Sex roles and sexual selection

Sexual selection has been portrayed as acting predominantly on males who compete with each other over copulatory access to females; selection was considered to be driven by females choosing between males at the pre- or postcopulatory level. However, a broader view of sexual selection is now emerging. Examining male discrimination between females and female-female competition has been beneficial in identifying factors influencing the direction and strength of sexual selection. Furthermore, consideration of processes such as sexual coercion or genetic incompatibility, which indirectly influence an individual's set of copulation partners, gamete set or their offspring success, has helped to clarify the ways in which sexual selection may operate. Moreover, there is increasing evidence that not all copulations translate directly to paternity and that paternity does not necessarily translate into successful offspring. Postcopulatory and postfertilization mechanisms that influence not only paternity share but offspring recruitment now require further consideration. The benefits to each sex of copulating with particular partners or with more than one partner remains an area of debate. More carefully designed studies which eliminate alternative possibilities or quantify the relative importance of different selective pressures will also benefit from considering that not all copulations function solely to inseminate or receive sperm. It is also now clear that not all individuals of one sex follow the same strategy. Examining the variation between individuals in reproductive behaviour, fertilization success and offspring success will be important in establishing the selective pressures and mechanisms underlying the operation of sexual selection. (c) 1998 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.

[1]  M. Ridley.  MATING FREQUENCY AND FECUNDITY IN INSECTS , 1988 .

[2]  T. Markow,et al.  Male Gametic Strategies: Sperm Size, Testes Size, and the Allocation of Ejaculate Among Successive Mates by the Sperm-Limited Fly Drosophila pachea and Its Relatives , 1994, The American Naturalist.

[3]  N. Burley.  The Differential-Allocation Hypothesis: An Experimental Test , 1988, The American Naturalist.

[4]  P. Gowaty.  Feminism and Evolutionary Biology , 1997, Springer US.

[5]  N. Metcalfe,et al.  Male finches selectively pair with fecund females , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[6]  M. Petrie,et al.  Peahens lay more eggs for peacocks with larger trains , 1993, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[7]  N. Burley,et al.  Mate Choice in Plants , 1983 .

[8]  G. Wobeser.  Diseases of Wild Waterfowl , 1981, Springer US.

[9]  Andrew Balmford,et al.  HOW TO COMPENSATE FOR COSTLY SEXUALLY SELECTED TAILS: THE ORIGIN OF SEXUALLY DIMORPHIC WINGS IN LONG‐TAILED BIRDS , 1994, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[10]  L. Simmons,et al.  Parental investment and the control of sexual selection: predicting the direction of sexual competition , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[11]  P. Mineau,et al.  Forced Copulation in Waterfowl , 1983 .

[12]  N. Davies,et al.  Female dunnocks use vocalizations to compete for males , 1997, Animal Behaviour.

[13]  Bertram L. Smith.  Tactics in Reproduction. (Book Reviews: Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Animal Mating Systems) , 1984 .

[14]  J. Fryxell,et al.  Density Dependence, Frequency Dependence, and Alternative Nesting Strategies in Goldeneyes , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[15]  H. M. Bruce.  An Exteroceptive Block to Pregnancy in the Mouse , 1959, Nature.

[16]  D. Martill.  Macromolecular resolution of fossilized muscle tissue from an elopomorph fish , 1990, Nature.

[17]  W. Rice.  Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution , 1996, Nature.

[18]  T. Birkhead.  CRYPTIC FEMALE CHOICE: CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING FEMALE SPERM CHOICE , 1998, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[19]  R. Wagner,et al.  Condition-dependent control of paternity by female purple martins: implications for coloniality , 1996, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[20]  Bateman Aj.  Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. , 1948 .

[21]  A. King,et al.  Female visual displays affect the development of male song in the cowbird , 1988, Nature.

[22]  C. Darwin.  The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex: INDEX , 1871 .

[23]  R. H. Wiley,et al.  PERSPECTIVE: INDIRECT MATE CHOICE, COMPETITION FOR MATES, AND COEVOLUTION OF THE SEXES , 1996, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[24]  J. Bishop.  Female control of paternity in the internally fertilizing compound ascidian Diplosoma listerianum. I. Autoradiographic investigation of sperm movements in the female reproductive tract , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[25]  A. Møller,et al.  Sperm competition in birds : evolutionary causes and consequences , 1992 .

[26]  T. H. Glutton-Brock,et al.  Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females , 1991, Nature.

[27]  D. Mock,et al.  A hormonal mechanism for parental favouritism , 1997, Nature.

[28]  I. F. Harvey,et al.  Predicting variation in sperm precedence , 1997 .

[29]  Henrik G. Smith,et al.  Female aggression in the European starling during the breeding season , 1997, Animal Behaviour.

[30]  R. Shine,et al.  Sperm selection by females , 1996, Nature.

[31]  E. Forsgren.  Female sand gobies prefer good fathers over dominant males , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[32]  J. Hoogland.  Why do female Gunnison's prairie dogs copulate with more than one male? , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[33]  L Partridge,et al.  Genetic and non-genetic approaches to questions about sexual selection , 1994 .

[34]  Paul H. Harvey,et al.  The Ant and the Peacock , 1992 .

[35]  R. Gibson,et al.  Reversal of a female preference after visual exposure to a predator in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata , 1996, Animal Behaviour.

[36]  R. Johnstone.  The tactics of mutual mate choice and competitive search , 1997, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[37]  B. Campbell.  Forces and Strategies in Evolution. (Book Reviews: Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871-1971) , 1972 .

[38]  R. Thornhill.  Cryptic Female Choice and Its Implications in the Scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps , 1983, The American Naturalist.

[39]  S. J. Arnold,et al.  Animal Mating Systems: A Synthesis Based on Selection Theory , 1994, The American Naturalist.

[40]  R. Johnstone,et al.  MUTUAL MATE CHOICE AND SEX DIFFERENCES IN CHOOSINESS , 1996, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[41]  M. Wade,et al.  Increased male fertility in Tribolium confusum beetles after infection with the intracellular parasite Wolbachia , 1995, Nature.

[42]  G. Parker,et al.  Sperm competition or sperm selection: no evidence for female influence over paternity in yellow dung flies Scatophaga stercoraria , 1996, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[43]  U. Huck.  Pregnancy block in laboratory mice as a function of male social status. , 1982, Journal of reproduction and fertility.

[44]  P. Parker,et al.  The Relative Impact of Extra-Pair Fertilizations on Variation in Male and Female Reproductive Success in Dark-Eyed Juncos (Junco hyemalis) , 1998 .

[45]  B. Sheldon,et al.  Sexually transmitted disease in birds: occurrence and evolutionary significance. , 1993, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[46]  E. M. Gray,et al.  Female red-winged blackbirds accrue material benefits from copulating with extra-pair males , 1997, Animal Behaviour.

[47]  N. Davies,et al.  Female song attracts males in the alpine accentor Prunella collaris , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[48]  G. Parker,et al.  Parental investment and the control of sexual selection: can sperm competition affect the direction of sexual competition? , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[49]  M. Kirkpatrick,et al.  The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[50]  S. Gangestad,et al.  Developmental stability and human violence , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[51]  D. Heg,et al.  Female–female cooperation in polygynous oystercatchers , 1998, Nature.

[52]  D. W. Zeh,et al.  The evolution of polyandry II: post–copulatory defenses against genetic incompatibility , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[53]  M. Wade,et al.  Equal mating success among male reproductive strategies in a marine isopod , 1991, Nature.

[54]  N. Wedell.  Mate Quality Affects Reproductive Effort in a Paternally Investing Species , 1996, The American Naturalist.

[55]  S. Emlen,et al.  Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. , 1977, Science.

[56]  F. Lope,et al.  FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE EFFORT DEPENDS ON THE DEGREE OF ORNAMENTATION OF THEIR MATES , 1993 .

[57]  Sperm competition and sexual selection , 1998 .

[58]  F. Hunter,et al.  Mutual sexual selection in a monogamous seabird , 1993, Nature.

[59]  W. Eberhard.  Female control : sexual selection by cryptic female choice , 1996 .

[60]  G. Arnqvist,et al.  Sexual Conflict and the Energetic Costs of Mating and Mate Choice in Water Striders , 1998, The American Naturalist.

[61]  S. Austad,et al.  Sources of Intraspecific Variation in Sperm Precedence in Red Flour Beetles , 1990, The American Naturalist.

[62]  P. Eady,et al.  Female genotype affects male success in sperm competition , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[63]  P. Hull.  PARTIAL INCOMPATIBILITY NOT AFFECTING TOTAL LITTER SIZE IN THE MOUSE. , 1964, Genetics.

[64]  J. Biggins,et al.  Sperm competition mechanisms in birds: models and data , 1998 .

[65]  G. Parker,et al.  SPERM COMPETITION AND ITS EVOLUTIONARY CONSEQUENCES IN THE INSECTS , 1970 .

[66]  Sperm competition in horseshoe crabs (Limulus polyphemus) , 1994 .

[67]  D. Schluter,et al.  Sexual selection when the female directly benefits , 1993 .

[68]  S. Austad.  7 – Evolution of Sperm Priority Patterns in Spiders , 1984 .

[69]  Henrik G. Smith,et al.  Already mated females constrain male mating success in the European starling , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[70]  E. M. Gray.  Do female red-winged blackbirds benefit genetically from seeking extra-pair copulations? , 1997, Animal Behaviour.

[71]  K. Kaneshiro,et al.  INTERSEXUAL SELECTION IN THE MEDITERRANEAN FRUIT FLY: DOES FEMALE CHOICE ENHANCE FITNESS? , 1995, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[72]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  Potential Reproductive Rates and the Operation of Sexual Selection , 1992, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[73]  P. Stockley.  No evidence of sperm selection by female common shrews , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[74]  T. Rülicke,et al.  Non-random fertilization in mice correlates with the MHC and something else , 1996, Heredity.

[75]  Roger Catchpole,et al.  Quantitative Genetic Studies of Behavioral Evolution , 1995 .

[76]  L. F. Delph,et al.  5 – Pollen Competition in Flowering Plants , 1998 .

[77]  R. Trivers.  Parental investment and sexual selection , 1972 .

[78]  L. Stipkovits,et al.  Occurrence of mycoplasmas in geese affected with inflammation of the cloaca and phallus. , 1986, Avian pathology : journal of the W.V.P.A.

[79]  M. Petrie,et al.  Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate trains , 1994, Nature.

[80]  K. Norris.  Heritable variation in a plumage indicator of viability in male great tits Parus major , 1993, Nature.

[81]  J. Krebs,et al.  Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach , 1978 .

[82]  D. Dewsbury,et al.  Ejaculate Cost and Male Choice , 1982, The American Naturalist.

[83]  P. Dziuk.  Factors that influence the proportion of offspring sired by a male following heterospermic insemination , 1996 .

[84]  N. Davies,et al.  Female control of copulations to maximize male help: a comparison of polygynandrous alpine accentors, Prunella collaris , and dunnocks, P.modularis , 1996, Animal Behaviour.

[85]  W. Walker.  Sperm Utilization Strategies in Nonsocial Insects , 1980, The American Naturalist.

[86]  C. Jones,et al.  Female control of paternity in the internally fertilizing compound ascidian Diplosoma listerianum. II. Investigation of male mating success using RAPD markers , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[87]  D. Gilbert,et al.  10 – Sperm Transfer and Use in the Multiple Mating System of Drosophila , 1984 .

[88]  H. Schwabl,et al.  Yolk is a source of maternal testosterone for developing birds. , 1993, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[89]  S. Shuster,et al.  Genetic interaction between male mating strategy and sex ratio in a marine isopod , 1997, Nature.

[90]  R. D. Semlitsch,et al.  Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. , 1998, Science.

[91]  L. Simmons,et al.  Experimental reversal of courtship roles in an insect , 1990, Nature.

[92]  G. Parker.  1 – Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Animal Mating Strategies , 1984 .

[93]  J. Lifjeld,et al.  Polygyny in Birds: The Role of Competition between Females for Male Parental Care , 1994, The American Naturalist.

[94]  T. Birkhead.  14 – Sperm Competition in Birds: Mechanisms and Function , 1998 .

[95]  L. Simmons,et al.  10 – Sperm Competition in Insects: Mechanisms and the Potential for Selection , 1998 .

[96]  R. L'hospitalier,et al.  Normal phallus flora of the gander. , 1987, Zentralblatt fur Veterinarmedizin. Reihe B. Journal of veterinary medicine. Series B.

[97]  D. W. Zeh,et al.  The evolution of polyandry I: intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.