Perspective: Sexual Conflict and Sexual Selection: Chasing Away Paradigm Shifts

Pizzari, Tommaso; Snook, Rhonda R.

doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00331.x

Cited by 148 publications

(203 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

199

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Experimental manipulation of the intensity of malefemale conflicts (e.g., by imposing strict monogamy on males and females) is also a powerful tool (Arnqvist and Rowe 2005). Nevertheless, I do not share the optimism of some of the leading workers on CFC and SAC (e.g., Hosken and Stockley 2004;Holman and Snook 2006;Moore et al 2003;Orteiza et al 2005;Pizarri and Snook 2003;Rice and Chippendale 2001) that another use of studies of captive populations, to study the overall reproductive costs and benefits to females in the laboratory, is likely to resolve the relative importance of SAC and CFC in the evolution of genitalia (or other traits). I say this despite the fact that the crucial difference between CFC and SAC models hinge on the balance between a female's overall gains from traits that result in rejecting some males in terms of direct fitness.…”

Section: Experimental Manipulations Of Male and Female Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of genitalia: theories, evidence, and new directions

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many hypotheses have been proposed to explain why male intromittent genitalia consistently tend to diverge more rapidly than other body traits of the same individuals in a wide range of animal taxa. Currently the two most popular involve sexual selection: sexually antagonistic coevolution (SAC) and cryptic female choice (CFC). A review of the most extensive attempts to discriminate between these two hypotheses indicates that SAC is not likely to have played a major role in explaining this pattern of genital evolution. Promising lines for future, more direct tests of CFC include experimental modification of male genital form and female sensory abilities, analysis of possible male-female dialogues during copulation, and direct observations of genital behavior.

show abstract

Section: Experimental Manipulations Of Male and Female Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of genitalia: theories, evidence, and new directions

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such data have been obtained in the laboratory with respect to the effects of male seminal products on female reproductive physiology in Drosophila melanogaster (27,28), and these results have been widely cited (12,29,30). But unfortunately the gains and losses measured under laboratory conditions may be quite different from those experienced by flies in the field (31).…”

Section: Mechanisms Of Postcopulatory Sexual Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postcopulatory sexual selection: Darwin's omission and its consequences

Eberhard

2009

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

173

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In one of his few major oversights, Darwin failed to appreciate that male-male competition and sexual selection can continue even after copulation has begun. The postcopulatory equivalents of both direct male-male battles (sperm competition) and female choice (cryptic female choice) occur within the female's body. Recognition of this hidden, but intense, sexual competition provides new insights into a variety of fields. These include the hyperdiverse and paradoxically elaborate morphology of both sperm and male genitalia, the equally puzzling and elaborate morphology of nongenitalic male structures that are specialized to grasp and stimulate females, powerful manipulative effects of substances in male semen on female reproductive physiology, paradoxical male courtship behavior that occurs after copulation has already begun, variability in parental investments, and the puzzlingly complex and diverse interactions between sperm and female products that surround animal eggs and between male gametophytes and female tissues in flowering plants. Many bizarre traits are involved, including male genitalia that are designed to explode or fall apart during copulation leaving behind parts within the female, male genitalia that ''sing'' during copulation, potent seminal products that invade the female's body cavity and her nervous system to influence her behavior, and a virtual Kama Sutra of courtship behavior performed after rather than before genital coupling, including male-female dialogues during copulation.cryptic female choice ͉ sexually antagonistic coevolution P icture a pile of freshly-cut weeds at the sunny edge of a tropical forest. Metallic green flies dart and circle over it, chasing one another in short dashes. Your eye is caught when a chase ends as one fly grasps another in midair and the pair immediately lands on the pile of weeds. Their genitalia are already coupled, and the male immediately turns to face away from the female. After a few seconds, paradoxically (because he is already securely attached), he begins to court, rhythmically waving his colorful hind legs and tapping the female's abdomen. The courtship continues for a few minutes as the pair remains coupled, and then the flies separate. The female walks down into the pile where she lays eggs (her larvae will feed on the rotting vegetation), while the male rejoins the frenetic chases above the pile.Why would a male fly wait to court a female until after he has already achieved his evolutionary objective of copulating with her? The answer (recently worked out by a Brazilian graduate student, F. Barbosa, personal communication) had to wait for Ͼ100 years after Darwin's great book on sexual selection (1) that explained so many other aspects of male-female sexual interactions.

show abstract

“…Recent work stimulated by a surge of interest in sexual conflict and its evolutionary consequences (reviewed in Stockley 1997;Chapman et al 2003;Pizzari & Snook 2003;Arnqvist & Rowe 2005; see also other articles in this issue and in the special issues of American Naturalist (Hosken & Snook 2005) and Evolutionary Ecology (Härdling & Smith 2005)) has largely supported Rice's hypothesis. The existence of different two-and three-way intra-and inter-sexual conflicts is well appreciated by now.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The dynamics of two- and three-way sexual conflicts over mating

Gavrilets

Hayashi

2006

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We consider mathematical models describing the evolutionary consequences of antagonistic interactions between male offence, male defence and female reproductive tract and physiology in controlling female mating rate. Overall, the models support previous verbal arguments about the possibility of continuous coevolutionary chase between the sexes driven by two-way (e.g. between male offence and female traits) and three-way (e.g. between male offence, male defence and female traits) inter-sexual antagonistic interactions. At the same time, the models clarify these arguments by identifying various additional potential evolutionary dynamics and important parameters (e.g. genetic variances, female optimum mating rates, strength of selection in females and the relative contributions of first and second males into offspring) and emphasizing the importance of initial conditions. Models also show that sexual conflict can result in the evolution of monandry in an initially polyandrous species and in the evolution of random mating in a population initially exhibiting non-random mating.

show abstract

Perspective: Sexual Conflict and Sexual Selection: Chasing Away Paradigm Shifts

Cited by 148 publications

References 81 publications

Evolution of genitalia: theories, evidence, and new directions

Evolution of genitalia: theories, evidence, and new directions

Postcopulatory sexual selection: Darwin's omission and its consequences

The dynamics of two- and three-way sexual conflicts over mating

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About