2013
DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-407186-5.00007-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intralocus Tactical Conflict and the Evolution of Alternative Reproductive Tactics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
73
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(74 citation statements)
references
References 85 publications
1
73
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is probably due to the fact that our phylogenies differed from each other mostly in the level of relationships among subfamilies, whereas most of the transitions in dimorphisms (especially in male dimorphism) occurred within subfamilies, rather than in the common ancestor of two or more subfamilies. We suggest that the major force behind the relationship between sexual and male dimorphism is the similarity in selection against intralocus sexual conflict (Rice and Chippindale ) and against intralocus tactical conflict (Morris et al ). Additionally, sexual dimorphism in sexually selected traits might evolve more readily than male dimorphism for at least two reasons: (1) the genetic architecture for sex‐specific expression is already present even in sexually monomorphic species, due to sex chromosomes or autosomal genes with sex‐limited expression, whereas the same is not true for male dimorphism; and (2) there is a greater opportunity for the evolution of sexual dimorphism than for the evolution of male dimorphism because secondary sexual traits are selected against in all females, but only in a fraction of males (minors).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…This is probably due to the fact that our phylogenies differed from each other mostly in the level of relationships among subfamilies, whereas most of the transitions in dimorphisms (especially in male dimorphism) occurred within subfamilies, rather than in the common ancestor of two or more subfamilies. We suggest that the major force behind the relationship between sexual and male dimorphism is the similarity in selection against intralocus sexual conflict (Rice and Chippindale ) and against intralocus tactical conflict (Morris et al ). Additionally, sexual dimorphism in sexually selected traits might evolve more readily than male dimorphism for at least two reasons: (1) the genetic architecture for sex‐specific expression is already present even in sexually monomorphic species, due to sex chromosomes or autosomal genes with sex‐limited expression, whereas the same is not true for male dimorphism; and (2) there is a greater opportunity for the evolution of sexual dimorphism than for the evolution of male dimorphism because secondary sexual traits are selected against in all females, but only in a fraction of males (minors).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…This shared genetic architecture cannot be assumed, nor can it be inferred from the functions of the traits of males and females, or males of different morphs. However, as we argued above, genetic correlations between the sexes (and especially between morphs within a sex) are probably prevalent and would be the most straightforward way to investigate the third element of ISC and ITC (Morris et al ., ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…We predicted that body size and general shape traits (pronotum width, elytra length, and rear and front femur lengths) would not have strikingly different phenotypic optima between the sexes and male morphs, and therefore would present positive intersexual and intrasexual genetic correlations. On the other hand, as horn length is sexually selected in majors only, this trait is expected to have different phenotypic optima between male morphs, and should present a reduction or complete breakdown of intrasexual genetic correlations as a result of ITC (Morris et al ., ). In summary, we expected significant and positive intersexual genetic correlations for all traits, with the obvious exception of horn length, which is not expressed in females.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The result is typically that in neither sex the optimal trait value is reached (Bonduriansky and Chenoweth 2009). In male-dimorphic species, each male morph has inherently different optimal trait values (Morris et al 2013). These different trait values will generate a stronger or weaker IASC between males and females—depending on the mismatch with female optimal trait values.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…IASC occurs when males and females (1) share a genetic architecture for a certain phenotypic trait, (2) have different phenotypic trait optima, and (3) neither sex is at its optimal trait expression (Morris et al 2013). IASCs revolve around sex-specific trait optima for life-history, morphology, behaviour or physiology (Adler and Bonduriansky 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%