No evidence that experimental manipulation of sexual conflict drives premating reproductive isolation in Drosophila melanogaster
Article first published online: 16 MAR 2006
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
Volume 19, Issue 4, pages 1033–1039, July 2006
How to Cite
WIGBY, S. and CHAPMAN, T. (2006), No evidence that experimental manipulation of sexual conflict drives premating reproductive isolation in Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 19: 1033–1039. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01107.x
- Issue published online: 16 MAR 2006
- Article first published online: 16 MAR 2006
- Received 1 November 2005; revised 24 January 2006; accepted 27 January 2006
- 1993. Hidden preferences and the evolution of signals. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B 340: 207–213. &
- 1995. Conflict, receiver bias and the evolution of signal form. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B 349: 337–344. &
- 2000. Sexual conflict promotes speciation in insects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97: 10460–10464. , , &
- 2002. Antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415: 787–789. &
- 2005. Sexual Conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. &
- 1948. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2: 349–368.
- 2003. Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18: 41–47. , , &
- 1995. Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 373: 241–244. , , , &
- 1973. Rejection responses by female Drosophila melanogaster: their ontogeny, causality and effects upon the behaviour of the courting male. Behaviour 44: 142–167. &
- 1989. A cost of mating in female fruitflies. Nature 338: 760–761. &
- 2003. Fitness effects of female mate choice: preferred males are detrimental for Drosophila melanogaster females. J. Evol. Biol. 16: 797–811. &
- 2000. Rapid evolution of reproductive barriers driven by sexual conflict. Nature 403: 886–889.
- 2001. The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc. R. Soc. London B 268: 531–539. , &
- 2002. Sympatric speciation by sexual conflict. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99: 10533–10538. &
- 1998. Chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52: 1–7. &
- 1999. Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96: 5083–5088. &
- 1996. R: A language for data analysis and graphics. J. Comp. Graph. Stat. 5: 299–314. &
- 1999. Poisson distribution of male mating success in laboratory populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Genet. Res. 73: 239–249. , &
- 2001. Sexually antagonistic coevolution of a postmating-prezygotic reproductive character in desert Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 8692–8696. &
- 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78: 3721–3725.
- 2003a. Costs and benefits of evolving under experimentally enforced polyandry or monogamy. Evolution 57: 2765–2772. &
- 2003b. The evolution of reproductive isolation through sexual conflict. Nature 424: 979–982. &
- 2005. Sexy sons from re-mating do not recoup the direct costs of harmful male interactions in the Drosophila melanogaster laboratory model system. J. Evol. Biol. 18: 1315–1323. , &
- 1979. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects (M. S.Blum & N. A.Blum, eds), pp. 123–166. Academic Press, New York.
- 1998. Sexual conflict and speciation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B 353: 261–274. &
- 1987a. Male size and mating success in Drosophila melanogaster– the roles of male and female behavior. Anim. Behav. 35: 555–562. , &
- 1983. Lifetime mating success of male fruitflies (Drosophila melanogaster) is related to their size. Anim. Behav. 31: 871–877. &
- 1990. Nonmating costs of exposure to males in female Drosophila melanogaster. J. Insect Physiol. 36: 419–425. &
- 1987b. Male size and mating success in Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila pseudoobscura under field conditions. Anim. Behav. 35: 468–476. , &
- 2001. Evolution of female remating behaviour following experimental removal of sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268: 557–563. , &
- 1999. Cryptic female choice: frogs reduce clutch size when amplexed by undesired males. Proc. R. Soc. London B 266: 2101–2107. , &
- 1996. Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 381: 232–234.
- 1998. Intergenomic conflict, interlocus antagonistic coevolution and the evolution of reproductive isolation. In: Endless Forms Species and Speciation (D. J.Howard & S. H.Berlocher, eds), pp. 261–270. Oxford University Press, UK.
- 2002. Sexually antagonistic coevolution in a mating system: combining experimental and comparative approaches to address evolutionary processes. Evolution 56: 754–767. &
- 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52: 591–611. &
- 1984. The effect of inbreeding on competitive male mating ability in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 106: 601–612.
- 2005. Assessing putative interlocus sexual conflict in Drosophila melanogaster using experimental evolution. Proc. R. Soc. London B 272: 2029–12035. , &
- 2000. The evolution of courtship rituals in monogamous species. Behav. Ecol. 11: 405–410. &
- 2004. Female resistance to male harm evolves in response to manipulation of sexual conflict. Evolution 58: 1028–1037. &
- 2005. Sex peptide causes mating costs in female Drosophila melanogaster. Curr. Biol. 15: 316–321. &
- 1938. Size of population and breeding structure in relation to evolution. Science 87: 430–431.
- 1999. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall, NJ, USA.