5 results
Contributors
-
- By Rony A. Adam, Gloria Bachmann, Nichole M. Barker, Randall B. Barnes, John Bennett, Inbar Ben-Shachar, Jonathan S. Berek, Sarah L. Berga, Monica W. Best, Eric J. Bieber, Frank M. Biro, Shan Biscette, Anita K. Blanchard, Candace Brown, Ronald T. Burkman, Joseph Buscema, John E. Buster, Michael Byas-Smith, Sandra Ann Carson, Judy C. Chang, Annie N. Y. Cheung, Mindy S. Christianson, Karishma Circelli, Daniel L. Clarke-Pearson, Larry J. Copeland, Bryan D. Cowan, Navneet Dhillon, Michael P. Diamond, Conception Diaz-Arrastia, Nicole M. Donnellan, Michael L. Eisenberg, Eric Eisenhauer, Sebastian Faro, J. Stuart Ferriss, Lisa C. Flowers, Susan J. Freeman, Leda Gattoc, Claudine Marie Gayle, Timothy M. Geiger, Jennifer S. Gell, Alan N. Gordon, Victoria L. Green, Jon K. Hathaway, Enrique Hernandez, S. Paige Hertweck, Randall S. Hines, Ira R. Horowitz, Fred M. Howard, William W. Hurd, Fidan Israfilbayli, Denise J. Jamieson, Carolyn R. Jaslow, Erika B. Johnston-MacAnanny, Rohna M. Kearney, Namita Khanna, Caroline C. King, Jeremy A. King, Ira J. Kodner, Tamara Kolev, Athena P. Kourtis, S. Robert Kovac, Ertug Kovanci, William H. Kutteh, Eduardo Lara-Torre, Pallavi Latthe, Herschel W. Lawson, Ronald L. Levine, Frank W. Ling, Larry I. Lipshultz, Steven D. McCarus, Robert McLellan, Shruti Malik, Suketu M. Mansuria, Mohamed K. Mehasseb, Pamela J. Murray, Saloney Nazeer, Farr R. Nezhat, Hextan Y. S. Ngan, Gina M. Northington, Peggy A. Norton, Ruth M. O'Regan, Kristiina Parviainen, Resad P. Pasic, Tanja Pejovic, K. Ulrich Petry, Nancy A. Phillips, Ashish Pradhan, Elizabeth E. Puscheck, Suneetha Rachaneni, Devon M. Ramaeker, David B. Redwine, Robert L. Reid, Carla P. Roberts, Walter Romano, Peter G. Rose, Robert L. Rosenfield, Shon P. Rowan, Mack T. Ruffin, Janice M. Rymer, Evis Sala, Ritu Salani, Joseph S. Sanfilippo, Mahmood I. Shafi, Roger P. Smith, Meredith L. Snook, Thomas E. Snyder, Mary D. Stephenson, Thomas G. Stovall, Richard L. Sweet, Philip M. Toozs-Hobson, Togas Tulandi, Elizabeth R. Unger, Denise S. Uyar, Marion S. Verp, Rahi Victory, Tamara J. Vokes, Michelle J. Washington, Katharine O'Connell White, Paul E. Wise, Frank M. Wittmaack, Miya P. Yamamoto, Christine Yu, Howard A. Zacur
- Edited by Eric J. Bieber, Joseph S. Sanfilippo, University of Pittsburgh, Ira R. Horowitz, Emory University, Atlanta, Mahmood I. Shafi
-
- Book:
- Clinical Gynecology
- Published online:
- 05 April 2015
- Print publication:
- 23 April 2015, pp viii-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Profile: Mating systems and genetic variation
-
- By Marion Petrie, Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, UK
- Edited by Tamás Székely, University of Bath, Allen J. Moore, University of Exeter, Jan Komdeur, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands
-
- Book:
- Social Behaviour
- Published online:
- 05 June 2012
- Print publication:
- 18 November 2010, pp 302-305
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
I can't remember a time when I wasn't interested in social behaviour, and I chose a biology degree course where animal behaviour was a key component. Sussex University was an exciting place to be as an undergraduate in the early 1970s when sociobiology was coming to the fore, and I was lucky enough to have John Maynard Smith as my personal tutor. John's enthusiasm for applying evolutionary principles to animal behaviour was an inspiration that I still value today. When I started doing a PhD on moorhens Gallinula chloropus the working title for my thesis was ‘the function of winter flocking in moorhens’ – why animals live in groups was a key issue in the 1970s. It was whilst watching flocks that I noticed birds fighting in front of potential mates. Moorhens cannot be sexed in the field so it was not immediately clear whether it was males fighting for females or vice versa, and I can remember still my surprise and delight when I came back home and looked up the birds' numbers and sizes to discover that it was the smaller females fighting in front of males. It became clear that they were fighting for access to a particular male, and I started to wonder what it was about this male that was worth fighting for.
Potential mechanisms of avian sex manipulation
- THOMAS W. PIKE, MARION PETRIE
-
- Journal:
- Biological Reviews / Volume 78 / Issue 4 / November 2003
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 11 November 2003, pp. 553-574
- Print publication:
- November 2003
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
The aim of this review is to consider the potential mechanisms birds may use to manipulate the sex of their progeny, and the possible role played by maternal hormones. Over the past few years there has been a surge of reports documenting the ability of birds to overcome the rigid process of chromosomal sex determination. However, while many of these studies leave us in little doubt that mechanisms allowing birds to achieve this feat do exist, we are only left with tantalizing suggestions as to what the precise mechanism or mechanisms may be. The quest to elucidate them is made no easier by the fact that a variety of environmental conditions have been invoked in relation to sex manipulation, and there is no reason to assume that any particular mechanism is conserved among the vast diversity of species that can achieve it. In fact, a number of intriguing proposals have been put forward. We begin by briefly reviewing some of the most recent examples of this phenomenon before highlighting some of the more plausible mechanisms, drawing on recent work from a variety of taxa. In birds, females are the heterogametic sex and so non-Mendelian segregation of the sex chromosomes could conceivably be under maternal control. Another suggestion is that follicles that ultimately give rise to males and females grow at different rates. Alternatively, the female might selectively abort embryos or ‘dump lay’ eggs of a particular sex, deny certain ova a chance of ovulation, fertilization or zygote formation, or selectively provision eggs so that there is sex-specific embryonic mortality. The ideas outlined in this review provide good starting points for testing the hypotheses both experimentally (behaviourally and physiologically) and theoretically.
Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits
- MICHAEL D. JENNIONS, MARION PETRIE
-
- Journal:
- Biological Reviews / Volume 75 / Issue 1 / February 2000
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 February 2000, pp. 21-64
- Print publication:
- February 2000
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
The aim of this review is to consider the potential benefits that females may gain from mating more than once in a single reproductive cycle. The relationship between non-genetic and genetic benefits is briefly explored. We suggest that multiple mating for purely non-genetic benefits is unlikely as it invariably leads to the possibility of genetic benefits as well. We begin by briefly reviewing the main models for genetic benefits to mate choice, and the supporting evidence that choice can increase offspring performance and the sexual attractiveness of sons. We then explain how multiple mating can elevate offspring fitness by increasing the number of potential sires that compete, when this occurs in conjunction with mechanisms of paternity biasing that function in copula or post-copulation. We begin by identifying cases where females use pre-copulatory cues to identify mates prior to remating. In the simplest case, females remate because they identify a superior mate and ‘trade up’ genetically. The main evidence for this process comes from extra-pair copulation in birds. Second, we note other cases where pre-copulatory cues may be less reliable and females mate with several males to promote post-copulatory mechanisms that bias paternity. Although a distinction is drawn between sperm competition and cryptic female choice, we point out that the genetic benefits to polyandry in terms of producing more viable or sexually attractive offspring do not depend on the exact mechanism that leads to biased paternity. Post-copulatory mechanisms of paternity biasing may: (1) reduce genetic incompatibility between male and female genetic contributions to offspring; (2) increase offspring viability if there is a positive correlation between traits favoured post-copulation and those that improve performance under natural selection; (3) increase the ability of sons to gain paternity when they mate with polyandrous females. A third possibility is that genetic diversity among offspring is directly favoured. This can be due to bet-hedging (due to mate assessment errors or temporal fluctuations in the environment), beneficial interactions between less related siblings or the opportunity to preferentially fertilise eggs with sperm of a specific genotype drawn from a range of stored sperm depending on prevailing environmental conditions. We use case studies from the social insects to provide some concrete examples of the role of genetic diversity among progeny in elevating fitness. We conclude that post-copulatory mechanisms provide a more reliable way of selecting a genetically compatible mate than pre-copulatory mate choice. Some of the best evidence for cryptic female choice by sperm selection is due to selection of more compatible sperm. Two future areas of research seem likely to be profitable. First, more experimental evidence is needed demonstrating that multiple mating increases offspring fitness via genetic gains. Second, the role of multiple mating in promoting assortative fertilization and increasing reproductive isolation between populations may help us to understand sympatric speciation.
VARIATION IN MATE CHOICE AND MATING PREFERENCES: A REVIEW OF CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES
- MICHAEL D. JENNIONS, MARION PETRIE
-
- Journal:
- Biological Reviews / Volume 72 / Issue 2 / May 1997
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 May 1997, pp. 283-327
- Print publication:
- May 1997
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
The aim of this review is to consider variation in mating preferences among females. We define mating preferences as the sensory and behavioural properties that influence the propensity of individuals to mate with certain phenotypes. Two properties of mating preferences can be distinguished: (1) ‘preference functions’ – the order with which an individual ranks prospective mates and (2) ‘choosiness’ – the effort an individual is prepared to invest in mate assessment. Patterns of mate choices can be altered by changing the costs of choosiness without altering the preference function. We discuss why it is important to study variation in female mating behaviour and identify five main areas of interest: Variation in mating preferences and costs of choosiness could (1) influence the rate and direction of evolution by sexual selection, (2) provide information about the evolutionary history of female preferences, (3) help explain inter-specific differences in the evolution of secondary sexual characteristics, (4) provide information about the level of benefits gained from mate choice, (5) provide information about the underlying mechanisms of mate choice. Variation in mate choice could be due to variability in preference functions, degree of choosiness, or both, and may arise due to genetic differences, developmental trajectories or proximate environmental factors. We review the evidence for genetic variation from genetic studies of heritability and also from data on the repeatability of mate-choice decisions (which can provide information about the upper limits to heritability). There can be problems in interpreting patterns of mate choice in terms of variation in mating preferences and we illustrate two main points. First, some factors can lead to mate choice patterns that mimic heritable variation in preferences and secondly other factors may obscure heritable preferences. These factors are divided into three overlapping classes, environmental, social and the effect of the female phenotype. The environmental factors discussed include predation risk and the costs of sampling; the social factors discussed include the effect of male–male interactions as well as female competition. We review the literature which presents data on how females sample males and discuss the number of cues females use. We conclude that sexual-selection studies have paid far less attention to variation among females than to variation among males, and that there is still much to learn about how females choose males and why different females make different choices. We suggest a number of possible lines for future research.