Genotype‐by‐environment interactions for female preference

Narraway, Claire; Hunt, John; Wedell, Nina; Hosken, David J.

doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02113.x

Cited by 53 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 82 publications

(186 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, interest in incorporating the role of the environment in the study of sexual selection is growing steadily (e.g. Fricke et al 2009;Ingleby et al 2010;Narraway et al 2010). More precise knowledge regarding how central fitness traits, such as survival and reproductive success, change under different conditions would further provide important insights to understanding population sensitivity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Elevated temperature changes female costs and benefits of reproduction

Grazer

Martin

2011

Evol Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite obvious benefits, reproduction also imposes severe costs on females. Such costs and benefits are highly sensitive to environmental factors. Rapidly changing conditions may thus disturb a finely poised balance between the two and pose a challenge to natural populations. A more complete understanding of reproduction and population fitness across different environments is, hence, crucial. In particular, sexual selection could either be beneficial or detrimental when conditions change abruptly. Here Tribolium castaneum females were subjected to mating treatments with or without sexual selection (virginity, monogamy, polyandry) replicated at standard versus elevated temperatures. We found a substantial survival cost of reproduction at the standard, but not at the elevated temperature. Reproductive success was similar across mating treatments at the standard temperature, but at elevated temperature we detected a significant benefit of polyandry compared to monogamy. These findings indicate that environmental heterogeneity can strongly influence the balance between costs and benefits when sexual selection is allowed to act. Furthermore, reproduction may be critically affected by changes in temperature with potentially profound consequences for population fitness.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Elevated temperature changes female costs and benefits of reproduction

Grazer

Martin

2011

Evol Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The no-choice approach was employed to remove potentially confounding male-male competition which we know favours males with large mandibles [39,43,44]. Furthermore, CL in no-choice trials is widely used as a measure of attractiveness/preference in mate choice studies [19,47,[50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57] and is consistent with definitions of preference-female propensity to mate with a male [58]. Note that the no-choice protocol may not mimic natural conditions, but it is needed to isolate female preference from the confounds of male-male competition.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sexual conflict over mating in Gnatocerus cornutus ? Females prefer lovers not fighters

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Female mate choice and male-male competition are the typical mechanisms of sexual selection. However, these two mechanisms do not always favour the same males. Furthermore, it has recently become clear that female choice can sometimes benefit males that reduce female fitness. So whether malemale competition and female choice favour the same or different males, and whether or not females benefit from mate choice, remain open questions. In the horned beetle, Gnatocerus cornutus, males have enlarged mandibles used to fight rivals, and larger mandibles provide a mating advantage when there is direct male-male competition for mates. However, it is not clear whether females prefer these highly competitive males. Here, we show that female choice targets male courtship rather than mandible size, and these two characters are not phenotypically or genetically correlated. Mating with attractive, highly courting males provided indirect benefits to females but only via the heritability of male attractiveness. However, mating with attractive males avoids the indirect costs to daughters that are generated by mating with competitive males. Our results suggest that male-male competition may constrain female mate choice, possibly reducing female fitness and generating sexual conflict over mating.

show abstract

“…The second measure is mating latency, the length of time before a female copulates with a male. Mating latency is a standard measure of mate choice in Drosophila and correlates well with other measures such as multiple male choice tests (e.g., Speith 1974;Noor 1996;Barth et al 1997; Basso da Silva and Valente 2000; Avent et al 2008;Narraway et al 2010). The matings for each experiment were all carried out on a single day to remove any potential batch effects.…”

Section: Outline Of the Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

No evidence of mate discrimination against males carrying a sex ratio distorter in Drosophila pseudoobscura

Price

Lewis

Smith

et al. 2011

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selfish genetic elements (SGEs) that spread by manipulating spermatogenesis often have highly deleterious effects on males that carry them. Females that mate with male carriers of SGEs can also suffer significant costs: they receive fewer and poorer-quality sperm, their offspring will inherit the deleterious allele, and the sex ratio of their offspring will be biased towards the more common sex. To counter these costs, females are therefore expected to prefer to mate with males that do not carry sex ratio distorters or other deleterious selfish genetic elements. However, despite the potential costs, there are few examples of female choice against males carrying SGEs. We searched for evidence of a female preference in fruit fly Drosophila pseudoobscura against males carrying a costly meiotic driving X-chromosome Sex Ratio (SR). In a series of five non-competitive mate preference experiments, we find no evidence that females prefer to mate with non-SR males. Our use of five separate experiments, involving more than 800 females, makes it unlikely that this lack of a difference was due to low power or simple chance. We suggest that the lack of female choice against SGE-carrying males may be due to strong selection on SGEs to be indistinguishable from alternative alleles. Furthermore, polyandry, either in direct response to receiving an ejaculate from an SGE-carrying male or carried out indiscriminately when at risk of mating with carriers, may be an alternative response by females to limit the exposure of their offspring to SGEs.

show abstract

Genotype‐by‐environment interactions for female preference

Cited by 53 publications

References 82 publications

Elevated temperature changes female costs and benefits of reproduction

Elevated temperature changes female costs and benefits of reproduction

Sexual conflict over mating in Gnatocerus cornutus ? Females prefer lovers not fighters

No evidence of mate discrimination against males carrying a sex ratio distorter in Drosophila pseudoobscura

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About