Environmental Changes and Sexually Antagonistic Selection

Abstract

Sexually antagonistic selection (SAS) occurs when the direction of natural selection on a trait, or a combination of traits, differs between the sexes. For example, the different roles of females and males in reproduction, along with different interactions between each sex and the environment, can generate selection for larger body size in one sex and smaller body size in the other – a pattern of selection that may eventually lead to the evolution of sexual size dimorphism. SAS has been documented in several animal and plant populations and is thought to constrain adaptation and reduce population fitness. Recent research has emphasised that the intensity of SAS depends, in part, on environmental conditions of the population, which may vary over time or across each species' geographic range. Theory predicts that SAS should be more common in stable compared to changing environments. These predictions have some experimental support, though the general manner with which environmental changes affect SAS remains an open question.

Key Concepts

  • Sexually antagonistic selection arises when the direction of natural selection differs between female and male traits.
  • Sexually antagonistic selection favours the evolution of sex differences (sexual dimorphism).
  • Conditions of the social environment, mating environment and habitat interact to influence the pattern of selection on female and male traits, including the potential for sexually antagonistic selection.
  • Genetic correlations between the sexes constrain the evolution of sex differences and can lead to persistent sexually antagonistic selection.
  • Environmental change can reduce or eliminate sexually antagonistic selection.

Keywords: sexual dimorphism; genetic variation; genetic correlation; adaptive evolution; natural selection; sexual selection; sexual conflict

Figure 1. Sexually antagonistic selection (SAS) in a single trait. The solid blue and red curves show the frequency distributions for the trait within females and males, respectively; zf and zm refer to the average of the female and male trait distributions. The broken curves show female (blue) and male (red) relative fitness as a function of trait expression, with the optimum for each sex corresponding to the maximum of the function (Of and Om are the female and male trait expression optima). Since the female trait mean is above the female optimum, and the male mean is below the male optimum, directional selection on this trait is sexually antagonistic.
Figure 2. Sex‐specific directional selection in two dimensions of trait variability. SAS is absent in panel a, whereas SAS is present on panel b. Within each panel, the dashed arrows show the selection gradients for each trait and sex (horizontal arrows depict the selection gradients for ‘trait 1’; vertical arrows depict selection gradients for ‘trait 2’). The solid arrows show the net directions of selection, as represented by vectors of selection gradients (βf = (βf,1, βf,2) and βm = (βm,1, βm,2) for females and males, respectively, which each point towards a trait optimum: Of or Om). In Panel b, the angle between the vectors, θ, is less than 90°, which denotes a partial alignment between female and male directional selection (and, thus, SAS is absent). In Panel b, the angle between the vectors, θ, is greater than 90°, which denotes a misalignment between female and male directional selection (and, thus, SAS is present).
Figure 3. Genetic correlations and the emergence of SAS during adaptation. The broken arrows show the initial vectors of directional selection towards the female and male optima. The average trait expression is initially the same in each sex (z0 in both sexes at time ‘0’). The solid arrows show the vectors of selection after some time has passed and the population has partially adapted to the environment. Note that SAS is initially absent in both figure panels, as the initial angle between female and male selection gradient vectors is less than 90°. Panel a: A strong genetic correlation leads to rapid and correlated evolutionary divergence of female and male traits when direction of selection in each sex is aligned (i.e. from the initial condition where SAS is absent). However, adaptation of the population causes selection to become sexually antagonistic: following t generations of evolution, selection vectors point in opposing directions. Panel b: When there is no genetic correlation between the sexes (rmf = 0), evolutionary divergence of each sex can proceed towards its optimum, without modifying the angle between female and male selection vectors (in the case shown, SAS is initially absent and remains absent). This example assumes that the two different traits genetically vary independently of one another.
close

References

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

Barrett SC and Hough J (2012) Sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. Journal of Experimental Botany 64: 67–82.

Berger D , Grieshop K , Lind MI , et al. (2014) Intralocus sexual conflict and environmental stress. Evolution 68: 2184–2196.

Bolnick DI and Doebeli M (2003) Sexual dimorphism and adaptive speciation: two sides of the same ecological coin. Evolution 57: 2433–2449.

Bonduriansky R and Chenoweth SF (2009) Intralocus sexual conflict. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24: 280–288.

Connallon T and Clark AG (2014) Evolutionary inevitability of sexual antagonism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281: 20132123.

Connallon T (2015) The geography of sex‐specific selection, local adaptation, and sexual dimorphism. Evolution 69: 2333–2344.

Connallon T and Hall MD (2016) Genetic correlations and sex‐specific adaptation in changing environments. Evolution 70: 2186–2198.

Connallon T , Débarre F and Li XY (2018) Linking local adaptation with the evolution of sex differences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 373: 20170414.

Cox RM and Calsbeek R (2009) Sexually antagonistic selection, sexual dimorphism, and the resolution of intralocus sexual conflict. American Naturalist 173: 176–187.

Darwin C (1871) The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London, UK: John Murray.

De Lisle SP and Rowe L (2015) Ecological character displacement between the sexes. American Naturalist 186: 693–707.

De Lisle SP and Rowe L (2017) Disruptive natural selection predicts divergence between the sexes during adaptive radiation. Ecology and Evolution 7: 3590–3601.

De Lisle SP , Goedert D , Reedy AM and Svensson EI (2018) Climateic factors and species range position predict sexually antagonistic selection across taxa. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 373: 20170415.

Delcourt M , Blows MW and Rundle HD (2009) Sexually antagonistic genetic variance for fitness in an ancestral and a novel environment. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 276: 2009–2014.

Delph LF , Andicoechea J , Steven JC , et al. (2011) Environment‐dependent intralocus sexual conflict in a dioecious plant. New Phytologist 192: 542–552.

Fairbairn D , Blanckenhorn W and Szekely T (eds) (2007) Sex, Size and Gender Roles. Evolutionary Studies of Sexual Size Dimorphism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Gomulkiewicz R and Houle D (2009) Demographic and genetic constraints on evolution. American Naturalist 174: E218–E229.

Gosden TP , Shastri KL , Innocenti P and Chenoweth SF (2012) The B‐matrix harbours significant and sex‐specific constraints on the evolution of multicharacter sexual dimorphism. Evolution 66: 2106–2116.

Griffin RM , Dean R , Grace JL , Rydén P and Friberg U (2013) The shared genome is a pervasive constraint on the evolution of sex‐biased gene expression. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30: 2168–2176.

Hedrick AV and Temeles EJ (1989) The evolution of sexual dimorphism in animals: hypotheses and tests. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 4: 136–138.

Holman L and Jacomb F (2017) The effects of stress and sex on selection, genetic covariance, and the evolutionary response. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 30: 1898–1909.

Kokko H and Brooks R (2003) Sexy to die for? Sexual selection and the risk of extinction. Annales Zoologici Fennici 40: 207–219.

Kopp M and Matuszewski S (2014) Rapid evolution of quantitative triats: theoretical perspectives. Evolutionary Applications 7: 169–191.

Lande R (1980) Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34: 292–305.

Lande R and Arnold SJ (1983) The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37: 1210–1226.

Lewis Z , Wedell N and Hunt J (2011) Evidence for strong intralocus sexual conflict in the Indian meal moth, Plodia interpunctella . Evolution 65: 2085–2097.

Long TAF , Agrawal AF and Rowe L (2012) The effect of sexual selection on offspring fitness dependes on the nature of genetic variation. Current Biology 22: 204–208.

Martinossi‐Allibert I , Savković U , Đorđević M , et al. (2018) The consequences of sexual selection in well‐adapted and maladapted populations of bean beetles. Evolution 72: 518–530.

Miller CW and Svensson EI (2014) Sexual selection in complex environments. Annual Review of Entomology 59: 427–445.

Morrissey MB (2016) Meta‐analysis of magnitudes, differences and variation in evolutionary parameters. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 29: 1882–1904.

Poissant J , Morrissey MB , Gosler AG , Slate J and Sheldon BC (2016) Multivariate selection and intersexual genetic constraints in a wild bird population. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 29: 2022–2035.

Poissant J , Wilson AJ and Coltman DW (2010) Sex‐specific genetic variance and the evolution of sexual dimorphism: a systematic review of cross‐sex genetic correlations. Evolution 64: 97–107.

Punzalan D , Delcourt M and Rundle HD (2014) Comparing the intersex genetic correlation for fitness across novel environments in the fruit fly, Drosophila serrata. Heredity 112: 143–148.

Rice WR and Chippindale AK (2001) Intersexual ontogenetic conflict. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 14: 685–693.

Rowe L , Chenoweth SF and Agrawal AF (2018) The genomics of sexual conflict. American Naturalist 192: 274–286.

Sanjak JS , Sidorenko J , Robinson MR , Thornton KR and Visscher PM (2017) Evidence of directional and stabilizing selection in contemporary humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115: 151–156.

Shine R (1989) Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual dimorphism: a review of the evidence. Quarterly Review of Biology 64: 419–461.

Siepielski AM , Morrissey MB , Buoro M , et al. (2017) Precipitation drives global variation in natural selection. Science 355: 959–962.

Slatkin M (1984) Ecological causes of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38: 622–630.

Stearns SC , Govindaraju DR , Ewbank D and Byars SG (2012) Constraints on the coevolution of contemporary human males and females. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 279: 4836–4844.

Stewart AD and Rice WR (2018) Arrest of sex‐specific adaptation during the evolution of sexual dimorphism in Drosophila . Nature Ecology & Evolution 2: 1507–1513.

Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871–1971, pp. 136–179. Chicago: Aldine‐Atherton.

Walsh B and Blows MW (2009) Abundant genetic variation + strong selection = multivariate genetic constraints: a geometric view of adaptation. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 40: 41–59.

Wyman MJ and Rowe L (2014) Male bias in distributions of additive genetic, residual, and phenotypic variances of shared traits. American Naturalist 184: 326–337.

Yun L , Chen PJ , Kwok KE , et al. (2018) Competition for mates and the improvement of nonsexual fitness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115: 6762–6767.

Further Reading

Berger D , Martinossi‐Allibert I , Grieshop K , et al. (2016) Intralocus sexual conflict and the tragedy of the commons in seed beetles. American Naturalist 188: E98–E112.

Connallon T and Hall MD (2018) Genetic constraints on adaptation: a theoretical primer for the genomics era. Annals of the New York Academy Sciences 1422: 65–87.

van Doorn GS (2009) Intralocus sexual conflict. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1168: 52–71.

Rice W and Gavrilets S (eds) (2014) The Genetics and Biology of Sexual Conflict. Cold Spring Harbor, New York: Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology.

Servedio MR and Boughman JW (2017) The role of sexual selection in local adaptation and speciation. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 48: 85–109.

Wyman MJ , Stinchcombe JR and Rowe L (2013) A multivariate view of the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 26: 2070–2080.

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Connallon, Tim, and Hall, Matthew D(Dec 2018) Environmental Changes and Sexually Antagonistic Selection. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0028171]