Encyclopedia of Social Insects

Living Edition
| Editors: Christopher Starr

Sexual Selection

  • Boris BaerEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90306-4_104-1

As defined by Charles Darwin, sexual selection is “the advantage which certain individuals have over other individuals of the same sex and species solely in respect of reproduction.” It is, then, a special case of natural selection driven by conflicts among individuals over reproductive decisions. Furthermore, as originally set forth by Darwin, we distinguish between intra-sexual selection, which is driven by individuals of the same sex (typically males) to compete with each other, and intersexual selection that is driven by conflicts between opposite-sex individuals over reproductive decisions.

There is ample of evidence that sexual selection can be a remarkably strong evolutionary force. It can occur prior to mating (Table 1), for example, as male-male competition for access to females and/or eggs or female choice to discriminate against unwanted males (Table 1). However, sexual selection can continue to operate beyond mate choice and copulation. Such post-copulatory sexual...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Baer, B. (2014). Sexual selection in social insects. In D. Shuker & L. W. Simmons (Eds.), The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems (pp. 261–274). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baer, B. (2015). Female choice in social insects. In A. Peretti & A. Aisenberg (Eds.), Cryptic Female Choice in Arthropods: Patterns, Mechanisms and Prospects (pp. 461–477). Stuttgart: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baer, B. (2003). Bumblebees as model organisms to study male sexual selection in social insects. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 54, 521–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baer, B. (2011). The copulation biology of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecological News, 14, 55–68.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baer, B. (2016). Proximate and ultimate consequences of polyandry in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecological News, 22, 1–9.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hartke, T. R., & Baer, B. (2011). The mating biology of termites: A comparative review. Animal Behavior, 82, 927–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baer, B., & Millar, A. H. (2015). Proteomics in evolutionary ecology. Journal of Proteomics, 135, 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heinze, J., & Hölldobler, B. (1993). Fighting for a harem of queens: Physiology of reproduction in Cardiocondyla male ants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 90, 8412–8414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Foitzik, S., Heinze, J., & Oberstadt, H. J. M. (2002). Mate guarding and alternative reproductive tactics in the ant Hypoponera opacior. Animal Behavior, 63, 597–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baer, B., Armitage, S. A. O., & Boomsma, J. J. (2006). Sperm storage induces an immunity cost in ants. Nature, 441, 872–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    den Boer, S. P. A., Dreier, S., Aron, S., Nash, D. R., & Boomsma, J. J. (2009). Prudent sperm use by leaf-cutter ant queens. Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biolgical Sciences, 276, 3945–3953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    den Boer, S. P. A., Boomsma, J. J., & Baer, B. (2013). A technique to artificially inseminate leafcutter ants. Insectes Sociaux, 60, 111–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Integrative Bee Research (CIBER), Department of EntomologyUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA