Sexual Selection and Life History Allocation

Thomas M Houslay, University of Stirling, United Kingdom
Luc F Bussière, University of Stirling, United Kingdom

Published online: January 2012

DOI: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0023667

A comprehensive explanation for sexual trait diversity depends on integrating life history theory and sexual selection to compare costs and benefits of sexual traits. A universal cost for all sexual traits involves the resources required to create and maintain them, which are consequently unavailable to other life history characters. This resource trade‐off typically causes covariance between an organism's resource budget and its level of sexual trait expression, which is known as condition‐dependence. Condition‐dependence has several implications. It may be particularly important for ornaments signalling genetic quality, by helping to maintain the genetic variation that favours mate choice. It may also reduce extinction risk in sexually selected populations. Further life history studies of sexually selected traits are required, mindful of the inherent difficulties in quantifying resource acquisition and allocation, not least of which is that these processes are not independent of one another.

Key Concepts:

  • Trait evolution is restricted by trade‐offs, where the benefit of increased investment in a trait is opposed by the cost of investment.
  • The acquisition and allocation of resources is central to life history theory, but these processes are extremely difficult to quantify.
  • Phenotypic correlations are not necessarily good metrics for the strength or importance of a trade‐off between traits.
  • Condition‐dependence in mating systems featuring choice for indirect genetic benefits can help to maintain genetic variation for ornamental traits.
  • Sex‐role reversed systems have life history features that may clarify some of the outstanding questions in sexual selection.

Keywords: sexual selection; life history; condition‐dependence; acquisition; allocation; fitness; trade‐offs; genetic quality

Figure 1. The Y‐model: (a) The total energy, A, acquired by the individual, and the fraction, B, that it allocates to the life history trait R. The remaining fraction is allocated to the life history trait S. (b) Population wide variation in A is large and variation in B is small, leading to a positive phenotypic correlation between R and S (see hatched area). (c) The reverse case. Figure reproduced with permission from Van Noordwijk and De Jong (1986).
Figure 2. An allocation trade‐off exists between weapons (thoracic horns) and testes in the beetle Onthophagus nigriventis. (a) Large males produce two horns on the thorax. (b) Cauterised males grew larger and invested disproportionately in testes compared to horned males. (Inset) Residual testes weight for cauterised and control males after controlling for body weight. (c, d) Analysis of 25 congeneric species shows that allometric slope steepness for log testes weight against log body weight declines as both body size (c) and horn allometry steepness (d) increases. These results indicate the decreasing marginal benefits of investment in testes with increasing horn and body size, presumably because larger males can better monopolise their mates and avoid sperm competition altogether. Figure reproduced with permission from Simmons and Emlen (2006).
Figure 3. Male Rhamphomyia dance flies prefer females with larger, more mature eggs. The effect of egg length on abdominal area in females of (a) R. sociabilis, a species in which females cannot inflate their abdomens, reveals a strong positive relationship. In R. longicauda (b), abdominal area is a poorer indicator of egg length. Females of this species inflate their abdomens by swallowing air before entering the mating swarm to exaggerate their apparent size. Figure reproduced with permission from Funk and Tallamy (2000).
close
 References
    Agrawal AF (2001) Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature 411(6838): 692–695.
    Bonduriansky R and Day T (2003) The evolution of static allometry in sexually selected traits. Evolution 57(11): 2450–2458.
    Bonduriansky R (2007) Sexual selection and allometry: a critical reappraisal of the evidence and ideas. Evolution 61(4): 838–849.
    Cade W (1975) Acoustically orienting parasitoids – fly phonotaxis to cricket song. Science 190(4221): 1312–1313.
    Chenoweth SF and Blows MW (2005) Contrasting mutual sexual selection on homologous signal traits in Drosophila serrata. American Naturalist 165(2): 281–289.
    Cotton S, Fowler K and Pomiankowski A (2004) Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition‐dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis? Proceedings of the Royal Society B – Biological Sciences 271(1541): 771–783.
    Crnokrak P and Roff DA (2000) The trade‐off to macroptery in the cricket Gryllus firmus: a path analysis in males. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 13(3): 396–408.
    book Darwin C (1871) The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray.
    De Jong G and Van Noordwijk AJ (1992) Acquisition and allocation of resources genetic co variances selection and life histories. American Naturalist 139(4): 749–770.
    Dussourd DE, Harvis CA, Meinwald J and Eisner T (1991) Pheromonal advertisement of a nuptial gift by a male moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 88(20): 9224–9227.
    Emlen DJ (2001) Costs and the diversification of exaggerated animal structures. Science 291(5508): 1534–1536.
    Emlen DJ (2008) The evolution of animal weapons. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 39: 387–413.
    Emlen DJ, Marangelo J, Ball B and Cunningham CW (2005) Diversity in the weapons of sexual selection: horn evolution in the beetle genus Onthophagus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Evolution 59(5): 1060–1084.
    Fitzpatrick S, Berglund A and Rosenqvist G (1995) Ornaments or offspring – costs to reproductive success restrict sexual selection processes. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 55(3): 251–260.
    Flatt T and Schmidt PS (2009) Integrating evolutionary and molecular genetics of aging. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta‐ General Subjects 1790(10): 951–962.
    Funk DH and Tallamy DW (2000) Courtship role reversal and deceptive signals in the long‐tailed dance fly, Rhamphomyia longicuada. Animal Behaviour 59: 411–421.
    Gwynne DT, Bussiere LF and Ivy TM (2007) Female ornaments hinder escape from spider webs in a role‐reversed swarming dance fly. Animal Behaviour 73: 1077–1082.
    Hunt J, Breuker CJ, Sadowski JA and Moore AJ (2009) Male–male competition, female mate choice and their interaction: determining total sexual selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 22(1): 13–26.
    Hunt J and Simmons LW (2001) Status‐dependent selection in the dimorphic beetle Onthophagus taurus. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B – Biological Sciences 268(1484): 2409–2414.
    King EG, Roff DA and Fairbairn DJ (2011) Trade‐off acquisition and allocation in Gryllus firmus: a test of the Y model. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 24(2): 256–264.
    Leroi AM (2001) Molecular signals versus the Loi de Balancement. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16(1): 24–29.
    Lorch PD, Proulx S, Rowe L and Day T (2003) Condition‐dependent sexual selection can accelerate adaptation. Evolutionary Ecology Research 5(6): 867–881.
    Parker GA (1990) Sperm competition games – sneaks and extra‐pair copulations. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B – Biological Sciences 242(1304): 127–133.
    Roff DA and Fairbairn DJ (2007) The evolution of trade‐offs: where are we? Journal of Evolutionary Biology 20(2): 433–447.
    Rowe L and Houle D (1996) The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B – Biological Sciences 263(1375): 1415–1421.
    Shingleton A (2010) Allometry: the study of biological scaling. Nature Education Knowledge 1(9): 2.
    Siller S (2001) Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex. Nature 411(6838): 689–692.
    Simmons LW and Emlen DJ (2006) Evolutionary trade‐off between weapons and testes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103(44): 16346–16351.
    Simmons LW, Emlen DJ and Tomkins JL (2007) Sperm competition games between sneaks and guards: a comparative analysis using dimorphic male beetles. Evolution 61(11): 2684–2692.
    Stirling G, Fairbairn DJ, Jensen S and Roff DA (2001) Does a negative genetic correlation between wing morph and early fecundity imply a functional constraint in Gryllus firmus? Evolutionary Ecology Research 3(2): 157–177.
    Tomkins JL, Radwan J, Kotiaho JS and Tregenza T (2004) Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19(6): 323–328.
    Van Noordwijk AJ and De Jong G (1986) Acquisition and allocation of resources their influence on variation in life history tactics. American Naturalist 128(1): 137–142.
    Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection – selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology 53(1): 205–214.
 Further Reading
    book Flatt T and Heyland A (2011) Mechanisms of Life History Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Hunt J, Bussiere LF, Jennions MD and Brooks R (2004) What is genetic quality? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19(6): 329–333.
    Kotiaho JS (2001) Costs of sexual traits: a mismatch between theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Biological Reviews 76(3): 365–376.

Related Sub-Topics:

Evolution: Theories and Ideas | Selection and Variation
Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

Article Title: Sexual Selection and Life History Allocation
 
How to Cite close
Houslay, Thomas M, and Bussière, Luc F(Jan 2012) Sexual Selection and Life History Allocation. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0023667]