Male position in a sexual network reflects mating role and body size

Smith, Carl; Spence, Rowena; Bailey, Richard I.; Reichard, Martin

doi:10.25225/jvb.22069

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The impact of the social environment on sexual selection has long been recognized, including variation in operational sex ratios and population density (Emlen & Oring, 1977; Janicke & Morrow, 2018; Kokko & Rankin, 2006). More recently, research has further demonstrated that animal populations are structured by complex social and sexual networks (Albery et al, 2021; Beck et al, 2021; Krause et al, 2014; Maldonado‐Chaparro et al, 2018; McDonald et al, 2019, 2020; Muniz et al, 2015; Oh & Badyaev, 2010; Ryder et al, 2008; Silk & Hodgson, 2021; Smith et al, 2023). The structure of such socio‐sexual networks (i.e., the patterning of sexual interactions among individuals) can influence sexual selection by shaping the relationship between male precopulatory mating success and the intensity of postcopulatory competition he faces (Fisher et al, 2016; Greenway et al, 2021; McDonald et al, 2013; McDonald & Pizzari, 2018; Muniz et al, 2015; Sih et al, 2009; Wey & Kelly, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of small groups on pre‐ and postcopulatory sexual selection in polyandrous populations

McDonald

2023

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sexual selection is a key evolutionary force but varies widely between populations. Two key factors that influence sexual selection are the extent to which females copulate with multiple males (polyandry) and variation in the social environment. Increasing research demonstrates populations are structured by complex socio‐sexual networks, and the structure of these networks can influence sexual selection by shaping the relationship between male precopulatory mating success and the intensity of postcopulatory competition. However, comparatively less attention has been dedicated to the influence of group structure on sexual selection and how differences in the size of groups may impact on the relative force of pre‐ and postcopulatory sexual selection in polyandrous populations. The presence of groups (i.e., group structure) and the size of groups varies widely in nature and forms an implicit part of much experimental sexual selection research under laboratory conditions. Here I use simulations of mating competition within populations that vary in the size of groups they contain, to show that variation in group size, and in particular small groups, can influence sexual selection. Specifically, I show that null expectations for the operation of pre‐ and postcopulatory sexual selection is governed by the size of groups within populations because smaller group sizes constrain the structure of sexual networks leading to reinforcing episodes of pre‐ and postcopulatory sexual selection. Given broad variation in group structure in nature and the tendency for experimental sexual selection research to study replicate small groups, these effects have implications for our understanding of the operation of sexual selection in polyandrous populations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of small groups on pre‐ and postcopulatory sexual selection in polyandrous populations

McDonald

2023

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Reciprocal transplant experiments demonstrate a dynamic coevolutionary relationship between parasitic mussel larvae and bitterling fishes

Anil,

Mehdi,

Douda

et al. 2024

Freshwater Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The coevolutionary dynamic of host–parasite associations varies from strictly local adaptations to diffuse guild coevolution. How innate and acquired immune responses modulate host resistance to parasitism and how host specificity and geographic scaling affect the efficacy of host response have consequences for range dynamics and biological invasions. Using reciprocal transplant experiments, we tested whether local or diffuse coevolution shapes host response to parasitism in the host–parasite association between bitterling fishes and larval stages (glochidia) of freshwater mussels from Europe and East Asia. We found that glochidia initially indiscriminately attached to all study host species, but immune responses elicited significant differences in host responses within 24 h of infection, which intensified during glochidial development. European bitterlings were more resistant to European glochidia and Asian bitterlings to Asian glochidia, with the strongest geographic bias in resistance in the Asian bitterling hosts. This finding suggests a strong effect of local adaptation but also indicates the non‐negligible role of coevolutionary hotspots. Low natural glochidia load on bitterling species overall hence arise from competent immune response rather than glochidia avoidance behaviour. Bitterling immune response is primarily innate and not acquired. Overall, our data demonstrate the complex outcome of parasite pressure on the evolution of host resistance, and important role of geographically structured coevolution in shaping host response.

show abstract

Male position in a sexual network reflects mating role and body size

Cited by 2 publications

References 45 publications

The impact of small groups on pre‐ and postcopulatory sexual selection in polyandrous populations

The impact of small groups on pre‐ and postcopulatory sexual selection in polyandrous populations

Reciprocal transplant experiments demonstrate a dynamic coevolutionary relationship between parasitic mussel larvae and bitterling fishes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About