Remating in Drosophila melanogaster: are indirect benefits condition dependent?
By measuring the direct and indirect fitness costs and benefits of sexual interactions, the feasibility of alternate explanations for polyandry can be experimentally assessed. This approach becomes more complicated when the relative magnitude of the costs and/or benefits associated with multiple mating (i.e., remating with different males) vary with female condition, as this may influence the strength and direction of sexual selection. Here, using the model organism Drosophila melanogaster, we test whether the indirect benefits that a nonvirgin female gains by remating (“trading-up”) are influenced by her condition (body size). We found that remating by small-bodied, low-fecundity females resulted in the production of daughters of relatively higher fecundity, whereas the opposite pattern was observed for large-bodied females. In contrast, remating had no measurable effect on the relative reproductive success of sons from dams of either body size. These results are consistent with a hypothesis based on sexually antagonistic genetic variation. The implications of these results to our understanding of the evolution and consequences of polyandry are discussed.
Long
Tristan A F
TA
Department of Ecology, Evolution & Marine Biology, Life Sciences Building, University of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA. tristan.long@utoronto.ca
Pischedda
Alison
A
Rice
William R
WR
D000818:Animals; D049628:Body Size; D004331:Drosophila melanogaster / Q000033:anatomy & histology / Q000502:physiology*; D005260:Female; D008297:Male; D012726:Sexual Behavior, Animal
Curr Biol. 2009 May 12;19(9):751-7
19361995
J Evol Biol. 2001 Jan 8;14(1):186-193
29280574
BMC Evol Biol. 2007 Mar 09;7:36
17349042
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Nov 21;97(24):13162-5
11078508
Am Nat. 2000 Jul;156(1):100-103
10824025
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1997 May;72(2):283-327
9155244
Nature. 1996 Jun 6;381(6582):529-31
8632827
PLoS Biol. 2009 Dec;7(12):e1000254
19997646
Am Nat. 2005 May;165 Suppl 5:S5-18
15795862
PLoS Biol. 2006 Nov;4(11):e356
17105343
Hereditas. 2000;132(3):243-7
11075519
Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Mar 7;269(1490):499-505
11886642
Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Apr 22;273(1589):917-22
16627276
J Evol Biol. 2009 Mar;22(3):637-43
19210593
Evolution. 1984 Jul;38(4):735-742
28555827
Evolution. 2005 Sep;59(9):1876-85
16261726
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2000 Feb;75(1):21-64
10740892
Evolution. 2008 Dec;62(12):3170-7
18786187
Evolution. 1998 Oct;52(5):1334-1341
28565391
Biol Lett. 2009 Dec 23;5(6):795-7
19625301
Nature. 1995 Jan 19;373(6511):241-4
7816137
Fly (Austin). 2009 Apr-Jun;3(2):118-20
19242110
Ecology. 2008 Jan;89(1):56-64
18376547
Biol Lett. 2009 Oct 23;5(5):671-4
19574282
Trends Ecol Evol. 1999 Jan;14(1):26-31
10234244
Evolution. 2005 Jul;59(7):1540-51
16153039
Biol Lett. 2007 Dec 22;3(6):607-10
17711815
Heredity (Edinb). 1948 Dec;2(Pt. 3):349-68
18103134
Evolution. 2006 Jan;60(1):97-105
16568635
PLoS Biol. 2005 Feb;3(2):e33
15678167
J Evol Biol. 2005 Sep;18(5):1315-23
16135126
Evolution. 2005 Dec;59(12):2608-15
16526508
J Evol Biol. 2006 Nov;19(6):1795-802
17040376
Genetics. 1965 Jul;52(1):165-89
17248268
J Evol Biol. 2008 Nov;21(6):1808-13
18681915
Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Oct 7;272(1576):2029-35
16191613
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2006 Feb 28;361(1466):287-99
16612888
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Feb 13;98(4):1671-5
11172009
Mol Ecol. 1998 Jul;7(7):915-7
9691492
Evolution. 1998 Dec;52(6):1726-1730
28565303
Evolution. 1998 Feb;52(1):1-7
28568154
BMC Ecol. 2004 Apr 29;4:5
15117410
Anim Behav. 2000 Aug;60(2):145-164
10973716
Am Nat. 2008 Jan;171(1):10-21
18171147
J Evol Biol. 2005 May;18(3):568-75
15842486
Curr Biol. 2006 Sep 5;16(17):R755-65
16950102