A male-biased sex ratio increases the opportunity for precopulatory sexual selection but does not change the Bateman gradient.

IF 3.4 1区 生物学 Q2 EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
Evolution Letters Pub Date : 2025-02-14 eCollection Date: 2025-06-01 DOI:10.1093/evlett/qraf001
Grant C McDonald, Danielle Edmunds, Juliano Morimoto, Stuart Wigby, Jennifer C Perry
{"title":"A male-biased sex ratio increases the opportunity for precopulatory sexual selection but does not change the Bateman gradient.","authors":"Grant C McDonald, Danielle Edmunds, Juliano Morimoto, Stuart Wigby, Jennifer C Perry","doi":"10.1093/evlett/qraf001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Theory predicts that the sex ratio within populations should influence the strength of sexual selection, and sex ratio is often used as a proxy for sexual selection. However, recent studies challenge this relationship. We manipulated adult sex ratios in <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i> to comprehensively investigate the relationship between sex ratio and sexual selection. Consistent with theory, we found stronger sexual selection in males than females and an increased variance in male reproductive success (the opportunity for selection) in male-biased sex ratios. In addition, males faced more intense sperm competition in male-biased sex ratios, although the structure of sexual networks was largely invariant to sex ratio. Despite this, we show that sex ratios did not influence sexual selection in males as measured by the Bateman gradient. We leverage randomized null models to reconcile these results and show that the higher male reproductive variance in male-biased sex ratios may be explained by random chance in mating, rather than competitive mechanisms. Our findings indicate that caution is warranted over the long-standing assumption that sex ratio bias is a good proxy for the strength of sexual selection.</p>","PeriodicalId":48629,"journal":{"name":"Evolution Letters","volume":"9 3","pages":"324-334"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12137052/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evolution Letters","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/evlett/qraf001","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Theory predicts that the sex ratio within populations should influence the strength of sexual selection, and sex ratio is often used as a proxy for sexual selection. However, recent studies challenge this relationship. We manipulated adult sex ratios in Drosophila melanogaster to comprehensively investigate the relationship between sex ratio and sexual selection. Consistent with theory, we found stronger sexual selection in males than females and an increased variance in male reproductive success (the opportunity for selection) in male-biased sex ratios. In addition, males faced more intense sperm competition in male-biased sex ratios, although the structure of sexual networks was largely invariant to sex ratio. Despite this, we show that sex ratios did not influence sexual selection in males as measured by the Bateman gradient. We leverage randomized null models to reconcile these results and show that the higher male reproductive variance in male-biased sex ratios may be explained by random chance in mating, rather than competitive mechanisms. Our findings indicate that caution is warranted over the long-standing assumption that sex ratio bias is a good proxy for the strength of sexual selection.

男性偏好的性别比例增加了交配前性选择的机会,但不会改变贝特曼梯度。
理论预测,种群内的性别比应该影响性选择的强度,而性别比通常被用作性选择的代表。然而,最近的研究对这种关系提出了质疑。通过对黑腹果蝇成虫性别比的操纵,全面探讨了性别比与性选择之间的关系。与理论一致,我们发现男性比女性有更强的性选择,在男性偏向的性别比例中,男性生殖成功率(选择机会)的差异增加。此外,尽管性网络的结构在很大程度上与性别比例保持不变,但在男性偏向的性别比例中,男性面临着更激烈的精子竞争。尽管如此,我们通过贝特曼梯度表明性别比例并不影响男性的性选择。我们利用随机零模型来调和这些结果,并表明在男性偏倚的性别比例中,较高的男性生殖差异可能是由交配的随机机会而不是竞争机制来解释的。我们的研究结果表明,长期以来的假设是性别比例偏差是性选择强度的一个很好的代表,但我们需要谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evolution Letters
Evolution Letters EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY-
CiteScore
13.00
自引率
2.00%
发文量
35
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Evolution Letters publishes cutting-edge new research in all areas of Evolutionary Biology. Available exclusively online, and entirely open access, Evolution Letters consists of Letters - original pieces of research which form the bulk of papers - and Comments and Opinion - a forum for highlighting timely new research ideas for the evolutionary community.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信