Abstract

In recent years, the field of sexual selection has exploded, with advances in theoretical and empirical research complementing each other in exciting ways. This perspective piece is the product of a “stock-taking” workshop on sexual selection and sexual conflict. Our aim is to identify and deliberate on outstanding questions and to stimulate discussion rather than provide a comprehensive overview of the entire field. These questions are organized into four thematic sections we deem essential to the field. First we focus on the evolution of mate choice and mating systems. Variation in mate quality can generate both competition and choice in the opposite sex, with implications for the evolution of mating systems. Limitations on mate choice may dictate the importance of direct vs. indirect benefits in mating decisions and consequently, mating systems, especially with regard to polyandry. Second, we focus on how sender and receiver mechanisms shape signal design. Mediation of honest signal content likely depends on integration of temporally variable social and physiological costs that are challenging to measure. We view the neuroethology of sensory and cognitive receiver biases as the main key to signal form and the ‘aesthetic sense’ proposed by Darwin. Since a receiver bias is sufficient to both initiate and drive ornament or armament exaggeration, without a genetically correlated or even coevolving receiver, this may be the appropriate ‘null model’ of sexual selection. Thirdly, we focus on the genetic architecture of sexually selected traits. Despite advances in modern molecular techniques, the number and identity of genes underlying performance, display and secondary sexual traits remains largely unknown. In-depth investigations into the genetic basis of sexual dimorphism in the context of long-term field studies will reveal constraints and trajectories of sexually selected trait evolution. Finally, we focus on sexual selection and conflict as drivers of speciation. Population divergence and speciation are often influenced by an interplay between sexual and natural selection. The extent to which sexual selection promotes or counteracts population divergence may vary depending on the genetic architecture of traits as well as the covariance between mating competition and local adaptation. Additionally, post-copulatory processes, such as selection against heterospecific sperm, may influence the importance of sexual selection in speciation. We propose that efforts to resolve these four themes can catalyze conceptual progress in the field of sexual selection, and we offer potential avenues of research to advance this progress.

Highlights

  • A great deal of the biodiversity on this planet, especially the spectacular traits at which humans marvel, are direct or indirect results of sexual selection

  • Our survey of emerging questions in sexual selection, while necessarily incomplete, shows that the field is on the cusp of a major revolution

  • What is needed are bold empirical attempts to understand the diverse molecular and ecological mechanisms that could modulate the outcomes of sexual selection and sexual conflict

Read more

Summary

Introduction

A great deal of the biodiversity on this planet, especially the spectacular traits at which humans marvel, are direct or indirect results of sexual selection. Darwin (1871) defined sexual selection as ‘‘the advantage which certain individuals have over other individuals of the same sex and species solely in respect of reproduction’’ (reproduction, in this context, meaning mating success). The flowers of an alpine meadow, antelope horns, a dawn chorus of songbirds: all are snapshots of long histories of sexually selected diversification and exaggeration of signals and displays that have or once had effects on mating or fertilization success. To explore biodiversity without an understanding of sexual selection is a bit like laying a jigsaw puzzle upside down. Darwin identified two components of sexual selection: contest competition between rivals of the same sex (typically males) and mate choice (typically by females). Conceptions of ornamental traits as quality advertisements (Williams, 1966; Zahavi, 1975) and how variation in such viability messages can be maintained (notably Hamilton & Zuk, 1982), together with edited volumes like Bateson (1983) and Bradbury & Andersson (1987), generated questions and research programs for decades to come

Objectives
Methods
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call