Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T23:56:26.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Sexual Conflict Theory

from Part II - Middle-Level Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2022

By
Ulrika Candolin
Edited by
Todd K. Shackelford
Todd K. Shackelford
Affiliation:
Oakland University, Michigan
Get access

Summary

Sexual conflict arises from differences in the fitness interests of males and females. A trait that is beneficial for the reproductive success of one sex reduces the fitness of the other sex, resulting in opposing selection pressures on the two sexes. The two sexes need each other for reproduction, but their dependence is asymmetric. Males benefit from a higher mating rate than females, as their reproductive success is usually constrained by the number of receptive mates, while female reproductive success is limited by egg production. Sexual conflict can occur at any stage of reproductive interactions – before or during copulation, or after insemination – and over almost any aspect of reproduction, from the decision to mate to the investment into parental care. The conflict results in a perpetual tug of war between the sexes. Each sex attempts to maximize its fitness at a cost to the other sex, which results in sexually antagonistic selection. This can cause the rapid evolution of sexual traits, and ultimately results in the diversification of traits, and possibly even in speciation. Sexual conflict can manifest in two ways, intra- and interlocus sexual conflict. Intralocus sexual conflict occurs when a trait expressed in both sexes (determined by alleles in the same locus in the two sexes) has opposite effects on male and female fitness. Interlocus sexual conflict occurs when the conflicting traits are determined by alleles in different loci in the two sexes and the optimal outcome of male–female interactions differs between the two sexes. Intralocus sexual conflict generates a genetic tug of war between the sexes over the optimal trait expression, while interlocus sexual conflict can lead to open-ended cycles of sexually antagonistic coevolution. Sexual conflict before mating has resulted in a diversity of tactics and strategies that males use to overcome female unwillingness to mate, from forced copulations and sneaky fertilization to the emission of love darts. Sexual conflict after mating has favored the evolution of male traits that increase success in sperm competition, such as postcopulatory mate guarding, toxic seminal substances that destroy the sperm of other males, mating plugs that prevent other males from mating with the female, and morphological and physiological traits that harm females, such as spines on the intromittent organ that pierce the reproductive tract of the female. Females have evolved cryptic choice of sperm to influence which males fertilize her ova. Whether the sexual conflict between males and females can be resolved depends on the type of conflict. Several mechanisms may reduce the strength of intralocus conflict, such as sex-limited expression of traits, but the interests of males and females are unlikely to become aligned when it comes to interlocus conflict. The relative influence of sexual conflict on the fitness of organisms, and the degree to which it can be resolved, are open questions.

Keywords

arms racecoevolutionmale competitionmate choiceparental caresexual selectionspeciationsperm competition
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology , pp. 264 - 279
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ala-Honkola, O., & Manier, M. K. (2016). Multiple mechanisms of cryptic female choice act on intraspecific male variation in Drosophila simulans. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 70(4), 519–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnqvist, G., Edvardsson, M., Friberg, U., & Nilsson, T. (2000). Sexual conflict promotes speciation in insects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(19), 10460–10464.Google Scholar
Arnqvist, G., & Rowe, L. (2002). Antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature, 415(6873), 787–789.Google Scholar
Arnqvist, G., & Rowe, L. (2005). Sexual conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Barson, N. J., Aykanat, T., Hindar, K., Baranski, M., Bolstad, G. H., Fiske, P., … Primmer, C. R. (2015). Sex-dependent dominance at a single locus maintains variation in age at maturity in salmon. Nature, 528(7582), 405–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, A. J. (1948). Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity, 2, 349–368.Google Scholar
Birkhead, T. R., & Møller, A. P. (1998). Sperm competition and sexual selection. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Birkhead, T. R., & Pizzari, T. (2002). Postcopulatory sexual selection. Nature Reviews Genetics, 3(4), 262–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonduriansky, R., & Chenoweth, S. F. (2009). Intralocus sexual conflict. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(5), 280–288.Google Scholar
Boughman, J. W. (2001). Divergent sexual selection enhances reproductive isolation in sticklebacks. Nature, 411(6840), 944–948.Google Scholar
Buzatto, B. A., & Clark, H. L. (2020). Selection for male weapons boosts female fecundity, eliminating sexual conflict in the bulb mite. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carvalho, A. P. S., Mota, L. L., & Kawahara, A. Y. (2019). Intersexual “arms race” and the evolution of the sphragis in Pteronymia butterflies. Insect Systematics and Diversity, 3(1), 13.Google Scholar
Cassini, M. H. (2021). Sexual aggression in mammals. Mammal Review. doi: 10.1111/mam.12228Google Scholar
Chapman, T. (2001). Seminal fluid-mediated fitness traits in Drosophila. Heredity, 87, 511–521.Google Scholar
Chapman, T. (2006). Evolutionary conflicts of interest between males and females. Current Biology, 16(17), R744–R754.Google Scholar
Chapman, T., Arnqvist, G., Bangham, J., & Rowe, L. (2003). Sexual conflict. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(1), 41–47.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1991). The evolution of parental care. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cluttonbrock, T. H., & Parker, G. A. (1995). Sexual coercion in animal societies. Animal Behaviour, 49(5), 1345–1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connallon, T., & Matthews, G. (2019). Cross-sex genetic correlations for fitness and fitness components: Connecting theoretical predictions to empirical patterns. Evolution Letters, 3(3), 254–262.Google Scholar
Cornwallis, C. K., & Uller, T. (2010). Towards an evolutionary ecology of sexual traits. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(3), 145–152.Google Scholar
Cox, R. M., & Calsbeek, R. (2009). Sexually antagonistic selection, sexual dimorphism, and the resolution of intralocus sexual conflict. The American Naturalist, 173(2), 176–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coyne, J. A., & Orr, H. A. (2004). Speciation. Sunderland, MA.: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: Murray.Google Scholar
Davies, N. B. (1992). Dunnock behaviour and social evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
den Boer, S. P. A., Baer, B., & Boomsma, J. J. (2010). Seminal fluid mediates ejaculate competition in social insects. Science, 327(5972), 1506–1509.Google Scholar
Eady, P. E., Hamilton, L., & Lyons, R. E. (2007). Copulation, genital damage and early death in Callosobruchus maculatus. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 274(1607), 247–252.Google ScholarPubMed
Eberhard, W. G. (1996). Female control: Sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ellegren, H., & Parsch, J. (2007). The evolution of sex-biased genes and sex-biased gene expression. Nature Reviews Genetics, 8(9), 689–698.Google Scholar
Emlen, S. T., & Oring, L. W. (1977). Ecology, sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. Science, 197, 215–223.Google Scholar
Endler, J. A., & Basolo, A. L. (1998). Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 13(10), 415–420.Google Scholar
Firman, R. C. (2018). Postmating sexual conflict and female control over fertilization during gamete interaction. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1422(1), 48–64.Google Scholar
Firman, R. C., Gasparini, C., Manier, M. K., & Pizzari, T. (2017). Postmating female control: 20 years of cryptic female choice. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 32(5), 368–382.Google Scholar
Friesen, C. R., Uhrig, E. J., Mason, R. T., & Brennan, P. L. R. (2016). Female behaviour and the interaction of male and female genital traits mediate sperm transfer during mating. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 29(5), 952–964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fromhage, L., & Jennions, M. D. (2016). Coevolution of parental investment and sexually selected traits drives sex-role divergence. Nature Communications, 7, 11.Google Scholar
Garcia-Roa, R., Garcia-Gonzalez, F., Noble, D. W. A., & Carazo, P. (2020). Temperature as a modulator of sexual selection. Biological Reviews, 95(6), 1607–1629.Google Scholar
Gavrilets, S. (2000). Rapid evolution of reproductive barriers driven by sexual conflict. Nature, 403(6772), 886–889.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gavrilets, S. (2014). Is sexual conflict an “engine of speciation”? Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 6(12), 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavrilets, S., & Waxman, D. (2002). Sympatric speciation by sexual conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(16), 10533–10538.Google Scholar
Gioti, A., Wigby, S., Wertheim, B., Schuster, E., Martinez, P., Pennington, C. J., … Chapman, T. (2012). Sex peptide of Drosophila melanogaster males is a global regulator of reproductive processes in females. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 279(1746), 4423–4432.Google Scholar
Gosling, L. M. (1986). Selective abortion of entire litters in the coypu: Adaptive control of offspring production in relation to quality and sex. The American Naturalist, 127(6), 772–795.Google Scholar
Gross, M. R. (1985). Disruptive selection for alternative life histories in salmon. Nature, 313(5997), 47–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, M. R. (1996). Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: Diversity within sexes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 11, 92–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gwynne, D. T. (1984). Courtship feeding increases female reproductive success in bush crickets. Nature, 307(5949), 361–363.Google Scholar
Gwynne, D. T. (1991). Sexual competition among females: What causes courtship role reversal. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 6(4), 118–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansson, B., Bensch, S., & Hasselquist, D. (1997). Infanticide in great reed warblers: Secondary females destroy eggs of primary females. Animal Behaviour, 54, 297–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harano, T., & Kutsukake, N. (2018). The evolution of male infanticide in relation to sexual selection in mammalian carnivores. Evolutionary Ecology, 32(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harano, T., Okada, K., Nakayama, S., Miyatake, T., & Hosken, D. J. (2010). Intralocus sexual conflict unresolved by sex-limited trait expression. Current Biology, 20(22), 2036–2039.Google Scholar
Hayashi, T. I., Vose, M., & Gavrilets, S. (2007). Genetic differentiation by sexual conflict. Evolution, 61(3), 516–529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henshaw, J. M., Fromhage, L., & Jones, A. G. (2019). Sex roles and the evolution of parental care specialization. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 286(1909), 10.Google ScholarPubMed
Holland, B., & Rice, W. R. (1998). Perspective: Chase-away sexual selection – antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution, 52, 1–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Holman, L., & Snook, R. R. (2008). A sterile sperm caste protects brother fertile sperm from female-mediated death in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Current Biology, 18(4), 292–296.Google Scholar
Hosken, D. J., Archer, C. R., & Mank, J. E. (2019). Sexual conflict. Current Biology, 29(11), R451–R455.Google Scholar
Houde, A. E. (1997). Sex, color, and mate choice in guppies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hrdy, S. B. (1979). Infanticide among animals: Review, classification, and examination of the implications for the reproductive strategies of females. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1(1), 13–40.Google Scholar
Iglesias-Carrasco, M., Jennions, M. D., Ho, S. Y. W., & Duchene, D. A. (2019). Sexual selection, body mass and molecular evolution interact to predict diversification in birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 286(1899), 7.Google ScholarPubMed
Jormalainen, V. (1998). Precopulatory mate guarding in crustaceans: Male competitive strategy and intersexual conflict. Quarterly Review of Biology, 73(3), 275–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jormalainen, V., Merilaita, S., & Riihimaki, J. (2001). Costs of intersexual conflict in the isopod Idotea baltica. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14(5), 763–772.Google Scholar
Koene, J. M., & Schulenburg, H. (2005). Shooting darts: Co-evolution and counter-adaptation in hermaphroditic snails. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 5, 13.Google Scholar
Kokko, H., & Jennions, M. D. (2008). Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 21(4), 919–948.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kubli, E., & Bopp, D. (2012). Sexual behavior: How sex peptide flips the postmating switch of female flies. Current Biology, 22(13), R520–R522.Google Scholar
Laaksonen, T., Adamczyk, F., Ahola, M., Mostl, E., & Lessells, C. M. (2011). Yolk hormones and sexual conflict over parental investment in the pied flycatcher. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65(2), 257–264.Google Scholar
Lange, R., Reinhardt, K., Michiels, N. K., & Anthes, N. (2013). Functions, diversity, and evolution of traumatic mating. Biological Reviews, 88(3), 585–601.Google Scholar
Lessells, C. M. (2006). The evolutionary outcome of sexual conflict. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 361(1466), 301–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lessells, C. M. (2012). Sexual conflict. In Royle, N. J., Smiseth, P. T., & Kölliker, M. (Eds.), The evolution of parental care (pp. 150–170). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, O. Y., & Hosken, D. J. (2003). The evolution of reproductive isolation through sexual conflict. Nature, 423(6943), 979–982.Google Scholar
Miller, C. W., & Svensson, E. I. (2014). Sexual selection in complex environments. In Berenbaum, M. R. (Ed.), Annual Review of Entomology (Vol. 59, pp. 427–445). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.Google Scholar
Mitra, S., Landel, H., & Pruett-Jones, S. J. (1996). Species richness covaries with mating system in birds. Auk, 113, 544–551.Google Scholar
Muller, W., Lessells, C. M., Korsten, P., & von Engelhardt, N. (2007). Manipulative signals in family conflict? On the function of maternal yolk hormones in birds. The American Naturalist, 169(4), E84–E96.Google Scholar
Packer, C., & Pusey, A. E. (1983). Adaptations of female lions to infanticide by incoming males. The American Naturalist, 121(5), 716–728.Google Scholar
Paquet, M., & Smiseth, P. T. (2017). Females manipulate behavior of caring males via prenatal maternal effects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(26), 6800–6805.Google Scholar
Parker, G. A. (1979). Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In Blum, M. S. & Blum, N. A. (Eds.), Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects (pp. 123–166). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Parker, G. A. (1984). Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating strategies. In Smith, R. L. (Ed.), Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems (pp. 1–60). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Parker, G. A. (2006). Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: An overview. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 361(1466), 235–259.Google Scholar
Parker, G. A. (2020). Conceptual developments in sperm competition: A very brief synopsis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1813), 10.Google Scholar
Parker, G. A., & Partridge, L. (1998). Sexual conflict and speciation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 353(1366), 261–274.Google Scholar
Peretti, A. V., & Eberhard, W. G. (2010). Cryptic female choice via sperm dumping favours male copulatory courtship in a spider. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 23(2), 271–281.Google Scholar
Perry, J. C., Garroway, C. J., & Rowe, L. (2017). The role of ecology, neutral processes and antagonistic coevolution in an apparent sexual arms race. Ecology Letters, 20(9), 1107–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, J. C., & Rowe, L. (2018). Sexual conflict in its ecological setting. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1757), 10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pilastro, A., Mandelli, M., Gasparini, C., Dadda, M., & Bisazza, A. (2007). Copulation duration, insemination efficiency and male attractiveness in guppies. Animal Behaviour, 74, 321–328.Google Scholar
Poiani, A. (2006). Complexity of seminal fluid: A review. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 60(3), 289–310.Google Scholar
Price, D. K., & Burley, N. T. (1994). Constraints on the evolution of attractive traits: Selection in male and female zebra finches. The American Naturalist, 144(6), 908–934.Google Scholar
Queller, D. C. (1997). Why do females care more than males? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 264(1388), 1555–1557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, W. R. (1984). Sex-chromosomes and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Evolution, 38(4), 735–742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, W. R., & Chippindale, A. K. (2001). Intersexual ontogenetic conflict. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14(5), 685–693.Google Scholar
Rodd, F. H., Hughes, K. A., Grether, G. F., & Baril, C. T. (2002). A possible non-sexual origin of mate preference: Are male guppies mimicking fruit? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 269(1490), 475–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenthal, G. G. (2017). Mate choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ruzicka, F., Dutoit, L., Czuppon, P., Jordan, C. Y., Li, X. Y., Olito, C., … Connallon, T. (2020). The search for sexually antagonistic genes: Practical insights from studies of local adaptation and statistical genomics. Evolution Letters, 4(5), 398–415.Google Scholar
Sandell, M. I., Smith, H. G., & Bruun, M. (1996). Paternal care in the European starling, Sturnus vulgaris: Nestling provisioning. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 39(5), 301–309.Google Scholar
Schluter, D. (2000). The ecology of adaptive radiation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, J. M., & Lubin, Y. (1996). Infanticidal male eresid spiders. Nature, 381(6584), 655–656.Google Scholar
Shuster, S. M., & Wade, M. J. (2003). Mating systems and strategies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, L. W., Parker, G. A., & Hosken, D. J. (2020). Evolutionary insight from a humble fly: Sperm competition and the yellow dungfly. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1813), 7.Google Scholar
Simmons, L. W., & Wedell, N. (2020). Fifty years of sperm competition: The structure of a scientific revolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1813), 7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snook, R. R. (2005). Sperm in competition: Not playing by the numbers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(1), 46–53.Google Scholar
Svensson, E. I., McAdam, A. G., & Sinervo, B. (2009). Intralocus sexual conflict over immune defense, gender load, and sex-specific signaling in a natural lizard population. Evolution, 63(12), 3124–3135.Google Scholar
Tregenza, T., & Wedell, N. (1998). Benefits of multiple mates in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Evolution, 52(6), 1726–1730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
van Doorn, G. S. (2009). Intralocus sexual conflict. In Schlichting, C. D. & Mousseau, T. A. (Eds.), Year in evolutionary biology 2009 (Vol. 1168, pp. 52–71). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wedell, N., Tregenza, T., & Simmons, L. W. (2008). Nuptial gifts fail to resolve a sexual conflict in an insect. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 8, 7.Google Scholar
Westneat, D. F., & Sherman, P. W. (1997). Density and extra-pair fertilizations in birds: A comparative analysis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 41(4), 205–215.Google Scholar
Wigby, S., & Chapman, T. (2004). Sperm competition. Current Biology, 14(3), R100–R103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yun, L., Chen, P. J., Singh, A., Agrawal, A. F., & Rundle, H. D. (2017). The physical environment mediates male harm and its effect on selection in females. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 284(1858), 8.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×