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,...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |