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.
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
Andersson M (1994) Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
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
Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2002) Antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415:787–789
Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual Conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
Barth M, Hirsch HVB, Heisenberg M (1997) Rearing in different light regimes affects courtship behaviour in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim Behav 53:25–38
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
Cameron E, Day T, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict and indirect benefits. J Evol Biol 16:1055–1060
Chapman T (2001) Seminal fluid-mediated fitness traits in Drosophila. Heredity 87:511–521
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
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
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
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
Droney DC (2003) Females lay fewer eggs for males with greater courtship success in a lekking Drosophila. Anim Behav 65:371–378
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
Gage MJG (1991) Risk of sperm competition directly affects ejaculate size in the Mediterranean fruit fly. Anim Behav 42:1036–1037
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
Gromko MH, Markow TA (1993) Courtship and remating in field populations of Drosophila. Anim Behav 45:253–262
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
Hoffmann AA, Parsons PA (1991) Evolutionary genetics and environmental stress. OUP, Oxford
Holland B, Rice WR (1998) Perspective: chase-away sexual selection: antagonism versus resistance. Evolution 52:1–7
Hosken DJ, Tregenza T (2005) Evolution: Do bad husbands make good fathers? Curr Biol 15:R836–R838
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
Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21–64
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
Manning A (1967) The control of sexual receptivity in female Drosophila. Anim Behav 15:239–250
Markow TA (1988) Reproductive behaviour of Drosophila melanogaster and D. nigrospiracula in the field and the laboratory. J Comp Psych 102:169–173
Markow TA (1996) Evolution of Drosophila mating systems. Evol Biol 29:73–106
Markow TA, Ricker JP (1992) Male size, developmental stability and mating success in natural populations of three Drosophila species. Heredity 69:22–127
Markow TA, Bustoz D, Pitnick S (1996) Sexual selection and a secondary sexual character in two Drosophila species. Anim Behav 52:759–766
Martin OY, Hosken DJ (2002) Strategic ejaculation in the common dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Anim Behav 63:541–546
Martin OY, Hosken DJ (2003) Costs and benefits of evolving under experimentally enforced polyandry or monogamy. Evolution 57:2765–2772
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
Møller AP, Alatalo RV (1999) Good genes effects in sexual selection. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:85–91
Moore AJ, Moore PJ (1999) Balancing sexual selection through opposing mate choice and mate competition. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:711–716
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
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
Parker GA (1970) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in insects. Biol Rev 45:525–567
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
Parker GA (2006) Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 361:235–259
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
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
Petrie M (1994) Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate trains. Nature 371:598–599
Pitnick S (1991) Male size influences mate fecundity and remating interval in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim Behav 41:735–745
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
Pizzari T, Snook RR (2003) Perspective: Sexual conflict and sexual selection: chasing away paradigm shifts. Evolution 57:1223–1236
Rice WR (1996) Sexually antagonistic male adaptations triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 381:232–234
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
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
Wedell N, Tregenza T (1999) Successful fathers sire successful sons. Evolution 53:620–625
Welch AM, Semlitsch RD, Gerhardt HC (1998) Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280:1928–1930
Wigby S, Chapman T (2004) Female resistance to male harm evolves in response to manipulation of sexual conflict. Evolution 58:1028–1037
Wigby S, Chapman T (2005) Sex peptide causes mating costs in female Drosophila melanogaster. Curr Biol 15:316–321
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
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by M. Siva-Jothy
Rights 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
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-007-0497-9