DOCSLIB.ORG

Polymorphism in the Freshwater Isopod Asellus Aquaticus (L)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Polymorphism in the Freshwater Isopod Asellus Aquaticus (L) Heredity 58 (1987) 69—73 The Genetical Society of Great Britain Received 19 March 1986 Components of fitness and the PGI polymorphism in the freshwater isopod Asellus aquaticus (L). 1. Fecundity selection A. F. Shihab* and Department of Biology, University of Essex, D. J. Heath Colchester, England. Differences in reproductive output were studied between genotypes in a population of the isopod Asellus aquaticus polymorphic at the PGI locus. Reproductive output was measured both in terms of the numbers of eggs and the number of offspring per female. Significant differences were found between the three most common genotypes (3/3, 2/3, 3/4) for both measures. 3/3 had the highest reproductive output. Relative to this the output of 2/3 was 65 per cent and of 3/4 only 40 per cent. This pattern was repeated in three separate years. INTRODUCTION alleles at this locus, the frequencies of which seem to be correlated (both spatially and temporally) Isopodsare useful organisms for studying the with water temperature and oxygen concentration. dynamics of genetic variation in natural popula- The work presented here formed part of a detailed tions. This is because they allow the investigator 3 year study into the dynamics of this variation in to follow the sampling schedule devised by Chris- one population and describes differences in repro- tiansen and Frydenberg (1973) designed to detect ductive output between genotypes. Further papers fitness differences between allozyme genotypes in will consider aspects of sexual and zygotic natural populations during the reproductive phase selection. of the life cycle. Because isopods are viviparous it enables the reproductive output of females of known genotype to be compared; where the species METHODS has an annual life cycle and breeds only once this is equivalent to an estimate of lifetime reproductive Fulldetails of the methods are given by Shihab output. Using samples of fertilised females, sterile (1985) so only an outline is given here. The popula- females, males and random offspring allows a tion selected for sampling occurred in a freshwater detailed analysis of sexual and gametic selection lake on the University of Essex campus (map ref. (Christiansen and Frydenberg, 1973). In species TM168 031241). Samples of isopods were taken that display precopula (Ridley, 1983) an indepen- with a fine mesh net every two weeks from the dent analysis of sexual selection can be achieved, same area of the lake, from 15 March 1982 to 30 a refinement not available in an organism such as August 1984. Four alleles at the PGI locus were Zoarces viviparus (Christiansen, Frydenberg and detected by horizontal starch gel electrophoresis. Simonsen, 1973). These alleles were numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 in order of The freshwater isopod Asellus aquaticus has an increasing mobility. Of the 16 possible genotypes annual life cycle in most of Britain (Shibhab, 1985) three predominated, 3/3 (frequency between 0'60- and has a precopula making it an almost ideal 075), 2/3 (0.10-0.30), and 3/4 (005-020). organism for these studies. Verspoor (1983) Another three were less common, 1/3 (0.07—0.01), demonstrated that this species is polymorphic for 2/4 (0.01-0.04), and 2/2 (0.02) and the remainder the enzyme phosphoglucose isomerase (PGI, were very rarely encountered. There were two dis- EC5.3 1.9). There are four relatively common tinct breeding seasons each year. In the first * Departmentof Biology, College of Science, University of ovigerous females, mating animals and females Basrah, Basrah, Iraq. carrying young were found from January-May. 70 A. F. SHIHAB AND D. J. HEATH The offspring were released in June, the parents gave rise to the late summer cohort were of smaller then dying. These offspring comprise the early average size and had lower egg production than summer cohort (e.s.c.), a few of which grow those that bred earlier, but 3/3 still produced more sufficiently to breed from late July—October, pro- eggs. When individual pairs of mean values are ducing the late summer cohort (l.s.c.) (Shihab, compared 3/3 consistently produced more eggs 1985). than 2/3 and 3/4 but there were no detectable To estimate the mean number of eggs carried, differences between the latter two genotypes. In ovigerous females were measured (body length) 1982 and 1983 3/3 produced significantly more the eggs dissected out and counted and the female eggs than 1/3 and also 2/4 (in 1983) in the early electrophoresed. To estimate fecundity (mean summer breeding but not in the late summer breed- number of offspring released), individual fertilised ing. However sample sizes of these rarer genotypes females captured in the field were isolated in petri were small. dishes of lake water with decaying leaves for food. The number of young released was counted, the (b)Mean offspring number (fecundity) female was then measured and genotyped. To investigate possible paternal effects on female fer- Table1(b) shows a similar pattern to the previous tility mating pairs (in precopula) were collected one with significant differences in the mean num- from the field and placed in petri dishes as before. bers of offspring of different genotypes every year After offspring release both parents were elec- but no differences in mean female size. Once again trophoresed and numbers of offspring counted. the 3/3 genotype produced the most offspring Mean numbers of eggs and young for females of (about 80, in the early summer) compared to the different genotypes were compared using single other genotypes which produced between 30 and classification analysis of variance (Sokal and 60. Comparison of pairs of means shows that the Rohlf, 1981). When the tests yielded significant differences between 3/3 and 2/3, 3/4 and 1/3 were differences, a posteriori, unplanned comparisons significant although there were no detectable among means were made by the GT2 method differences between the latter three genotypes. (Sokal and Rohlf, 1981). Similar tests were There is a suggestion that both 2/4 and 2/3 had employed on mean female body length since both higher fertilities than 3/4 and 1/3 but this was not fertility and fecundity in Asellus are positively significant. Late summer breeding females were correlated with body size (Ridley and Thompson, once again smaller and produced fewer offspring 1979). than early summer breeders but again 3/3 did significantly better than 2/3 and 3/4. Mean offspring numbers for a given genotype were RESULTS always lower than mean egg numbers. The figures imply that up to 50 per cent of the eggs carried by Theseare presented in summary form in table 1(a) a female fail to develop into offspring. egg number, 1(b) offspring number and 1(c) male effects; full data are given by Shihab (1985). (c)Male effects Onlyone female genotype (3/3) was sufficiently (a)Mean egg number common to provide enough data for this analysis. Datawere collected from the females which pro- Each column in table 1(c) gives the average num- duced the early summer cohort in all three years, ber of offspring (o) produced by 3/3 females found but the later, smaller breeding season was only in precopula with males of each genotype. Only analysed in 1983. In all three years and for both the data for 1983 showed significant heterogeneity, breeding seasons (in 1983) the results were con- with females fertilised by 3/3 males producing the sistent. The mean numbers of eggs produced by most offspring, significantly more than those fer- different genotypes were significantly different but tilised by 2/3 males, The direction of this difference this could not be attributed to differences in female was the same in 1982, but not significant, possibly due to the smaller sample size. body size between genotypes. The general pattern was also the same with the 3/3 homozygote con- sistently producing the highest numbers of eggs DISCUSSiON (about 120, on average) compared to the other common genotypes (2/3, 3/4, 1/3, 2/4) which Thereare marked, consistent, differences between produced around 70-90 eggs. The females which genotypes in fecundity. The fitness of 2/3 and 3/4 PGI POLYMORPHISM IN ASELLUS 71 Table IEggnumberand offspring number (fecundity) of PGI genotypes. e =averageno of eggs, o =averageno of offspring, =averagebody lengthoffemale,n=sample size, bpm=broadpouchmortality(%), l.s.c. =latesummer cohort,e.s.c.=early ** summer cohort, Fvariance ratio,d.f.= degrees of freedom, p<001, p<0001.Meanvalues connected by horizontal barsare significantlydifferent. For tables 1(a)and1(b)thevertical columns labelled genotype refertofemales. For table 1(c) the columns refer to males (see text for explanation) Genotype 2/4 2/3 3/3 3/4 1/3 2/2 F d.f. (a) Egg Number 1982 e 10442 92161 79120 — 8.47*5* 4, 124 12050 76100 e.s.c 1 921 888 917 886 877 — 097 n 7 18 78 15 11 1983 e 7518 7945 11898 7856 7666 — 1507*** 4,113 e.s.c 1 827 872 908 912 905 234 n 11 20 62 16 9 1983 e — 3390 5350 3283 3266 3550 643*5* 4,42 l.s.c 1 515 527 516 550 537 031 n — 10 24 6 3 4 1984 e 8277 85178 124120 6858 6987 1822*** 4, 101 e.s.c 1 866 886 903 888 875 047 n 9 19 53 17 8 (b)Offspring Number 1982 o 5800 48126 7995 32162 2750 11.705*5 4,104 e.s.c I 925 855 852 853 856 063 n 4 14 62 16 8 bpm 4445 4788 3365 5881 6381 1983 o 5933 52100 8184 39116 3900 17.94*** 4,98 e.s.c I 883 838 863 850 861 039 n 6 17 53 18 9 bpm 2108 3455 3112 5015 4912 1983* o — 29100 472 26140 2600 7.04*5 3,29 l.s.c I — 535 530 5.30 516 016 n 7 18 5 3 bpm — 1445 1454 1958 2678 1984 o 5360 55105 831 33175 3257 18.44*5* 4,91 e.s.c 1 880 857 859 843 850 007 n 5 19 49 16 7 bpm 3524 3582 3252 5078 5338 (c)MaleEffect 1982 o 400 585 647 536 515 238 4,46 e.s.c n 2 10 32 6 1 1983 43.7 5211 7113 524 606 510 3•56 5,156 e.s.c n 4 26 106 18 6 2 relative to 3/3 are about 065 and O4 respectively, scarce.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Evolution of Parental Effects When Selection Acts on Fecundity Versus Viability
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/741835; this version posted August 21, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. The evolution of parental effects when selection acts on fecundity versus viability Bram Kuijper1;3 & Rufus A. Johnstone2;4 20th August 2019 Abstract Most predictions on the evolution of adaptive parental effects and phenotypic mem- ory exclusively focus on the role of the abiotic environment. How parental effects are affected by population demography and life history is less well understood. To overcome this, we use an analytical model to assess whether selection acting on fecundity versus viability affects the evolution of parental effects in a viscous population experiencing a spatiotemporally varying environment. We find that parental effects commonly evolve in regimes of viability selection, but are less likely to evolve in regimes of fecundity se- lection. In regimes of viability selection, an individual’s phenotype becomes correlated with its local environment during its lifetime, as those individuals with a locally adapted phenotype are more likely to survive until parenthood. Hence, a parental phenotype rapidly becomes an informative cue about its local environment, favoring the evolution of parental effects. By contrast, in regimes of fecundity selection, locally maladapted and adapted parents survive at equal rates, so that the parental phenotype, by itself, is not informative about the local environment. Correlations between phenotype and envi- ronment still arise, but only when more fecund, locally adapted individuals leave more successfully established offspring to the local patch.
    [Show full text]
  • Temperature As a Modulator of Sexual Selection
    Biol. Rev. (2020), pp. 000–000. 1 doi: 10.1111/brv.12632 Temperature as a modulator of sexual selection Roberto García-Roa1, Francisco Garcia-Gonzalez2,3, Daniel W.A. Noble4,5 and Pau Carazo1* 1Behaviour and Evolution, Ethology Lab, Cavanilles Institute of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, University of Valencia, C/Catedrático José Beltrán 2, Paterna, Valencia, 46980, Spain 2Doñana Biological Station, Spanish Research Council CSIC, c/Americo Vespucio, 26, Isla de la Cartuja, Sevilla, 41092, Spain 3Centre for Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Western Australia, 6009, Australia 4Ecology and Evolution Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia 5Division of Ecology and Evolution, Research School of Biology, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, 2061, Australia ABSTRACT A central question in ecology and evolution is to understand why sexual selection varies so much in strength across taxa; it has long been known that ecological factors are crucial to this. Temperature is a particularly salient abiotic ecological factor that modulates a wide range of physiological, morphological and behavioural traits, impacting individuals and populations at a global taxonomic scale. Furthermore, temperature exhibits substantial temporal variation (e.g. daily, seasonally and inter-seasonally), and hence for most species in the wild sexual selection will regularly unfold in a dynamic thermal environment. Unfortunately, studies have so far almost completely neglected the role of temperature as a mod- ulator of sexual selection. Here, we outline the main pathways through which temperature can affect the intensity and form (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Fecundity Selection Theory: Concepts and Evidence
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/015586; this version posted February 23, 2015. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. Fecundity selection theory: concepts and evidence Daniel Pincheira-Donoso1,3 & John Hunt2 1Laboratory of Evolutionary Ecology of Adaptations, School of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln, Brayford Campus, Lincoln, LN6 7DL, Lincolnshire, United Kingdom 2Centre for Ecology and Conservation, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Penryn, Cornwall, TR10 9EZ, UK 3Corresponding author: [email protected] ABSTRACT Fitness results from the optimal balance between survival, mating success and fecundity. The interactions between these three components of fitness vary importantly depending on the selective context, from positive covariation between them, to antagonistic pleiotropic relationships when fitness increases in one reduce fitness of others. Therefore, elucidating the routes through which selection shapes life history and phenotypic adaptations via these fitness components is of primary significance to understand ecological and evolutionary dynamics. However, while the fitness components mediated by natural (survival) and sexual (mating success) selection have extensively been debated from most possible perspectives, fecundity selection remains considerably
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Selection on Fecundity Variance in Subdivided Populations: Kin Selection Meets Bet Hedging
    Copyright Ó 2007 by the Genetics Society of America DOI: 10.1534/genetics.106.066910 Natural Selection on Fecundity Variance in Subdivided Populations: Kin Selection Meets Bet Hedging Laurent Lehmann1 and Francxois Balloux Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge, CB2 3EH Cambridge, United Kingdom Manuscript received October 16, 2006 Accepted for publication February 5, 2007 ABSTRACT In a series of seminal articles in 1974, 1975, and 1977, J. H. Gillespie challenged the notion that the ‘‘fittest’’ individuals are those that produce on average the highest number of offspring. He showed that in small populations, the variance in fecundity can determine fitness as much as mean fecundity. One likely reason why Gillespie’s concept of within-generation bet hedging has been largely ignored is the general consensus that natural populations are of large size. As a consequence, essentially no work has investigated the role of the fecundity variance on the evolutionary stable state of life-history strategies. While typically large, natural populations also tend to be subdivided in local demes connected by migration. Here, we integrate Gillespie’s measure of selection for within-generation bet hedging into the inclusive fitness and game theoretic measure of selection for structured populations. The resulting framework demonstrates that selection against high variance in offspring number is a potent force in large, but structured populations. More generally, the results highlight that variance in offspring number will directly affect various life-history strategies, especially those involving kin interaction. The selective pressures on three key traits are directly investigated here, namely within-generation bet hedging, helping behaviors, and the evolutionary stable dispersal rate.
    [Show full text]
  • Fecundity Selection Theory: Concepts and Evidence
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/015586; this version posted February 23, 2015. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. Fecundity selection theory: concepts and evidence Daniel Pincheira-Donoso1,3 & John Hunt2 1Laboratory of Evolutionary Ecology of Adaptations, School of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln, Brayford Campus, Lincoln, LN6 7DL, Lincolnshire, United Kingdom 2Centre for Ecology and Conservation, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Penryn, Cornwall, TR10 9EZ, UK 3Corresponding author: [email protected] ABSTRACT Fitness results from the optimal balance between survival, mating success and fecundity. The interactions between these three components of fitness vary importantly depending on the selective context, from positive covariation between them, to antagonistic pleiotropic relationships when fitness increases in one reduce fitness of others. Therefore, elucidating the routes through which selection shapes life history and phenotypic adaptations via these fitness components is of primary significance to understand ecological and evolutionary dynamics. However, while the fitness components mediated by natural (survival) and sexual (mating success) selection have extensively been debated from most possible perspectives, fecundity selection remains considerably
    [Show full text]
  • Sexual Selection in Females
    Animal Behaviour 77 (2009) 3–11 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Animal Behaviour journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/yanbe Reviews Sexual selection in females Tim Clutton-Brock* Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge article info Darwin developed the theory of sexual selection to account for the evolution of weaponry, ornamen- Article history: tation and other secondary sexual characters that are commonly more developed in males and which Received 28 April 2008 appeared unlikely to contribute to survival. He argued that these traits had evolved either through Initial acceptance 25 May 2008 intrasexual competition between males to monopolize access to females or through consistent female Final acceptance 27 August 2008 preferences for mating with superior partners. Since 1871, a substantial body of research has confirmed Published online 31 October 2008 his explanation of the evolution of secondary sexual characters in males, although sex differences in MS. number: 08-00267 reproductive behaviour are more diverse and the evolutionary mechanisms responsible for them are more complex than was initially recognized. However, secondary sexual characters are also widespread Keywords: in females but, as yet, their evolution and distribution have received relatively little attention from gender differences evolutionary biologists. Here, I suggest that the mechanisms responsible for the evolution of secondary intrasexual competition sexual characters in females are similar to those operating in males and include intrasexual competition mate choice sex roles between females for breeding opportunities, male mating preferences and female competition to attract sexual selection mates. Unlike males, females often compete more intensely for resources necessary for successful reproduction than for access to mating partners and the development of secondary sexual characters in females may be limited by costs to fecundity rather than to survival.
    [Show full text]
  • Fecundity Selection' 3 November 2015
    New research demands rethink on Darwin's theory of 'fecundity selection' 3 November 2015 A key concept in Darwin's theory of evolution physical traits that influence 'optimal' fertility in either which suggests nature favours larger females that sex, and that climate and food availability also can produce greater numbers of off-spring must be influence the evolution of reproductive processes – redefined according to scientists behind ground- factors which Darwin originally overlooked. breaking research published today (3rd November 2015). The research, led by Dr Daniel Pincheira-Donoso from the University of Lincoln's School of Life The study, published in the scientific journal Sciences, reveals that phenomena such as climate Biological Reviews, concludes that the theory of change could therefore play a significant role in the 'fecundity selection' - one of Charles Darwin's three fertility of species around the world. main evolutionary principles, also known as 'fertility selection' - should be redefined so that it no longer Dr Pincheira-Donoso said: "Evolutionary theory is rests on the idea that more fertile females are more all about reproductive success, or the number of successful in evolutionary terms. The research 'successful' offspring an individual can produce. highlights that too many offspring can have severe The more successful offspring, the more genes implications for mothers and the success of their encoding successful traits are passed on to the descendants, and that that males can also affect next generation. the evolutionary success of a brood. "However, advances in fecundity selection theory Darwin's theory of fecundity selection was reveal that a higher number of successful postulated in 1874 and, together with the principles descendants can actually result from the production of natural selection and sexual selection, remains a of fewer offspring which can be looked after more fundamental component of modern evolutionary efficiently.
    [Show full text]
  • Asymmetric Selection and the Evolution of Extraordinary Defences
    ARTICLE Received 10 Jan 2013 | Accepted 30 May 2013 | Published 2 Jul 2013 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms3085 Asymmetric selection and the evolution of extraordinary defences Mark C. Urban1, Reinhard Bu¨rger2 & Daniel I. Bolnick3 Evolutionary biologists typically predict future evolutionary responses to natural selection by analysing evolution on an adaptive landscape. Much theory assumes symmetric fitness surfaces even though many stabilizing selection gradients deviate from symmetry. Here we revisit Lande’s adaptive landscape and introduce novel analytical theory that includes asymmetric selection. Asymmetric selection and the resulting skewed trait distributions bias equilibrium mean phenotypes away from fitness peaks, usually toward the flatter shoulder of the individual fitness surface. We apply this theory to explain a longstanding paradox in biology and medicine: the evolution of excessive defences against enemies. These so-called extraordinary defences can evolve in response to asymmetrical selection when marginal risks of insufficient defence exceed marginal costs of excessive defence. Eco-evolutionary feed- backs between population abundances and asymmetric selection further exaggerate these defences. Recognizing the effect of asymmetrical selection on evolutionary trajectories will improve the accuracy of predictions and suggest novel explanations for apparent sub-optimality. 1 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269, USA. 2 Department of Mathematics, University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria. 3 Howard Hughes Medical Institute, School of Biological Sciences, Section of Integrative Biology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to M.C.U. (email: [email protected]). NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | 4:2085 | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms3085 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 1 & 2013 Macmillan Publishers Limited.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Epigenetic Transmission When Selection Acts on Fecundity Versus Viability
    ORE Open Research Exeter TITLE Evolution of epigenetic transmission when selection acts on fecundity versus viability AUTHORS Kuijper, A; Johnstone, RA JOURNAL Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences DEPOSITED IN ORE 22 January 2021 This version available at http://hdl.handle.net/10871/124469 COPYRIGHT AND REUSE Open Research Exeter makes this work available in accordance with publisher policies. A NOTE ON VERSIONS The version presented here may differ from the published version. If citing, you are advised to consult the published version for pagination, volume/issue and date of publication Evolution of epigenetic transmission when selection acts on fecundity versus viability ,1,3 2,4 Bram Kuijper∗ & Rufus A. Johnstone Author affiliations: ∗) Corresponding author 1) Centre for Ecology & Conservation, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Penryn TR10 9FE, United Kingdom 2) Behaviour and Evolution Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, United Kingdom 3) [email protected] 4) [email protected] 1 Epigenetics and viability vs fecundity selection 2 Abstract Existing theory on the evolution of parental effects and the inheritance of non- genetic factors has mostly focused on the role of environmental change. By con- trast, how differences in population demography and life history affect parental effects is poorly understood. To fill this gap, we develop an analytical model to explore how parental effects evolve when selection acts on fecundity versus viabil- ity in spatiotemporally fluctuating environments. We find that regimes of viability selection, but not fecundity selection, are most likely to favour parental effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Macroevolution of Sexual Size Dimorphism and Reproduction
    López Juri et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology (2018) 18:186 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-018-1299-6 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Macroevolution of sexual size dimorphism and reproduction-related phenotypic traits in lizards of the Chaco Domain Guadalupe López Juri* , Margarita Chiaraviglio and Gabriela Cardozo Abstract Background: Comparing sexual size dimorphism (SSD) in the light of the phylogenetic hypothesis may help to understand the phenotypic evolution associated with sexual selection (size of whole body and of reproduction- related body parts). Within a macroevolutionary framework, we evaluated the association between the evolution of SSD and the evolution of reproduction-related phenotypic traits, and whether this association has favored female fecundity, considering also variations according to reproductive modes. We focused on the lizard species that inhabit the Chaco Domain since this is a natural unit with a high diversity of species. Results: The residual SSD was related positively with the residuals of the reproduction-related phenotypic traits that estimate intrasexual selection and with the residuals of inter-limb length and, according to fecundity selection, those residuals were related positively with the residuals of clutch size in oviparous species. Lizards of the Chaco Domain present a high diversity of SSD patterns, probably related to the evolution of reproductive strategies. Conclusions: Our findings highlight that the sexual selection may have acted on the whole-body size as well as on the size of body parts related to reproduction. Male and female phenotypes evolutionarily respond to variations in SSD, and an understanding of these patterns is essential for elucidating the processes shaping sexual phenotype diversity from a macroevolutionary perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Sexual Cooperation from Sexual Conflict SEE COMMENTARY Maria R
    Evolution of sexual cooperation from sexual conflict SEE COMMENTARY Maria R. Servedioa,1, John M. Powersa,b,1, Russell Landec, and Trevor D. Priced,2 aDepartment of Biology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; bDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92617; cCenter for Biodiversity Dynamics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway; and dDepartment of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637 Edited by James J. Bull, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, and approved September 22, 2019 (received for review March 11, 2019) In many species that form pair bonds, males display to their mate nets) (19, 20). In these models a signaler, which in our case is the after pair formation. These displays elevate the female’s invest- male, exploits a receiver’s perceptual bias by producing displays ment into the brood. This is a form of cooperation because with- that stimulate the receiver to the receiver’s detriment. At some out the display, female investment is reduced to levels that are point in the future a mutation in the receiver (female) pop- suboptimal for both sexes. The presence of such displays is para- ulation leads to a failure to be stimulated by the display (19). doxical as in their absence the male should be able to invest extra This mutation increases, raising female mean fitness, reducing resources directly into offspring, to the benefit of both sexes. We male mean fitness, and leading to the subsequent loss of the consider that the origin of these displays lies in the exploitation of display.
    [Show full text]
  • The Exam Has 200 Points 1. EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY
    Bio 312, Fall 2018 Exam 4 ( 1 ) Name:__________________ Please write the first letter of your last name in the box; 5 points will be deducted if your name is hard to read or the box does not contain the correct letter. The exam has 200 points 1. EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY. Empathy is often considered a uniquely human trait, but does helpful behavior based on empathy exist in other organisms? In 2015, Sato et al (Animal Cognition 18:1039-1047) studied whether rats would assist other rats who appeared to be in distress. Cages were set up in which a focal rat would be in the middle "ground" area while another rat was placed into water in a "pool" area and had to swim for up to 5 minutes (which they do not like at all). In experiment #1 the researchers then measured the time taken (latency) for the focal rat to open the door to the pool area and allow the "soaked rat" to escape. They gave each rat 12 sessions of 300 seconds and measured how long it took them to open the door. Since this behavior may just reflect helpfulness and not empathy, they reversed roles and then did the same test with the "soaked rats" from the first trials - the reasoning being that if they demonstrated the helpful behavior more quickly after experiencing the soaking, then this may be due to increased empathy. (a, 3 pts ea) In the pair of figures below draw data that does (left) and does not (right) support the hypothesis that rats feel empathy for other rats in distress and that this is enhanced when they have experienced the same distress themselves.
    [Show full text]