Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Female Influences on Male Reproductive Success

  • Chapter
Feminism and Evolutionary Biology

Abstract

Natural selection occurs when individuals compete for access to a resource that affects their fitness, and it acts on heritable traits related to competitive ability. Sexual selection can be regarded as a component of natural selection in which the fitness-affecting resource is mates or, more accurately, their gametes, and the fitness component of interest is reproductive success, RS (Willson, 1990). Sexual selection usually involves direct or indirect competition for mates, and there are two main factors that determine the outcome of this competition: the relative abilities of the competitors, and interactions between them and the mates for which they compete. In cases in which female gametes are the limiting resource, sexual selection is often conceptually divided into two separate processes, male-male competition (intrasexual selection), the outcome of which is determined solely by male traits, and female choice (epigamic or intersexual selection), the outcome of which involves an interaction between male and female traits. However, as interest in sexual selection increases, and new ways in which females affect the distribution of male RS are examined, the boundaries of this traditional dichotomy begin to blur. Some authors (Halliday, 1983; Maynard Smith, 1987) have expanded the definition of “choice” to include any trait that affects the likelihood of a female mating with a certain male. This conflicts with more widely used definitions of “choice” that imply direct comparison (e.g., Ryan and Rand, 1993), excluding for example a female mating-site preference that makes it easier for certain males than others to gain access to her, or flower color, which might affect the array of potential pollen donors by attracting different pollinators. These terminological difficulties have hindered progress in the field by narrowing perceptions of the role of female traits in male evolution, preventing us from seeing the full scope of potential female influences on male RS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ahnesjö, I., A. Vincent, R. Alatalo, T. Halliday, and W. J. Sutherland. 1993. The role of females in influencing mating patterns. Behavioral Ecology 4:187–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alcock, J. 1984. Animal behavior: An evolutionary approach. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, M. 1982. Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature 299:818–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basolo, A. L. 1990. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 250:808–810.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bertin, R. I. 1986. Consequences of mixed pollinations in Campsis radicans. Oecologia (Berlin) 70:1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkhead, T. R. and F. M. Hunter. 1990. Mechanisms of sperm competition. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5:48–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Birkhead, T. R. and A. P. Møller. 1992. Sperm competition in birds: Evolutionary causes and consequences. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkhead, T. and A. P. Møller. 1993. Female control of paternity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8:100–104.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bookman, S. S. 1984. Evidence for selective fruit production in Asclepias. Evolution 38:72–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charlesworth, D. 1988. Evidence for pollen competition in plants and its relationship to progeny fitness: A comment. American Naturalist 132:298–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clutton-Brock, T. H. 1983. Selection in relation to sex. In D. S. Bendall (Ed.), From Molecules to Men, pp. 457–481. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, C. R. and B. J. LeBoeuf. 1977. Female incitation of male competition: A mechanism in sexual selection. American Naturalist 111:317–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, N. B. 1985. Cooperation and conflict among dunnocks Prunella modularis in a variable mating system. Animal Behaviour 33:628–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, N. B. 1991. Mating systems. In J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, pp. 263–294. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, N. B. 1992. Dunnock Behaviour and Social Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, J. M. 1987. News and views: Causes of death before birth. Nature 329: 487–488.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eberhard, W. G. 1990. Inadvertent machismo? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5:263.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eberhard, W. G. 1994. Evidence for widespread courtship during copulation in 131 species of insects and spiders, and implications for cryptic female choice. Evolution 48:711–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emlen, S. T. and L. W. Oring. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Endler, J. A. 1992. Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution. American Naturalist 139:S125–S153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, R. M. and J. Höglund. 1992. Copying and sexual selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7:229–232.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haig, D. 1990. Brood reduction and optimal parental investment when offspring differ in quality. American Naturalist 136:550–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, T. R. 1983. The study of mate choice. In P. Bateson (Ed.), Mate Choice, pp. 3–32. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, F. M., M. Petrie, M. Otronen, and T. Birkhead. 1993. Why do females copulate repeatedly with one male? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8:21–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Iwasa, Y, F. J. Odendaal, D. D. Murphy, P. R. Ehrlich, and A. E. Launer. 1983. Emergence patterns of male butterflies: A hypothesis and a test. Theoretical Population Biology 23:363–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, M. 1987. The evolutionary forces acting on female mating preferences in polygynous animals. In J. W. Bradbury and M. B. Andersson (Eds.), Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives, pp. 67–82. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, M. and M. J. Ryan. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, J. and S. C. Stearns. 1989. Hypotheses for the production of excess zygotes: Models of bet-hedging and selective abortion. Evolution 43:1369–1377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lande, R. and S. J. Arnold. 1985. Evolution of mating preference and sexual dimorphism. Journal of Theoretical Biology 117:651–664.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lill, A. 1974. Sexual behavior of the lek-forming white-bearded manakin (Manacus manacus trinitatus Hartert). Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 36:1–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Losey, G., F. Stanton, T. Telecky, W. Tyler, and the Zoology 691 Graduate Seminar Class. 1986. Copying others, an evolutionarily stable strategy for mate choice: A model. American Naturalist 128:653–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, D. L. and N. C. Ellstrand. 1986. Sexual selection in Raphanus sativus: Experimental data on nonrandom fertilization, maternal choice, and consequences of multiple paternity. American Naturalist 127:446–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, D. L. and N. C. Ellstrand. 1988. Effective mate choice in wild radish: Evidence for selective seed abortion and its mechanism. American Naturalist 131:739–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, D. L. and M. W. Folsom. 1992. Mechanisms of nonrandom mating in wild radish. In R. Wyatt (Ed.), Ecology and Evolution of Plant Reproduction, pp. 91–118. New York: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J. 1987. Sexual selection—a classification of models. In J. W. Bradbury and M. B. Andersson (Eds.), Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives, pp. 9–20. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazer, S. J. 1987a. Parental effects upon components of seed development and seed yield in Raphanus raphanistrum: Implications for natural and sexual selection. Evolution 41:355–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazer, S. J. 1987b. Maternal investment and male reproductive success in angiosperms: Parent-offspring conflict or sexual selection? Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society 30:115–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazer, S. J., A. A. Snow, and M. L. Stanton. 1986. Fertilization dynamics and parental effects upon fruit development in Raphanus raphanistrum: Consequences for seed size variation. American Journal of Botany 73:500–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mock, D. W. and M. Fujioka. 1990. Monogamy and long-term pair bonding in vertebrates. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5:39–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomerie, R. and R. Thornhill. 1989. Fertility advertisement in birds: A means of inciting male-male competition? Ethology 81:209–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulcahy, D. L. 1971. A correlation between gametophytic and sporophytic characteristics in Zea mays L. Science 171:1155–1156.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mulcahy, D. L. 1979. The rise of the angiosperms: A genecological factor. Science 206:20–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mulcahy, D. L. and G. B. Mulcahy. 1987. The effects of pollen competition. American Scientist 75:44–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oring, L. W., J. M. Reed, J. A. R. Alberico, and R. C. Fleischer. 1993. Female control of paternity: More than meets the eye. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8:259.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G. A. 1974. Courtship persistence and female guarding as male time investment strategies. Behaviour 48:157–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G. A. 1978. Searching for mates. In J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, pp. 214–244, Blackwell: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G. A. and S. P. Courtney. 1983. Seasonal incidence: Adaptive variation in the timing of life history stages. Journal of Theoretical Biology 105:147–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pomiankowski, A. 1987. The costs of choice in sexual selection. Journal of Theoretical Biology 128:195–218.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, H. C. 1991. Courtship in the water mite Neumania papillator: Males capitalize on female adaptations for prédation. Animal Behaviour 42:589–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Queller, D. C. 1987. Sexual selection in flowering plants. In J. W. Bradbury and M. B. Andersson (Eds.), Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives, Pp. 165–179. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Queller, D. C. 1994. Male-female conflict and parent-offspring conflict. American Naturalist 144:S84–S99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, J. D. and M. R. Gross. 1990. Costs and benefits of female choice: Is there a lek paradox? American Naturalist 136:230–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M. J. and A. S. Rand. 1993. Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution 47:647–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlichting, C. D. and B. Devlin. 1989. Male and female reproductive success in the hermaphroditic plant Phlox drummondi. American Naturalist 133:212–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, B.C. 1994. Sperm competition in the chaffinch: The role of the female. Animal Behaviour 47:163–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, A. A. 1986. Pollination dynamics in Epilobium canum (Onagraceae): Consequences for gametophytic selection. American Journal of Botany 73:139–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, A. A. and S. J. Mazer. 1988. Gametophytic selection in Raphanus raphanistrum: A test for heritable variation in pollen competitive ability. Evolution 42:1065–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, A. A. and T. P. Spira. 1991a. Differential pollen-tube growth rates and nonrandom fertilization in Hibiscus moscheutos (Malvaceae). American Journal of Botany 78:1419–1426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, A. A. and T. P. Spira. 1991b. Pollen vigour and the potential for sexual selection in plants. Nature 352:796–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, A. A. and T. P. Spira. 1993. Individual variation in the vigor of self pollen and self-fed progeny in Hibiscus moscheutos (Malvaceae). American Journal of Botany 80:160–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stearns, S. C. 1987. The selection arena hypothesis. In S. C. Stearns (Ed.), The Evolution of Sex and Its Consequences, pp. 337–349. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhauser.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, A. G. 1981. Flower and fruit abortion: Proximate causes and ultimate functions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 12:253–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, W. J. 1987. Random and deterministic components of variation in mating success. In J. W. Bradbury and M. B. Andersson (Eds.), Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives, pp. 209–219. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill, R. 1983. Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpovittacus nigriceps. American Naturalist 122:765–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, pp. 136–179. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villavaso, E. J. 1975. Functions of the spermathecal muscle of the boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis. Journal of Insect Physiology 21:1275–1278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, R. R. 1988. Traditionality of mating-site preferences in a coral reef fish. Nature 335:719–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willson, M. F. 1990. Sexual selection in plants and animals. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5:210–214.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Willson, M. F. and N. Burley. 1983. Mate Choice in Plants: Tactics, Mechanisms, and Consequences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Clark Barrett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert R. Warner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Ecology and Women’s Studies Program, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602, USA

    Patricia Adair Gowaty

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Barrett, C., Warner, R.R. (1997). Female Influences on Male Reproductive Success. In: Gowaty, P.A. (eds) Feminism and Evolutionary Biology. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5985-6_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5985-6_14

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-412-07361-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-5985-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation