Skip to main content
Log in

Sexual selection and female fitness in Drosophila simulans

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is a current debate over the net fitness consequences of sexual selection. Do preferred males increase female fitness or are these males manipulating females for their own benefit? The evidence is mixed. Some studies find that mating with attractive males increases female fitness components, while others show that preferred males decrease measures of female fitness. In this study, we examined some of the fitness consequences of pre-copulatory sexual selection in Drosophila simulans. Virgin females were either paired with one male and given an opportunity for one copulation or were exposed simultaneously to two males. This allowed us to compare female preference (copulation latency) and fitness (longevity, lifetime productivity and rate of offspring production) both with and without the influence of male–male competition. When females had access to a single male, neither female longevity, productivity, nor short-term rate of productivity were associated with female preference, and although females mated more quickly with larger males, male size was also not associated with any female fitness measure. Inclusion of male–male competition showed that female longevity was negatively affected by preference, while productivity and rate of productivity was unaffected. This latter experiment also indicated that females preferred larger males, but again, male size was not associated with female fitness. These results indicate that females may not benefit from mating with preferred males, but they may incur survival costs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Acebes A, Cobb M, Ferveur J-F (2003) Species-specific effects of single sensillum ablation on mating position in Drosophila. Jour Exp Biol 206:3095–3100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson M (1994) Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnqvist G, Rowe L (1995) Sexual conflict and arms races between the sexes—a morphological adaptation for control of mating in a female insect. Proc R Soc Lond B 261:123–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2002) Antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415:787–789

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual Conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Barth M, Hirsch HVB, Heisenberg M (1997) Rearing in different light regimes affects courtship behaviour in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim Behav 53:25–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonduriansky R, Rowe L (2003) Interactions among mechanisms of sexual selection on male body size and head shape in a sexually dimorphic fly Prochyliza xanthostoma. Evolution 57:2046–2053

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron E, Day T, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict and indirect benefits. J Evol Biol 16:1055–1060

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman T (2001) Seminal fluid-mediated fitness traits in Drosophila. Heredity 87:511–521

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman T, Liddle LF, Kalb JM, Wolfner MF, Partridge L (1995) Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland proteins. Nature 373:241–244

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Civetta A, Montooth KL, Mendelson M (2005) Quantitative trait loci and interaction effects responsible for variation in female postmating mortality in Drosophila simulans and D. sechellia introgression lines. Heredity 94:94–100

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cordero C, Eberhard WG (2003) Female choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptations: a critical review of some current research. J Evol Biol 16:1–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Crudgington HS, Beckerman AP, Brustle L, Green K, Snook RR (2005) Experimental removal and elevation of sexual selection: does sexual selection generate manipulative males and resistant females? Am Nat 165:S72–S87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Droney DC (2003) Females lay fewer eggs for males with greater courtship success in a lekking Drosophila. Anim Behav 65:371–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friberg U, Arnqvist G (2003) Fitness effects of female mate choice: preferred males are detrimental for Drosophila melanogaster females. J Evol Biol 16:797–811

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gage MJG (1991) Risk of sperm competition directly affects ejaculate size in the Mediterranean fruit fly. Anim Behav 42:1036–1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilchrist AS, Partridge L (1999) A comparison of the genetic basis of wing size divergence in three parallel body size clines of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 153:1775–1787

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gromko MH, Markow TA (1993) Courtship and remating in field populations of Drosophila. Anim Behav 45:253–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head ML, Hunt J, Jennions MD, Brooks R (2005) The indirect benefits of mating with attractive males outweigh the direct costs. PloS Biology 3:0289–0294

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann AA, Parsons PA (1991) Evolutionary genetics and environmental stress. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland B, Rice WR (1998) Perspective: chase-away sexual selection: antagonism versus resistance. Evolution 52:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosken DJ, Tregenza T (2005) Evolution: Do bad husbands make good fathers? Curr Biol 15:R836–R838

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jennions MD, Petrie M (1997) Variation in mate choice and mating preference: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev Camb Phil Soc 72:283–327

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick M (1985) Evolution of female choice and male parental investment in polygynous species: the demise of the ‘sexy son’. Am Nat 125:788–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning A (1967) The control of sexual receptivity in female Drosophila. Anim Behav 15:239–250

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Markow TA (1988) Reproductive behaviour of Drosophila melanogaster and D. nigrospiracula in the field and the laboratory. J Comp Psych 102:169–173

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Markow TA (1996) Evolution of Drosophila mating systems. Evol Biol 29:73–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Markow TA, Ricker JP (1992) Male size, developmental stability and mating success in natural populations of three Drosophila species. Heredity 69:22–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Markow TA, Bustoz D, Pitnick S (1996) Sexual selection and a secondary sexual character in two Drosophila species. Anim Behav 52:759–766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin OY, Hosken DJ (2002) Strategic ejaculation in the common dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Anim Behav 63:541–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin OY, Hosken DJ (2003) Costs and benefits of evolving under experimentally enforced polyandry or monogamy. Evolution 57:2765–2772

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin OY, Hosken DJ, Ward PI (2004) Post-copulatory sexual selection and female fitness in Scathophaga stercoraria. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:353–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP, Alatalo RV (1999) Good genes effects in sexual selection. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:85–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore AJ, Moore PJ (1999) Balancing sexual selection through opposing mate choice and mate competition. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:711–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore AJ, Gowaty PA, Wallin WG, Moore PJ (2001) Sexual conflict and the evolution of female mate choice and male social dominance. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:523–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orteiza N, Linder JE, Rice WR (2005) Sexy sons from remating do not recoup the direct costs of harmful male interactions in the Drosophila melanogaster laboratory model system. J Evol Biol 18:1315–1323

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1970) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in insects. Biol Rev 45:525–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1979) Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Blum M, Blum N (eds) Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. Academic, London, pp 123–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (2006) Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 361:235–259

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Partridge L, Hoffman A, Jones JS (1987a) Male size and mating success in Drosophila melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura under field conditions. Anim Behav 35:468–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Partridge L, Ewing A, Chandler A (1987b) Male size and mating success in Drosophila melanogaster: the role of male and female behaviour. Anim Behav 35:555–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrie M (1994) Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate trains. Nature 371:598–599

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pitnick S (1991) Male size influences mate fecundity and remating interval in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim Behav 41:735–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitnick S, Garcia-Gonzales F (2002) Harm to females increases with male body size in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1821–1828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pizzari T, Snook RR (2003) Perspective: Sexual conflict and sexual selection: chasing away paradigm shifts. Evolution 57:1223–1236

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rice WR (1996) Sexually antagonistic male adaptations triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 381:232–234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie MG, Halsey EJ, Gleason JM (1999) Drosophila song as a species-specific mating signal and the behavioural importance of Kyriacou & Hall cycles in D. melanogaster. Anim Behav 58:649–657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart AD, Morrow EH, Rice WR (2005) Assessing putative interlocus sexual conflict in Drosophila melanogaster using experimental evolution. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:2029–2036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedell N, Tregenza T (1999) Successful fathers sire successful sons. Evolution 53:620–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch AM, Semlitsch RD, Gerhardt HC (1998) Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280:1928–1930

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wigby S, Chapman T (2004) Female resistance to male harm evolves in response to manipulation of sexual conflict. Evolution 58:1028–1037

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wigby S, Chapman T (2005) Sex peptide causes mating costs in female Drosophila melanogaster. Curr Biol 15:316–321

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the European Social Fund and NERC for financial support, Ary Hoffmann and Jennifer Shirriffs for the flies, members of the Centre for Ecology and Conservation, especially Tom Price for comments on the work, and Trish Moore, Tom Tregenza and Fleur Champion de Crespigny and the referees for very helpful comments on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David J. Hosken.

Additional information

Communicated by M. Siva-Jothy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Taylor, M.L., Wedell, N. & Hosken, D.J. Sexual selection and female fitness in Drosophila simulans . Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62, 721–728 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-007-0497-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-007-0497-9

Keywords

Navigation