Behavior Genetics

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 245–255 | Cite as

Experimental Manipulation of Sexual Selection and the Evolution of Courtship Song in Drosophila pseudoobscura

  • R. R. Snook
  • A. Robertson
  • H. S. Crudgington
  • M. G. Ritchie

Courtship song serves as a sexual signal and may contribute to reproductive isolation between closely related species. Using lines of Drosophila pseudoobscura experimentally selected under different sexual selection regimes, we tested whether increased promiscuity and enforced monogamy led to evolutionary changes in courtship song elements. In D. pseudoobscura, males produce both a low and high rate repetition song. We found that both song types diverged after selection and that the direction of changes was consistent with ordered hypotheses of predicted directions of change under the different mating system structures. In particular, latency to the initiation of song and duration of the interpulse interval (IPI) decreased in highly promiscuous lines and increased in monogamous lines. These results suggest that courtship song may rapidly evolve under different mating system structures, representing either functional evolution of more stimulatory song under conditions of strong sexual selection, or might result from increased courtship vigor, or represent correlated evolution. Some speciation theory predicts that increased sexual selection should result in increased variance of traits between allopatric populations, facilitating reproductive isolation. We also found that courtship song elements were not equally variable between replicate lines.


Behavior courtship song Drosophila pseudoobscura evolution mating success reproductive isolation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, W. W. 1974Frequent multiple insemination in a natural population of Drosophila pseudoobscuraAm. Nat108709711Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, M. 1994Sexual SelectionPrinceton University PressPrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Aspi, J., Hoikkala, A. 1993Laboratory and natural heritabilities of male courtship song characters in Drosophila montana and D. littoralisHeredity70400406Google Scholar
  4. Aspi, J., Hoikkala, A. 1995Male mating success and survival in the field with respect to size and courtship song characters in Drosophila littoralis and D. montana (Diptera: Drosophilidae)J. Insect. Behav.8v6787Google Scholar
  5. Bennet-Clark, H. C., Ewing, A. W. 1969Pulse interval as a critical parameter in the courtship song of Drosophila melanogasterAnim. Behav.17755759Google Scholar
  6. Birkhead, T. R., Møller, A. P. 1998Sperm Competition and Sexual SelectionAcademic PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Boake, C. R. B., Hoikkala, A. 1995Courtship behaviour and mating success of wild-caught Drosophila silvestris malesAnim. Behav.4913031313Google Scholar
  8. Boake, C. R. B., Poulsen, T. 1997Correlates versus predictors of courtship success: courtship song in Drosophila silvestris and D. heteroneuraAnim. Behav.54699704Google Scholar
  9. Burnet, B., Connolly, K., Dennis, L. 1971The function and processing of auditory information in the courtship of Drosophila melanogasterAnim. Behav.19409415Google Scholar
  10. Butlin, R. K., Ritchie, M. G. 1994Mating behaviour and speciationSlater, P. J. B.Halliday, T. R. eds. Behaviour and EvolutionCambridge University PressCambridge4379Google Scholar
  11. Colegrave, N., Hollocher, H., Hinton, K., Ritchie, M. G. 2000The courtship song of African Drosophila melanogasterJ. Evol. Biol.13143150Google Scholar
  12. Cowling, D. E., Burnet, B. 1981Courtship song and genetic control of their acoustic characteristics in sibling species of the Drosophila melanogaster subgroupAnim. Behav.29924935Google Scholar
  13. Crudgington, H. S., Beckerman, A. P., Brüstle, L., Green, K., and Snook, R. R. (accepted). Experimental removal and elevation of sexual selection: Does sexual selection generate manipulative males and resistant females? Am. Nat. Google Scholar
  14. Darwin, C. 1871The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to SexJ. MurrayLondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Colegrave, N., Hollocher, H., Hinton, K., and Ritchie, M. G. (2000). The courtship song of African Drosophila melanogaster. J. Evol. Biol. 13:143–150.Google Scholar
  16. Cowling, D. E., and Burnet, B. (1981). Courtship song and genetic control of their acoustic characteristics in sibling species of the Drosophila melanogaster subgroup. Anim. Behav. 29:924–935.Google Scholar
  17. Crudgington, H. S., Beckerman, A. P., Brüstle, L., Green, K., and Snook, R. R. (Accepted) Experimental removal and elevation of sexual selection: Does sexual selection generate manipulative males and resistant females? Am. Nat.Google Scholar
  18. Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: J. Murray. Google Scholar
  19. Eberhard, W. G. (1996). Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ewing, A. W. 1964The influence of wing area on the courtship behaviour of Drosophila melanogasterAnim. Behav.12316320Google Scholar
  21. Ewing, A. W. 1969The genetic basis of sound production in Drosophila pseudoobscura and D. persimilisAnim. Behav.17555560Google Scholar
  22. Ewing, A. W., Bennet-Clark, H. C. 1968The courtship songs of DrosophilaBehaviour31288301Google Scholar
  23. Gavrilets, S. 2000Rapid evolution of reproductive barriers driven by sexual conflictNature403886889Google Scholar
  24. Gleason, J. M., Ritchie, M. G. 1998Evolution of courtship song and reproductive isolation in the Drosophila willistoni complex: do sexual signals diverge the most quickly?Evolution5214931500Google Scholar
  25. Greenacre, M., Ritchie, M. G., Byrne, B. C., Kyriacou, C. P. 1993Female song preference and the period gene of Drosophila melanogasterBehav. Genet.238590Google Scholar
  26. Gorczyca, M., Hall, J. C. 1987The Insectavox, an integrated device for recording and amplifying courtship songs of DrosophilaDros. Inf. Serv.66157160Google Scholar
  27. Henry, C. S. 1994Singing and cryptic speciation in insectsTrends Ecol. Evol.9388392Google Scholar
  28. Hoikkala, A. 1985Genetic variation in the male courtship sound of D. littoralisBehav. Genet.15135142Google Scholar
  29. Hoikkala, A., Aspi, J. 1993Criteria of female mate choice in Drosophila littoralis, D. montana and D. ezoanaEvolution47768777Google Scholar
  30. Hoikkala, A., Welbergen, P. 1995Signals and responses of females and males in successful and unsuccessful courtship of three Hawaiian lek-mating Drosophila speciesAnim. Behav.50177190Google Scholar
  31. Hoikkala, A., Suvanto, L. 1999Male courtship song frequency as an indicator of male mating success in Drosophila montanaJ. Insect Behav.12599609Google Scholar
  32. Hoikkala, A., Aspi, J., Suvanto, L. 1998Male courtship song frequency as an indicator of male genetic quality in an insect species, Drosophila montanaProc. R. Soc. Lond. B265503508Google Scholar
  33. Holland, B., Rice, W. R. 1999Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive loadProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA9650835088Google Scholar
  34. Hollocher, H., Ting, C.-T., Pollack, F., Wu, C.-I. 1997Incipient speciation by sexual isolation in Drosophila melanogaster: variation in mating preference and correlation between the sexesEvolution5111751181Google Scholar
  35. Hosken, D. J., Garner, T. W. J., Ward, P. I. 2001Sexual conflict selects for male and female reproductive charactersCurr. Biol.11489493Google Scholar
  36. Ikeda, H., Maruo, O. 1982Directional selection for pulse repetition rate of the courtship sound and correlated responses occurring in several characters in Drosophila mercatorumJap. J. Genet.57241258Google Scholar
  37. Jones, A. G., Arguello, J. R., Arnold, S. J. 2002Validation of Bateman’s principles: a genetic study of sexual selection and mating patterns in the rough-skinned newtProc. R. Soc. Lond. B.26925332539Google Scholar
  38. Jones, A. G., Arguello, J. R., Arnold, S. J. 2004Molecular parentage analysis in experimental newt populations: the response of mating system measures to variation in the operational sex ratioAm. Nat.164444456Google Scholar
  39. Kyriacou, C. P., Hall, J. C. 1982The function of courtship song rhythms in DrosophilaAnim. Behav.30794801Google Scholar
  40. Liimatainen, J., Hoikkala, A., Aspi, J., Welbergen, P. 1992Courtship in Drosophila montana: the effects of male auditory signals on the behaviour of fliesAnim. Behav.433548Google Scholar
  41. Martin, O. Y., Hosken, D. J. 2003aCosts and benefits of evolving under experimentally enforced polyandry or monogamyEvolution5727652772Google Scholar
  42. Martin, O. Y., Hosken, D. J. 2003bThe evolution of reproductive isolation through sexual conflictNature423979982Google Scholar
  43. Noor, M. A. F., Aquadro, C. F. 1998Courtship songs of D.␣pseudoobscura and D. persimilis: analysis of variationAnim. Behav.56115125Google Scholar
  44. Noor, M. A. F., Williams, M. A., Alvarez, D., Ruiz-Garcia, M. 2000Lack of evolutionary divergence in courtship song of Drosophila pseudoobscura subspeciesJ. Insect Behav.13255262Google Scholar
  45. Parker, G. A. 1979Sexual selection and sexual conflictBlum, M. S.Blum, N. A. eds. Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in InsectsAcademic PressNew York123166Google Scholar
  46. Partridge, L. and Parker, G. A. (1999). Sexual conflict and speciation. In Magurran, A. E. and May R. M. (eds.), Evolution of Biological Diversity. Oxford University Press, pp. 130–159.Google Scholar
  47. Pitnick, S., Miller, M. T., Reagan, J., Holland, B. 2001aMales’ evolutionary responses to experimental removal of sexual selectionProc. R. Soc. Lond. B26810711080Google Scholar
  48. Pitnick, S., Brown, W. D., Miller, G. T. 2001bEvolution of female remating behaviour following experimental removal of sexual selectionProc. R. Soc. Lond. B268557563Google Scholar
  49. Rice, W. R. 1996Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolutionNature381232234Google Scholar
  50. Rice, W. R. (1998). Intergenomic conflict, interlocus antagonistic coevolution, and the evolution of reproductive isolation. In Howard, D. J. and Berlocker, S. H. (eds.), Endless Forms: Species and Speciation. Oxford University Press, pp. 261–270.Google Scholar
  51. Rice, W., Gaines, S. D. 1994Extending non-directional heterogeneity tests to evaluate simply ordered alternative hypothesesProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA91225226Google Scholar
  52. Rice, W. R., Holland, B. 1997The enemies within: intergenomic conflict, interlocus contest evolution (ICE), and the intraspecific Red QueenBehav. Ecol. Sociobiol.41110Google Scholar
  53. Ritchie, M. G., Gleason, J. M. 1995Rapid evolution of courtship song pattern in Drosophila willistoni sibling speciesJ. Evol. Biol.8463479Google Scholar
  54. Ritchie, M. G., Kyriacou, C. P. 1996Artificial selection for a courtship signal in Drosophila melanogasterAnim. Behav.52603611Google Scholar
  55. Ritchie, M. G., Yate, V. H., Kyriacou, C. P. 1994Genetic variability of the interpulse interval of courtship song among some European populations of Drosophila melanogasterHeredity72459464Google Scholar
  56. Ritchie, M. G., Townhill, R. M., Hoikkala, A. 1998Female preference for fly song: playback experiments confirm the targets of sexual selectionAnim. Behav.56713717Google Scholar
  57. Ritchie, M. G., Halsey, E. J., Gleason, J. M. 1999Drosophila song as a species-specific mating signal and the behavioural importance of Kyriacou and Hall cycles in D.␣melanogaster songAnim. Behav.58649657Google Scholar
  58. Ritchie, M. G., Saarikettu, M., Livingstone, S., Hoikkala, A. 2001Characterisation of female preference functions for a sexually selected acoustic signal in D. montana, and a test of the “temperature coupling” hypothesisEvolution55721727Google Scholar
  59. Rowe, L., Cameron, E, and Day, T. (accepted). Escalation, retreat and female indifference as alternative outcomes of sexually antagonistic coevolution. Am. Nat. Google Scholar
  60. Ryan, M. J., Rand, A. S. 1995Female responses to ancestral advertisement calls in tungara frogsScience269390392Google Scholar
  61. Simmons, L.W. (2001). Sperm Competition and Its Evolutionary Consequences in the Insects, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Snook, R. R. 2001Sexual selection: conflict, kindness, and chicaneryCurr. Biol.11R337341Google Scholar
  63. Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry, 2nd edition. W.H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
  64. Tomaru, M., Doi, M., Higuchi, H., Oguma, Y. 2000Courtship song recognition in the Drosophila melanogaster complex: heterospecific songs make females receptive in D. melanogaster but not D. sechelliaEvolution5412861294Google Scholar
  65. Waldron, I. 1964Courtship sound production in two sympatric sibling Drosophila speciesScience144191193Google Scholar
  66. Wigby, S., Chapman, T. 2004Female resistance to male harm evolves in response to manipulation of sexual conflictEvolution5810281037Google Scholar
  67. Wilkinson, G. S. 1987Equilibrium analysis of sexual selection in Drosophila melanogasterEvolution411121Google Scholar
  68. Williams, M. A., Blouin, A. G., Noor, M. A. F. 2001Courtship songs of Drosophila pseudoobscura and D. persimilis. II. Genetics of species differencesHeredity866877Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. R. Snook
    • 1
  • A. Robertson
    • 2
  • H. S. Crudgington
    • 1
  • M. G. Ritchie
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Animal and Plant SciencesUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK.
  2. 2.Environmental and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of St. AndrewsUK

Personalised recommendations