Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2002 Jun 7;269(1496):1113–1118. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2002

Interaction between natural and sexual selection during the evolution of mate recognition.

Mark W Blows 1
PMCID: PMC1691010  PMID: 12061953

Abstract

The interaction between natural and sexual selection is central to many theories of how mate choice and reproductive isolation evolve, but their joint effect on the evolution of mate recognition has not, to my knowledge, been investigated in an evolutionary experiment. Natural and sexual selection were manipulated in interspecific hybrid populations of Drosophila to determine their effects on the evolution of a mate recognition system comprised of cuticular hydrocarbons (CHCs). The effect of natural selection in isolation indicated that CHCs were costly for males and females to produce. The effect of sexual selection in isolation indicated that females preferred males with a particular CHC composition. However, the interaction between natural and sexual selection had a greater effect on the evolution of the mate recognition system than either process in isolation. When natural and sexual selection were permitted to operate in combination, male CHCs became exaggerated to a greater extent than in the presence of sexual selection alone, and female CHCs evolved against the direction of natural selection. This experiment demonstrated that the interaction between natural and sexual selection is critical in determining the direction and magnitude of the evolutionary response of the mate recognition system.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (138.0 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Blows M. W. Evolution of the genetic covariance between male and female components of mate recognition: an experimental test. Proc Biol Sci. 1999 Nov 7;266(1434):2169–2174. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0904. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brooks R. Negative genetic correlation between male sexual attractiveness and survival. Nature. 2000 Jul 6;406(6791):67–70. doi: 10.1038/35017552. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Carson H. L., Val F. C., Templeton A. R. Change in male secondary sexual characters in artificial interspecific hybrid populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Jul 5;91(14):6315–6318. doi: 10.1073/pnas.91.14.6315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gavrilets S., Arnqvist G., Friberg U. The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Mar 7;268(1466):531–539. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Higgie M., Chenoweth S., Blows M. W. Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science. 2000 Oct 20;290(5491):519–521. doi: 10.1126/science.290.5491.519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kirkpatrick M., Barton N. H. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Feb 18;94(4):1282–1286. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.4.1282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kirkpatrick M., Servedio M. R. The reinforcement of mating preferences on an island. Genetics. 1999 Feb;151(2):865–884. doi: 10.1093/genetics/151.2.865. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Lande R. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981 Jun;78(6):3721–3725. doi: 10.1073/pnas.78.6.3721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Pomiankowski A. The costs of choice in sexual selection. J Theor Biol. 1987 Sep 21;128(2):195–218. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5193(87)80169-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Schal C., Gu X., Burns E. L., Blomquist G. J. Patterns of biosynthesis and accumulation of hydrocarbons and contact sex pheromone in the female German cockroach, Blattella germanica. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol. 1994;25(4):375–391. doi: 10.1002/arch.940250411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Schluter D. Ecology and the origin of species. Trends Ecol Evol. 2001 Jul 1;16(7):372–380. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(01)02198-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Turelli M., Barton N. H., Coyne J. A. Theory and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol. 2001 Jul 1;16(7):330–343. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(01)02177-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Zahavi A. Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol. 1975 Sep;53(1):205–214. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES