The intersexual genetic correlation for lifetime fitness in the wild and its implications for sexual selection.
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.
Brommer
Jon E
JE
Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. jon.brommer@helsinki.fi
Kirkpatrick
Mark
M
Qvarnström
Anna
A
Gustafsson
Lars
L
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
Genetics. 2006 Aug;173(4):2091-101
16783017
Evolution. 2003 Feb;57(2):406-20
12683536
Evolution. 2004 Apr;58(4):683-91
15154544
PLoS Biol. 2006 Nov;4(11):e356
17105343
Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Mar 7;269(1490):499-505
11886642
Am Nat. 2000 Mar;155(3):301-310
10718727
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Feb 18;94(4):1282-6
9037044
J Theor Biol. 1975 Sep;53(1):205-14
1195756
Anim Behav. 1999 Feb;57(2):285-298
10049467
Mol Ecol. 2005 Aug;14(9):2839-50
16029482
Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Mar 22;270(1515):653-64
12769467
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Feb 13;98(4):1671-5
11172009
Am Nat. 2004 Sep;164(3):E62-72
15478083
Nature. 2006 May 4;441(7089):84-6
16672970
Nature. 2007 Jun 28;447(7148):1107-10
17597758
Mol Ecol. 2002 Nov;11(11):2195-212
12406233
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Nov 21;97(24):12953-5
11087851
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Apr 27;96(9):5083-8
10220422