Forced Matings in Natural Populations of Drosophila
2000; University of Chicago Press; Volume: 156; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.2307/3079035
ISSN1537-5323
Autores Tópico(s)Insect behavior and control techniques
ResumoPrevious article No AccessNotes and CommentsForced Matings in Natural Populations of DrosophilaTherese Ann Markow and Associate Editor: Michael J. WadeTherese Ann MarkowDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721*E‐mail: [email protected]. Search for more articles by this author and Associate Editor: Michael J. Wade Search for more articles by this author Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The American Naturalist Volume 156, Number 1July 2000 Published for The American Society of Naturalists Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/303368 Views: 181Total views on this site Citations: 61Citations are reported from Crossref HistoryReceived May 17, 1999Accepted February 9, 2000 Keywordsfemale choicesexual selectionforced matingDrosophilanatural populations© 2000 by The University of Chicago. PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Chen Zhang, Anmo J. Kim, Crisalesandra Rivera-Perez, Fernando G. Noriega, Young-Joon Kim The insect somatostatin pathway gates vitellogenesis progression during reproductive maturation and the post-mating response, Nature Communications 13, no.11 (Feb 2022).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28592-2Tomomi Karigo, David Deutsch Flexibility of neural circuits regulating mating behaviors in mice and flies, Frontiers in Neural Circuits 16 (Nov 2022).https://doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2022.949781Sabine Nöbel, Magdalena Monier, Laura Fargeot, Guillaume Lespagnol, Etienne Danchin, Guillaume Isabel, Michael D Jennions Female fruit flies copy the acceptance, but not the rejection, of a mate, Behavioral Ecology 51 (Aug 2022).https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arac071David C S Filice, Reuven Dukas, Marie Herberstein Previous inter-sexual aggression increases female mating propensity in fruit flies, Behavioral Ecology 60 (Jun 2022).https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arac054Andrew M. Scott, Janice L. Yan, Carling M. Baxter, Ian Dworkin, Reuven Dukas The genetic basis of variation in sexual aggression: Evolution versus social plasticity, Molecular Ecology 31, no.1010 (Mar 2022): 2865–2881.https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.16437Bruna O. Cassettari, Glauco Machado Pre-copulatory and copulatory courtship in male-dimorphic arthropods, (Jan 2022): 129–186.https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.asb.2022.01.002Julia A. Kunz, Guilhem J. Duvot, Erik P. Willems, Julia Stickelberger, Brigitte Spillmann, Sri Suci Utami Atmoko, Maria A. van Noordwijk, Carel P. van Schaik The context of sexual coercion in orang-utans: when do male and female mating interests collide?, Animal Behaviour 182 (Dec 2021): 67–90.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.09.012Sabina Avosani, Pietro Franceschi, Marco Ciolli, Vincenzo Verrastro, Valerio Mazzoni Vibrational playbacks and microscopy to study the signalling behaviour and female physiology of Philaenusspumarius, Journal of Applied Entomology 145, no.66 (Mar 2021): 518–529.https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.12874Reuven Dukas Natural history of social and sexual behavior in fruit flies, Scientific Reports 10, no.11 (Dec 2020).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79075-7Reuven Dukas, Janice L. Yan, Andrew M. Scott, Surabhi Sivaratnam, Carling M. Baxter Artificial selection on sexual aggression: Correlated traits and possible trade‐offs, Evolution 74, no.66 (May 2020): 1112–1123.https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.13993Kentarou Matsumura, Masato S Abe, Manmohan D Sharma, David J Hosken, Taishi Yoshii, Takahisa Miyatake Genetic variation and phenotypic plasticity in circadian rhythms in an armed beetle, Gnatocerus cornutus (Tenebrionidae), Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 130, no.11 (Mar 2020): 34–40.https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blaa016Carling M. Baxter, Janice L. Yan, Reuven Dukas Genetic variation in sexual aggression and the factors that determine forced copulation success, Animal Behaviour 158 (Dec 2019): 261–267.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.09.015Lisha Shao, Phuong Chung, Allan Wong, Igor Siwanowicz, Clement F. Kent, Xi Long, Ulrike Heberlein A Neural Circuit Encoding the Experience of Copulation in Female Drosophila, Neuron 102, no.55 (Jun 2019): 1025–1036.e6.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.04.009Mukesh K. Dhillon, Aditya K. Tanwar, Fazil Hasan Fitness consequences of delayed mating on reproductive performance of Chilo partellus (Swinhoe), Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological and Integrative Physiology 331, no.33 (Dec 2018): 161–167.https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.2249Patricia A. Gowaty Rape, Forced and Aggressively Coerced Copulation, (Jan 2019): 447–452.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809633-8.20805-4Jean-Christophe Billeter, Mariana F. Wolfner Chemical Cues that Guide Female Reproduction in Drosophila melanogaster, Journal of Chemical Ecology 44, no.99 (Mar 2018): 750–769.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-018-0947-zBalint Z. Kacsoh, Julianna Bozler, Giovanni Bosco, Daniela C Zarnescu Drosophila species learn dialects through communal living, PLOS Genetics 14, no.77 (Jul 2018): e1007430.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007430Carling M. Baxter, Reuven Dukas Life history of aggression: effects of age and sexual experience on male aggression towards males and females, Animal Behaviour 123 (Jan 2017): 11–20.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.10.022M. Daniela Biaggio, Iara Sandomirsky, Yael Lubin, Ally R. Harari, Maydianne C. B. Andrade Copulation with immature females increases male fitness in cannibalistic widow spiders, Biology Letters 12, no.99 (Sep 2016): 20160516.https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0516Yong-Kyu Kim A Drosophila Model for Aggression, (Aug 2016): 35–61.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3777-6_2Gabriele Uhl, Stefanie M. Zimmer, Dirk Renner, Jutta M. Schneider Exploiting a moment of weakness: male spiders escape sexual cannibalism by copulating with moulting females, Scientific Reports 5, no.11 (Nov 2015).https://doi.org/10.1038/srep16928Santosh Jagadeeshan, Wilfried Haerty, Monika Moglinicka, Abha Ahuja, Scot De Vito, Rama S. Singh Evolutionary Consequences of Male Driven Sexual Selection and Sex-Biased Fitness Modifications in Drosophila melanogaster and Members of the simulans Clade, International Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2015 (Sep 2015): 1–12.https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/756269Alex T. Kalinka How did viviparity originate and evolve? Of conflict, co-option, and cryptic choice, BioEssays 37, no.77 (Apr 2015): 721–731.https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201400200Therese Ann Markow The secret lives of Drosophila flies, eLife 4 (Jun 2015).https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.06793Santosh Revadi, Sébastien Lebreton, Peter Witzgall, Gianfranco Anfora, Teun Dekker, Paul Becher Sexual Behavior of Drosophila suzukii, Insects 6, no.11 (Mar 2015): 183–196.https://doi.org/10.3390/insects6010183Christopher J. Austin, Christopher G. Guglielmo, Amanda J. Moehring A direct test of the effects of changing atmospheric pressure on the mating behavior of Drosophila melanogaster, Evolutionary Ecology 28, no.33 (Jan 2014): 535–544.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-014-9689-8Alison Pischedda, Michael P. Shahandeh, Wesley G. Cochrane, Veronica A. Cochrane, Thomas L. Turner, William J. Etges Natural Variation in the Strength and Direction of Male Mating Preferences for Female Pheromones in Drosophila melanogaster, PLoS ONE 9, no.11 (Jan 2014): e87509.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087509Patricia Adair Gowaty Adaptively flexible polyandry, Animal Behaviour 86, no.55 (Nov 2013): 877–884.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.08.015Reuven Dukas, Katherine Jongsma Effects of forced copulations on female sexual attractiveness in fruit flies, Animal Behaviour 84, no.66 (Dec 2012): 1501–1505.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.09.023Reuven Dukas, Katherine Jongsma Costs to females and benefits to males from forced copulations in fruit flies, Animal Behaviour 84, no.55 (Nov 2012): 1177–1182.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.08.021Sandra L. Schnakenberg, Mark L. Siegal, Margaret C. Bloch Qazi Oh, the places they’ll go, Spermatogenesis 2, no.33 (Oct 2014): 224–235.https://doi.org/10.4161/spmg.21655MANMOHAN D. SHARMA, ROBERT M. GRIFFIN, JACK HOLLIS, TOM TREGENZA, DAVID J. HOSKEN Reinvestigating good genes benefits of mate choice in Drosophila simulans, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 106, no.22 (Mar 2012): 295–306.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2012.01883.xAndré L. Klein, Mariana C. Trillo, Maria J. Albo Sexual receptivity varies according to female age in a Neotropical nuptial gift-giving spider, Journal of Arachnology 40, no.11 (Apr 2012): 138–140.https://doi.org/10.1636/H11-31.1Corrine Seeley, Reuven Dukas Teneral matings in fruit flies: male coercion and female response, Animal Behaviour 81, no.33 (Mar 2011): 595–601.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.12.003Tristan A. F. Long, Alison Pischedda, William R. Rice REMATING IN DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER: ARE INDIRECT BENEFITS CONDITION DEPENDENT?, Evolution 64, no.99 (Sep 2010): 2767–2774.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.00997.xPatricia Adair Gowaty, Yong-Kyu Kim, Jessica Rawlings, W. W. Anderson Polyandry increases offspring viability and mother productivity but does not decrease mother survival in Drosophila pseudoobscura, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, no.3131 (Jul 2010): 13771–13776.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1006174107T. A. F. LONG, A. PISCHEDDA, R. V. NICHOLS, W. R. RICE The timing of mating influences reproductive success in Drosophila melanogaster : implications for sexual conflict, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 23, no.55 (May 2010): 1024–1032.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.01973.xJulianna L. Johns, J. Andrew Roberts, David L. Clark, George W. Uetz Love bites: male fang use during coercive mating in wolf spiders, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 64, no.11 (Jul 2009): 13–18.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-009-0812-8Yong-Kyu Kim Sexual Selection and Aggressive Behavior in Drosophila, (Jan 2009): 317–330.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-76727-7_22T. A. Markow, P. O’Grady Reproductive ecology of Drosophila, Functional Ecology 22, no.55 (Oct 2008): 747–759.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01457.xBrian F. Snyder, Patricia Adair Gowaty A REAPPRAISAL OF BATEMAN'S CLASSIC STUDY OF INTRASEXUAL SELECTION, Evolution 61, no.1111 (Nov 2007): 2457–2468.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00212.xPatricia Adair Gowaty, Wyatt W. Anderson, Cynthia K. Bluhm, Lee C. Drickamer, Yong-Kyu Kim, Allen J. Moore The hypothesis of reproductive compensation and its assumptions about mate preferences and offspring viability, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, no.3838 (Sep 2007): 15023–15027.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706622104Alexei A. Maklakov, Natacha Kremer, Göran Arnqvist The effects of age at mating on female life-history traits in a seed beetle, Behavioral Ecology 18, no.33 (Mar 2007): 551–555.https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arm016Göran Arnqvist Sensory exploitation and sexual conflict, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 361, no.14661466 (Jan 2006): 375–386.https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1790Therese A. Markow, Patrick M. O'Grady How to use ecological and life history information to rear flies, (Jan 2006): 200–214.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012473052-6/50008-1Judy Stamps, Marybeth Buechner, Katie Alexander, Jeremy Davis, Nicole Zuniga Genotypic differences in space use and movement patterns in Drosophila melanogaster, Animal Behaviour 70, no.33 (Sep 2005): 609–618.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.11.018Reuven Dukas Experience improves courtship in male fruit flies, Animal Behaviour 69, no.55 (May 2005): 1203–1209.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.08.012Hanna Kokko Treat ’em Mean, Keep ’em (sometimes) Keen: Evolution of Female Preferences for Dominant and Coercive Males, Evolutionary Ecology 19, no.22 (Mar 2005): 123–135.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-004-7919-1EDWARD PFEILER, NANCY M. NGO, THERESE A. MARKOW Linking behavioral ecology with population genetics: insights from Drosophila nigrospiracula, Hereditas 142, no.20052005 (Mar 2006): 1–6.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-5223.2005.01900.xGerhard Schöfl, Christian Schlötterer Patterns of Microsatellite Variability Among X Chromosomes and Autosomes Indicate a High Frequency of Beneficial Mutations in Non-African D. simulans, Molecular Biology and Evolution 21, no.77 (Jul 2004): 1384–1390.https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msh132William D. Brown, Adam Bjork, Karin Schneider, Scott Pitnick NO EVIDENCE THAT POLYANDRY BENEFITS FEMALES IN DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER, Evolution 58, no.66 (Jun 2004): 1242–1250.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb01703.xWilliam D. Brown, Adam Bjork, Karin Schneider, Scott Pitnick NO EVIDENCE THAT POLYANDRY BENEFITS FEMALES IN DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER, Evolution 58, no.66 (Jan 2004): 1242.https://doi.org/10.1554/03-382Patricia Adair Gowaty, Rebecca Steinichen, Wyatt W. Anderson INDISCRIMINATE FEMALES AND CHOOSY MALES: WITHIN‐ AND BETWEEN‐SPECIES VARIATION IN DROSOPHILA, Evolution 57, no.99 (May 2007): 2037–2045.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00383.xC. Cordero, W. G. Eberhard Female choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptations: a critical review of some current research, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 16, no.11 (Jan 2003): 1–6.https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00506.xPatricia Adair Gowaty, Rebecca Steinichen, Wyatt W. Anderson INDISCRIMINATE FEMALES AND CHOOSY MALES: WITHIN- AND BETWEEN-SPECIES VARIATION IN DROSOPHILA, Evolution 57, no.99 (Jan 2003): 2037.https://doi.org/10.1554/03-163Derek W. Dunn, Caroline S. Crean, André s. Gilburn The effects of exposure to seaweed on willingness to mate, oviposition, and longevity in seaweed flies, Ecological Entomology 27, no.55 (Sep 2002): 554–564.https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2311.2002.00445.xTherese Ann Markow PERSPECTIVE: FEMALE REMATING, OPERATIONAL SEX RATIO, AND THE ARENA OF SEXUAL SELECTION IN DROSOPHILA SPECIES, Evolution 56, no.99 (Sep 2002): 1725–1734.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb00186.xRhonda R. Snook, Therese Ann Markow Efficiency of gamete usage in nature: sperm storage, fertilization and polyspermy, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 269, no.14901490 (Mar 2002): 467–473.https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1854Christine R. B. Boake Sexual signaling and speciation, a microevolutionary perspective, (Jan 2002): 205–214.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0265-3_6Therese Ann Markow PERSPECTIVE: FEMALE REMATING, OPERATIONAL SEX RATIO, AND THE ARENA OF SEXUAL SELECTION IN DROSOPHILA SPECIES, Evolution 56, no.99 (Jan 2002): 1725.https://doi.org/10.1554/0014-3820(2002)056[1725:PFROSR]2.0.CO;2Scott Pitnick, William D. Brown, Gary T. Miller Evolution of female remating behaviour following experimental removal of sexual selection, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 268, no.14671467 (Mar 2001): 557–563.https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1400
Referência(s)