Abstract

Sexual selection is a key component of evolutionary biology. However, from the very formulation of sexual selection by Darwin, the nature and extent of sexual selection have been controversial. Recently, such controversy has led back to the fundamental question of just what sexual selection is. This has included how we incorporate female-female reproductive competition into sexual or natural selection. In this review, we do four things. First, we examine what we want a definition to do. Second, we define sexual selection: sexual selection is any selection that arises from fitness differences associated with nonrandom success in the competition for access to gametes for fertilization. An important outcome of this is that as mates often also offer access to resources, when those resources are the targets of the competition, rather than their gametes, the process should be considered natural rather than sexual selection. We believe this definition encapsulates both much of Darwin’s original thinking about sexual selection, and much of how contemporary biologists use the concept of sexual selection. Third, we address alternative definitions, focusing in some detail on the role of female reproductive competition. Fourth, we challenge our definition with a number of scenarios, for instance where natural and sexual selection may align (as in some forms of endurance rivalry), or where differential allocation means teasing apart how fecundity and access to gametes influence fitness. In conclusion, we emphasize that whilst the ecological realities of sexual selection are likely to be complex, the definition of sexual selection is rather simple.

Highlights

  • The very notion of sexual selection itself proved less acceptable to early evolutionary biologists than natural selection, no doubt in part due to social attitudes at the time

  • We suggest that components of “natural selection” are about being able to enter and remain in the fertilization game, where competition for access to mates and their gametes occurs, and that “sexual selection” is about how well you succeed in that game when compared with other same-sex contestants

  • We have presented a definition of sexual selection and sought to put that definition into context

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

An attempt to divorce sexual selection from the notion of competition was part of the critique of sexual selection put forward by Roughgarden et al (2006) Those authors wanted to view interactions between individuals in terms of reproduction as cooperative, with males and females working together as a “team.” cooperation – like selfishness – is just another strategy by which organisms may increase their genetic representation in the generation, at the expense of others. This might seem a reasonable proposition, but Darwin mentioned sexual selection in terms of traits that natural selection did not appear to favor (Darwin 1871, for example pp 278-279) This opposition to natural selection is still often emphasized, for instance when natural selection halts the exaggeration of sexually selected ornaments in models of mate choice (Lande 1981; Andersson 1994).

A DEFINITION OF SEXUAL SELECTION
CONCLUSIONS
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