More Like this

1. Sexual selection and the ascent of women: Mate choice research since Darwin

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abi6308  

   Rosenthal, Gil G. ; Ryan, Michael J. ( January 2022 , Science)

   BACKGROUND Charles Darwin’s  Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex  tackled the two main controversies arising from the Origin of Species:  the evolution of humans from animal ancestors and the evolution of sexual ornaments. Most of the book focuses on the latter, Darwin’s theory of sexual selection. Research since supports his conjecture that songs, perfumes, and intricate dances evolve because they help secure mating partners. Evidence is overwhelming for a primary role of both male and female mate choice in sexual selection—not only through premating courtship but also through intimate interactions during and long after mating. But what makes one prospective mate more enticing than another? Darwin, shaped by misogyny and sexual prudery, invoked a “taste for the beautiful” without speculating on the origin of the “taste.” How to explain when the “final marriage ceremony” is between two rams? What of oral sex in bats, cloacal rubbing in bonobos, or the sexual spectrum in humans, all observable in Darwin’s time? By explaining desire through the lens of those male traits that caught his eyes and those of his gender and culture, Darwin elided these data in his theory of sexual evolution. Work since Darwin has focused on how traits and preferences coevolve. Preferences can evolve even if attractive signals only predict offspring attractiveness, but most attention has gone to the intuitive but tenuous premise that mating with gorgeous partners yields vigorous offspring. By focusing on those aspects of mating preferences that coevolve with male traits, many of Darwin’s influential followers have followed the same narrow path. The sexual selection debate in the 1980s was framed as “good genes versus runaway”: Do preferences coevolve with traits because traits predict genetic benefits, or simply because they are beautiful? To the broader world this is still the conversation. ADVANCES Even as they evolve toward ever-more-beautiful signals and healthier offspring, mate-choice mechanisms and courter traits are locked in an arms race of coercion and resistance, persuasion and skepticism. Traits favored by sexual selection often do so at the expense of chooser fitness, creating sexual conflict. Choosers then evolve preferences in response to the costs imposed by courters. Often, though, the current traits of courters tell us little about how preferences arise. Sensory systems are often tuned to nonsexual cues like food, favoring mating signals resembling those cues. And preferences can emerge simply from selection on choosing conspecifics. Sexual selection can therefore arise from chooser biases that have nothing to do with ornaments. Choice may occur before mating, as Darwin emphasized, but individuals mate multiple times and bias fertilization and offspring care toward favored partners. Mate choice can thus occur in myriad ways after mating, through behavioral, morphological, and physiological mechanisms. Like other biological traits, mating preferences vary among individuals and species along multiple dimensions. Some of this is likely adaptive, as different individuals will have different optimal mates. Indeed, mate choice may be more about choosing compatible partners than picking the “best” mate in the absolute sense. Compatibility-based choice can drive or reinforce genetic divergence and lead to speciation. The mechanisms underlying the “taste for the beautiful” determine whether mate choice accelerates or inhibits reproductive isolation. If preferences are learned from parents, or covary with ecological differences like the sensory environment, then choice can promote genetic divergence. If everyone shares preferences for attractive ornaments, then choice promotes gene flow between lineages. OUTLOOK Two major trends continue to shift the emphasis away from male “beauty” and toward how and why individuals make sexual choices. The first integrates neuroscience, genomics, and physiology. We need not limit ourselves to the feathers and dances that dazzled Darwin, which gives us a vastly richer picture of mate choice. The second is that despite persistent structural inequities in academia, a broader range of people study a broader range of questions. This new focus confirms Darwin’s insight that mate choice makes a primary contribution to sexual selection, but suggests that sexual selection is often tangential to mate choice. This conclusion challenges a persistent belief with sinister roots, whereby mate choice is all about male ornaments. Under this view, females evolve to prefer handsome males who provide healthy offspring, or alternatively, to express flighty whims for arbitrary traits. But mate-choice mechanisms also evolve for a host of other reasons Understanding mate choice mechanisms is key to understanding how sexual decisions underlie speciation and adaptation to environmental change. New theory and technology allow us to explicitly connect decision-making mechanisms with their evolutionary consequences. A century and a half after Darwin, we can shift our focus to females and males as choosers, rather than the gaudy by-products of mate choice. Mate choice mechanisms across domains of life. Sensory periphery for stimulus detection (yellow), brain for perceptual integration and evaluation (orange), and reproductive structures for postmating choice among pollen or sperm (teal). ILLUSTRATION: KELLIE HOLOSKI/ SCIENCE 

   more » « less
2. Costs and benefits of giant sperm and sperm storage organs in Drosophila melanogaster

   https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.13529  

   Zajitschek, Susanne ; Zajitschek, Felix ; Josway, Sarah ; Al Shabeeb, Reem ; Weiner, Halli ; Manier, Mollie K. ( October 2019 , Journal of Evolutionary Biology)

   InDrosophila, long sperm are favoured in sperm competition based on the length of the female's primary sperm storage organ, the seminal receptacle (SR). This sperm–SRinteraction, together with a genetic correlation between the traits, suggests that the coevolution of exaggerated sperm andSRlengths may be driven by Fisherian runaway selection. Here, we explore the costs and benefits of long sperm andSRgenotypes, both in the sex that carries them and in the sex that does not. We measured male and female fitness in inbred lines ofDrosophila melanogasterderived from four populations previously selected for long sperm, short sperm, longSRs or shortSRs. We specifically asked: What are the costs and benefits of long sperm in males and longSRs in females? Furthermore, do genotypes that generate long sperm in males or longSRs in females impose a fitness cost on the opposite sex? Answers to these questions will address whether long sperm are an honest indicator of male fitness, male post‐copulatory success is associated with male precopulatory success, female choice benefits females or is costly, and intragenomic conflict could influence evolution of these traits. We found that both sexes have increased longevity in long sperm and longSRgenotypes. Males, but not females, from longSRlines had higher fecundity. Our results suggest that sperm–SRcoevolution is facilitated by both increased viability and indirect benefits of long sperm andSRs in both sexes.

    

   more » « less
3. An experimental test of the evolutionary consequences of sympatry in Drosophila subquinaria

   https://doi.org/10.1093/evolut/qpad236  

   Jarvis, Will M. C. ; Arthur, Nicholas J. ; Rundle, Howard D. ; Dyer, Kelly A. ; Huang, ed., Jen-Pan ; Connallon, ed., Tim ( December 2023 , Evolution)

   Prezygotic isolation is often stronger between sympatric as opposed to allopatric taxa, but the underlying cause can be difficult to infer from comparative studies alone. Experimental evolution, where evolutionary responses to treatments manipulating the presence/absence of heterospecific individuals are tracked, can provide a powerful complementary approach. We used experimental evolution to investigate a naturally occurring pattern of reproductive character displacement in the mushroom-feeding fly, Drosophila subquinaria. In nature, female D. subquinaria from populations sympatric with the closely related Drosophila recens discriminate more strongly against heterospecific males than do females from allopatric populations. Starting with 16 replicate allopatric populations of D. subquinaria, we manipulated the presence/absence of D. recens during mating (experimental sympatry vs. control) and, when present, we allowed hybrids to live or kill them each generation. Across 12 generations, heterospecific offspring production from no-choice mating trials between D. subquinaria females and D. recens males declined in both experimental sympatry treatments relative to the control, suggesting increased sexual isolation. Male cuticular hydrocarbon profiles also evolved, but only in the hybrids killed treatment. Our results strongly imply that the existing reproductive character displacement in wild D. subquinaria populations was an evolutionary response to selection arising from secondary contact with D. recens.

    

   more » « less
4. How female × male and male × male interactions influence competitive fertilization in Drosophila melanogaster

   https://doi.org/10.1002/evl3.193  

   Lüpold, Stefan ; Reil, Jonathan Bradley ; Manier, Mollie K. ; Zeender, Valérian ; Belote, John M. ; Pitnick, Scott ( October 2020 , Evolution Letters)

   How males and females contribute to joint reproductive success has been a long-standing question in sexual selection. Under postcopulatory sexual selection, paternity success is predicted to derive from complex interactions among females engaging in cryptic female choice and males engaging in sperm competition. Such interactions have been identified as potential sources of genetic variation in sexually selected traits but are also expected to inhibit trait diversification. To date, studies of interactions between females and competing males have focused almost exclusively on genotypes and not phenotypic variation in sexually selected traits. Here, we characterize within- and between-sex interactions in Drosophila melanogaster using isogenic lines with heritable variation in both male and female traits known to influence competitive fertilization. We confirmed, and expanded on, previously reported genotypic interactions within and between the sexes, and showed that several reproductive events, including sperm transfer, female sperm ejection, and sperm storage, were explained by two- and three-way interactions among sex-specific phenotypes. We also documented complex interactions between the lengths of competing males’ sperm and the female seminal receptacle, which are known to have experienced rapid female-male co-diversification. Our results highlight the nonindependence of sperm competition and cryptic female choice and demonstrate that complex interactions between the sexes do not limit the ability of multivariate systems to respond to directional sexual selection.

    

   more » « less
5. Ejaculate Allocation and Sperm Characteristics Differ among Alternative Male Types in a Species of Fish with Cooperation and Competition among Unrelated Males

   https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10102612  

   Alonzo, Suzanne H. ; Stiver, Kelly A. ; Kindsvater, Holly K. ; Marsh-Rollo, Susan E. ; Nugent, Bridget ; Kazancıoğlu, Erem ( October 2021 , Cells)

   Sexual selection arising from sperm competition has driven the evolution of immense variation in ejaculate allocation and sperm characteristics not only among species, but also among males within a species. One question that has received little attention is how cooperation among males affects these patterns. Here we ask how male alternative reproductive types differ in testes size, ejaculate production, and sperm morphology in the ocellated wrasse, a marine fish in which unrelated males cooperate and compete during reproduction. Nesting males build nests, court females and provide care. Sneaker males only “sneak” spawn, while satellite males sneak, but also help by chasing away sneakers. We found that satellite males have larger absolute testes than either sneakers or nesting males, despite their cooperative role. Nesting males invested relatively less in testes than either sneakers or satellites. Though sneakers produced smaller ejaculates than either satellite or nesting males, we found no difference among male types in either sperm cell concentration or sperm number, implying sneakers may produce less seminal fluid. Sperm tail length did not differ significantly among male types, but sneaker sperm cells had significantly larger heads than either satellite or nesting male sperm, consistent with past research showing sneakers produce slower sperm. Our results highlight that social interactions among males can influence sperm and ejaculate production. 

   more » « less