Indiscriminate females and choosy males: within- and between-species variation in Drosophila
- PMID: 14575325
- DOI: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00383.x
Indiscriminate females and choosy males: within- and between-species variation in Drosophila
Abstract
The classic view of choosy, passive females and indiscriminate, competitive males gained theoretical foundations with parental investment theory. When females invest more in offspring than males, parental investment theory says that selection operates so that females discriminate among males for mates (i.e., females are choosy and passive) and males are indiscriminate (i.e., males are profligate and competitive). Here we report tests of predictions using Drosophila pseudoobscura and D. melanogaster, with typical asymmetry in gamete sizes (females > males), and in D. hydei with far less asymmetry in gamete size. Experimental observations revealed that the labels "choosy, passive females" and "profligate, indiscriminate males" did not capture the variation within and between species in premating behavior. In each of the species some females were as active in approaching males (or more so) than males in approaching females, and some males were as discriminating (or more so) than females. In pairs focal males and females responded differently to opposite-sex than to same-sex conspecifics. Drosophila hydei were less sex-role stereotyped than the other two species consistent with parental investment theory. However, D. pseudoobscura females approached males more often than did D. melanogaster females, and male D. hydei approached females as often as males of the other two species, both results inconsistent with parental investment theory. Male D. pseudoobscura and D. hydei were more likely to approach males in same-sex pairs than male D. melanogaster, inconsistent with parental investment theory.
Similar articles
-
Chance, time allocation, and the evolution of adaptively flexible sex role behavior.Integr Comp Biol. 2005 Nov;45(5):931-44. doi: 10.1093/icb/45.5.931. Integr Comp Biol. 2005. PMID: 21676844
-
Mutual interest between the sexes and reproductive success in Drosophila pseudoobscura.Evolution. 2002 Dec;56(12):2537-40. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb00178.x. Evolution. 2002. PMID: 12583593
-
The wild side of life: Drosophila reproduction in nature.Fly (Austin). 2012 Apr-Jun;6(2):98-101. doi: 10.4161/fly.19552. Epub 2012 Apr 1. Fly (Austin). 2012. PMID: 22627903
-
Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios.J Evol Biol. 2008 Jul;21(4):919-48. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01540.x. Epub 2008 May 6. J Evol Biol. 2008. PMID: 18462318 Review.
-
Sexual signals and mating patterns in Syngnathidae.J Fish Biol. 2011 Jun;78(6):1647-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2011.02972.x. Epub 2011 Apr 15. J Fish Biol. 2011. PMID: 21651521 Review.
Cited by
-
Variation in male mate choice in Drosophila melanogaster.PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e56299. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056299. Epub 2013 Feb 6. PLoS One. 2013. PMID: 23405271 Free PMC article.
-
Bateman's principles and human sex roles.Trends Ecol Evol. 2009 Jun;24(6):297-304. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.02.005. Epub 2009 May 4. Trends Ecol Evol. 2009. PMID: 19403194 Free PMC article.
-
Polyandry increases offspring viability and mother productivity but does not decrease mother survival in Drosophila pseudoobscura.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Aug 3;107(31):13771-6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1006174107. Epub 2010 Jul 19. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010. PMID: 20643932 Free PMC article.
-
Sex ratio at mating does not modulate age fitness effects in Drosophila melanogaster.Ecol Evol. 2019 May 21;9(11):6501-6507. doi: 10.1002/ece3.5227. eCollection 2019 Jun. Ecol Evol. 2019. PMID: 31236239 Free PMC article.
-
The evolution of multiple mating: Costs and benefits of polyandry to females and of polygyny to males.Fly (Austin). 2012 Jan-Mar;6(1):3-11. doi: 10.4161/fly.18330. Epub 2012 Jan 1. Fly (Austin). 2012. PMID: 22223093 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Molecular Biology Databases