Cargando…

Female‐specific resource limitation does not make the opportunity for selection more female biased

Competition for limiting resources and stress can magnify variance in fitness and therefore selection. But even in a common environment, the strength of selection can differ across the sexes, as their fitness is often limited by different factors. Indeed, most taxa show stronger selection in males,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Martinossi‐Allibert, Ivain, Liljestrand Rönn, Johanna, Immonen, Elina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7821317/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33043452
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/evo.14106
_version_ 1783639397586960384
author Martinossi‐Allibert, Ivain
Liljestrand Rönn, Johanna
Immonen, Elina
author_facet Martinossi‐Allibert, Ivain
Liljestrand Rönn, Johanna
Immonen, Elina
author_sort Martinossi‐Allibert, Ivain
collection PubMed
description Competition for limiting resources and stress can magnify variance in fitness and therefore selection. But even in a common environment, the strength of selection can differ across the sexes, as their fitness is often limited by different factors. Indeed, most taxa show stronger selection in males, a bias often ascribed to intense competition for access to mating partners. This sex bias could reverberate on many aspects of evolution, from speed of adaptation to genome evolution. It is unclear, however, whether stronger opportunity for selection in males is a pattern robust to sex‐specific stress or resource limitation. We test this in the model species Callosobruchus maculatus by comparing female and male opportunity for selection (i) with and without limitation of quality oviposition sites, and (ii) under delayed age at oviposition. Decreasing the abundance of the resource key to females or increasing their reproductive age was challenging, as shown by a reduction in mean fitness, but opportunity for selection remained stronger in males across all treatments, and even more so when oviposition sites were limiting. This suggests that males remain the more variable sex independent of context, and that the opportunity for selection through males is indirectly affected by female‐specific resource limitation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7821317
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78213172021-01-29 Female‐specific resource limitation does not make the opportunity for selection more female biased Martinossi‐Allibert, Ivain Liljestrand Rönn, Johanna Immonen, Elina Evolution Original Articles Competition for limiting resources and stress can magnify variance in fitness and therefore selection. But even in a common environment, the strength of selection can differ across the sexes, as their fitness is often limited by different factors. Indeed, most taxa show stronger selection in males, a bias often ascribed to intense competition for access to mating partners. This sex bias could reverberate on many aspects of evolution, from speed of adaptation to genome evolution. It is unclear, however, whether stronger opportunity for selection in males is a pattern robust to sex‐specific stress or resource limitation. We test this in the model species Callosobruchus maculatus by comparing female and male opportunity for selection (i) with and without limitation of quality oviposition sites, and (ii) under delayed age at oviposition. Decreasing the abundance of the resource key to females or increasing their reproductive age was challenging, as shown by a reduction in mean fitness, but opportunity for selection remained stronger in males across all treatments, and even more so when oviposition sites were limiting. This suggests that males remain the more variable sex independent of context, and that the opportunity for selection through males is indirectly affected by female‐specific resource limitation. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-10-20 2020-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7821317/ /pubmed/33043452 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/evo.14106 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Evolution © 2020 The Society for the Study of Evolution. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Martinossi‐Allibert, Ivain
Liljestrand Rönn, Johanna
Immonen, Elina
Female‐specific resource limitation does not make the opportunity for selection more female biased
title Female‐specific resource limitation does not make the opportunity for selection more female biased
title_full Female‐specific resource limitation does not make the opportunity for selection more female biased
title_fullStr Female‐specific resource limitation does not make the opportunity for selection more female biased
title_full_unstemmed Female‐specific resource limitation does not make the opportunity for selection more female biased
title_short Female‐specific resource limitation does not make the opportunity for selection more female biased
title_sort female‐specific resource limitation does not make the opportunity for selection more female biased
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7821317/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33043452
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/evo.14106
work_keys_str_mv AT martinossiallibertivain femalespecificresourcelimitationdoesnotmaketheopportunityforselectionmorefemalebiased
AT liljestrandronnjohanna femalespecificresourcelimitationdoesnotmaketheopportunityforselectionmorefemalebiased
AT immonenelina femalespecificresourcelimitationdoesnotmaketheopportunityforselectionmorefemalebiased