Advertisement

Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 95–105 | Cite as

Anisogamy, sexual selection, and the evolution and maintenance of sex

  • Astrid Kodric-Brown
  • James H. Brown
Papers

Summary

In the present paper we distinguish between two aspects of sexual reproduction. Genetic recombination is a universal features of the sexual process. It is a primitive condition found in simple, single-celled organisms, as well as in higher plants and animals. Its function is primarily to repair genetic damage and eliminate deleterious mutations. Recombination also produces new variation, however, and this can provide the basis for adaptive evolutionary change in spatially and temporally variable environments.

The other feature usually associated with sexual reproduction, differentiated male and female roles, is a derived condition, largely restricted to complex, diploid, multicellular organisms. The evolution of anisogamous gametes (small, mobile male gametes containing only genetic material, and large, relatively immobile female gametes containing both genetic material and resources for the developing offspring) not only established the fundamental basis for maleness and femaleness, it also led to an asymmetry between the sexes in the allocation of resources to mating and offspring. Whereas females allocate their resources primarily to offspring, the existence of many male gametes for each female one results in sexual selection on males to allocate their resources to traits that enhance success in competition for fertilizations. A consequence of this reproductive competition, higher variance in male than female reproductive success, results in more intense selection on males.

The greater response of males to both stabilizing and directional selection constitutes an evolutionary advantage of males that partially compensates for the cost of producing them. The increased fitness contributed by sexual selection on males will complement the advantages of genetic recombination for DNA repair and elimination of deleterious mutations in any outcrossing breeding system in which males contribute only genetic material to their offspring. Higher plants and animals tend to maintain sexual reproduction in part because of the enhanced fitness of offspring resulting from sexual selection at the level of individual organisms, and in part because of the superiority of sexual populations in competition with asexual clones.

Keywords

Evolution of sex sexual selection 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersson, M. (1982a) Female choice sets for extreme tail length in a widowbird.Nature 299, 818–20.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, M. (1982b) Sexual selection, natural selection and quality advertisement.Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 17, 375–93.Google Scholar
  3. Andersson, M. (1986) Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences.Evolution 40, 804–16.Google Scholar
  4. Bateman, A. J. (1948) Intra-sexual selection inDrosophila.Heredity 2, 349–68.Google Scholar
  5. Bateson, P. (ed.) (1983)Mate Choice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  6. Bell, G. (1978) The evolution of anisogamy.J. Theor. Biol. 73, 247–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bell, G. (1982)The Masterpiece of Nature: the Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality, University of California Press, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  8. Bernstein, H. (1977) Germ line recombination may be primarily a manifestation of DNA repair processes.J. Theor. Biol. 69, 371–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernstein, H. (1983) Recombinational repair may be an important function of sexual reproduction.BioScience 33, 326–31.Google Scholar
  10. Bernstein, H., Byers, G. S. and Michod, R. E. (1981) Evolution of sexual reproduction: Importance of DNA repair, complementation and variation.Am. Nat. 117, 537–49.Google Scholar
  11. Bernstein, H., Byerly, H. C., Hopf, F. A. and Michod, R. E. (1984) Origin of sex.J. Theor. Biol. 110, 323–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bernstein, H., Byerly, H. C., Hopf, F. A. and Michod, R. E. (1985a) Genetic damage, mutation and the evolution of sex.Science 229, 1277–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Bernstein, H., Byerly, H. C., Hopf, F. A. and Michod, R. E. (1985b) DNA repair and complementation: the major factors in the origin and maintenance of sex. InThe Origin and Evolution of Sex (H. O. Halverson, ed.) pp. 29–45. Alan R. Liss, Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Charlesworth, B. (1978) The population genetics of anisogamy.J. Theor. Biol. 73, 347–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1982) The functions of antlers.Behaviour 79, 108–25.Google Scholar
  16. Cole, C. J. (1984) Unisexual lizards.Sci. Amer. 250, 94–100.Google Scholar
  17. Cox, P. and Sethian, J. (1984) Search, encounter rates and the evolution of anisogamy.Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 81, 6078–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Cox, P. and Sethian, J. (1985) Gamete motion, search and the evolution of anisogamy, oogamy, and chemotaxis.Am. Nat. 125, 74–101.Google Scholar
  19. Darwin, C. (1859)On the Origin of Species. John Murray, London.Google Scholar
  20. Felsenstein, J. (1974) The evolutionary advantage of recombination.Genetics 78, 737–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher, R. A. (1930)The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, 2nd edn. Dover, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Glesener, R. R. and Tilman, D. (1978) Sexuality and the components of environmental uncertainty: clues from geographic parthenogenesis in terrestrial animals.Am. Nat. 112, 659–73.Google Scholar
  23. Hamilton, W. D. and Zuk, M. (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites?Science 218, 384–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Heisler, I. L. (1984) A quantitative genetic model for the origin of mating preferences.Evolution 38, 1283–95.Google Scholar
  25. Hopf, F. A. and Hopf, F. W. (1985) The role of the Allee effect on species packing.Theor. Pop. Biol. 27, 27–50.Google Scholar
  26. Kirkpatrick, M. (1982) Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice.Evolution 36, 1–12.Google Scholar
  27. Kodric-Brown, A. (1985) Female preference and sexual selection for male coloration in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata).Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 17, 199–205.Google Scholar
  28. Kodric-Brown, A. and Brown, J. H. (1984) Truth in advertising: the kinds of traits favored by sexual selection.Am. Nat. 124, 309–23.Google Scholar
  29. Kodric-Brown, A. and Brown, J. H. (1985) Animal advertising: why the fittest are prettiest.The Sciences, Sept./Oct., 26–33.Google Scholar
  30. Lande, R. (1980) Sexual dimorphisms, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters.Evolution 34, 292–307.Google Scholar
  31. Le Boeuf, B. J. (1974) Male-male competition and reproductive success in elephant seals.Am. Zool. 14, 163–76.Google Scholar
  32. Leslie, J. F. and Vrijenhoek, R. C. (1980) Consideration of Muller's ratchet mechanism through studies of genetic linkage and genomic compatibilities in clonally reproducingPoeciliopsis.Evolution 34, 1105–15.Google Scholar
  33. Lloyd, D. G. (1979) Some reproductive factors affecting the selection of self-fertilization in plants.Am. Nat. 113, 67–79.Google Scholar
  34. Lynch, M. (1984) Destabilizing hybridization, general-purpose genotypes and geographic parthenogenesis.Quart. Rev. Biol. 59, 257–90.Google Scholar
  35. Manning, J. T. (1976) Gamete dimorphism and the cost of sexual reproduction. Are they separate phenomena?J. Theor. Biol. 55, 393–5.Google Scholar
  36. Maynard Smith, J. (1958)The Theory of Evolution, Penguin Books, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  37. Maynard Smith, J. (1978)The Evolution of Sex, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  38. Mulcahy, D. L., Curtis, P. A. and Snow, A. A. (1983) Pollen competition in a natural population. InHandbook of Experimental Pollination Biology (C. E. Jones Jr. and R. J. Little, eds) pp. 330–7. Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
  39. Muller, H. J. (1932) Some genetic aspects of sex.Am. Nat. 66, 118–38.Google Scholar
  40. Nur, N. and Hasson, O. (1984) Phenotypic plasticity and the handicap principle.J. Theor. Biol. 110, 275–97.Google Scholar
  41. O'Donald, P. (1980)Genetic Models of Sexual Selection, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  42. Parker, G. A. (1978) Selection on non-random fusion of gametes during the evolution of anisogamy.J. Theor. Biol. 73, 1–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Parker, G. A., Baker, R. R. and Smith, V. G. F. (1972) The origin and evolution of gamete dimorphism and the male-female phenomenon.J. Theor. Biol. 36, 529–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Sakaluk, S. (1984) Male crickets feed females to ensure complete sperm transfer.Science 223, 609–10.Google Scholar
  45. Schultz, R. J. (1977) Evolution and ecology of unisexual fishes.Evol. Biol. 10, 277–333.Google Scholar
  46. Seger, J. and Trivers, R. (1986) Asymmetry in the evolution of female mating preferences.Nature 319, 771–3.Google Scholar
  47. Shields, W. M. (1982)Philopatry, Inbreeding, and the Evolution of Sex, State University of New York Press, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
  48. Stephenson, A. G. and Bertin, R. I. (1983) Male competition, female choice and sexual selection in plants. InPollination Biology (L. Real, ed.) pp. 109–49. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  49. Thornhill, R. (1980) Competitive, charming males and choosy females: was Darwin correct?Fla. Entomol. 63, 5–30.Google Scholar
  50. Treisman, M. and Dawkins, R. (1976) The “cost of meiosis”: is there any?J. Theor. Biol. 63, 479–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Trivers, R. L. (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. InSexual Selection and the Descent of Man (B. Campbell, ed.) pp. 136–79. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
  52. Trivers, R. L. (1976) Sexual selection and resource-accruing abilities inAnolis garmani.Evolution 30, 253–69.Google Scholar
  53. Weismann, A. (1889) The significance of sexual reproduction in the theory of natural selection. InEssays Upon Heredity and Kindred Biological Problems (August Weismann, E. B. Poulton, S. Schonland and A. E. Shipley, eds) pp. 251–332. Authorized translation, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  54. Williams, G. C. (1975)Sex and Evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  55. Williams, G. C. (1980) Kin selection and the paradox of sexuality. InSociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture? Reports, Definitions and Debate (G. W. Barlow and J. Silverman, eds) pp. 371–84. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
  56. Willson, M. F. (1983)Plant Reproductive Ecology. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  57. Zahavi, A. (1975) Mate selection — a selection for a handicap.J. Theor. Biol. 53, 205–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Zahavi, A. (1977) The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle).J. Theor. Biol. 67, 603–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall Ltd. 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Astrid Kodric-Brown
    • 1
  • James H. Brown
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations