title: The intersexual genetic correlation for lifetime fitness in the wild and its implications for sexual selection.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The genetic benefits of mate choice are limited by the degree to which male and female fitness are genetically correlated. If the intersexual correlation for fitness is small or negative, choosing a highly fit mate does not necessarily result in high fitness offspring.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Using an animal-model approach on data from a pedigreed population of over 7,000 collared flycatchers (Ficedula albicollis), we estimate the intersexual genetic correlation in Lifetime Reproductive Success (LRS) in a natural population to be negative in sign (-0.85+/-0.6). Simulations show this estimate to be robust in sign to the effects of extra-pair parentage. The genetic benefits in this population are further limited by a low level of genetic variation for fitness in males.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The potential for indirect sexual selection is nullified by sexual antagonistic fitness effects in this natural population. Our findings and the scarce evidence from other studies suggest that the intersexual genetic correlation for lifetime fitness may be very low in nature. We argue that this form of conflict can, in general, both constrain and maintain sexual selection, depending on the sex-specific additive genetic variances in lifetime fitness.
authors: Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. jon.brommer@helsinki.fi
authors: Jon E
authors: JE
authors: Brommer
authors: Mark
authors: M
authors: Kirkpatrick
authors: Anna
authors: A
authors: Qvarnström
authors: Lars
authors: L
authors: Gustafsson
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D005260:Female; D056084:Genetic Fitness; D008297:Male; D052586:Mating Preference, Animal / Q000502:physiology*; D008957:Models, Genetic; D012098:Reproduction / Q000235:genetics; D012641:Selection, Genetic; D020308:Songbirds / Q000235:genetics* / Q000502:physiology
references: Genetics. 2006 Aug;173(4):2091-101
references: 16783017
references: Evolution. 2003 Feb;57(2):406-20
references: 12683536
references: Evolution. 2004 Apr;58(4):683-91
references: 15154544
references: PLoS Biol. 2006 Nov;4(11):e356
references: 17105343
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Mar 7;269(1490):499-505
references: 11886642
references: Am Nat. 2000 Mar;155(3):301-310
references: 10718727
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Feb 18;94(4):1282-6
references: 9037044
references: J Theor Biol. 1975 Sep;53(1):205-14
references: 1195756
references: Anim Behav. 1999 Feb;57(2):285-298
references: 10049467
references: Mol Ecol. 2005 Aug;14(9):2839-50
references: 16029482
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Mar 22;270(1515):653-64
references: 12769467
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Feb 13;98(4):1671-5
references: 11172009
references: Am Nat. 2004 Sep;164(3):E62-72
references: 15478083
references: Nature. 2006 May 4;441(7089):84-6
references: 16672970
references: Nature. 2007 Jun 28;447(7148):1107-10
references: 17597758
references: Mol Ecol. 2002 Nov;11(11):2195-212
references: 12406233
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Nov 21;97(24):12953-5
references: 11087851
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Apr 27;96(9):5083-8
references: 10220422