex differences in variance of reproductive success and variance in number of mates in small populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Using offspring phenotypes, we inferred who mated with whom and assigned offspring to parents. Like Bateman, we cultured adults expressing dramatic phenotypes, so that each adult was heterozygous-dominant at its unique marker locus but had only wild-type alleles at all other subjects' marker loci. Assuming no viability effects of parental markers on offspring, the frequencies of parental phenotypes in offspring follow Mendelian expectations: one-quarter will be double-mutants who inherit the dominant gene from each parent, the offspring from which Bateman counted the number of mates per breeder; half of the offspring must be single mutants inheriting the dominant gene of one parent and the wild-type allele of the other parent; and one-quarter would inherit neither of their parent's marker mutations. Here we show that inviability of double-mutant offspring biased inferences of mate number and number of offspring on which rest inferences of sex differences in fitness variances. Bateman's method overestimated subjects with zero mates, underestimated subjects with one or more mates, and produced systematically biased estimates of offspring number by sex. Bateman's methodology mismeasured fitness variances that are the key variables of sexual selection.genetic parentage | monogamy B ateman's study (1) of within-sex selection in Drosophila melanogaster is a foundational paper in sexual selection, second only to Darwin's pioneering book (2); it empirically anchored within-sex variance in number of mates (V NM ) as a key correlate of variance in reproductive success (V RS ) and as the metric of sexual selection. Bateman said his results showed that male number of mates (NM) was more variable than female NM; male reproductive success (RS) was more variable than female RS; and RS in males, but not in females, was because of NM. His conclusions were: sexual selection acted primarily on males through female choice and through male competition and profligacy in mating, so that some males mated more frequently than others, producing higher V RS among males than among females because of the positive relationship between number of mates and reproductive success for males, but not for females.Bateman's (1) paper was cited relatively infrequently before its rediscovery by Trivers (3), who used Bateman's results to buttress his arguments that the sex-differential cost of reproduction selectively favored coy, discriminating females and competitive, ardent males. After Trivers (3), citation of Bateman soared (4), as it did again after Arnold (5) discussed "Bateman's Principles" as corollaries of sex differences in behavior and fitness variances. Given its paradigmatic status, Bateman's paper has inspired further studies of V NM and V RS (6, 7), many o...

show abstract

Environmental Variance in Lifetime Mating Success, Mate Choice, and Sexual Selection

Cited by 155 publications

References 13 publications

Sexual Selection in Males and Females

Sexual Selection in Males and Females

Polyandry: the history of a revolution

No evidence of sexual selection in a repetition of Bateman’s classic study of Drosophila melanogaster

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About