IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v25y2014i3p470-476..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Editor's choice Countering counteradaptations: males hijack control of female kicking behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Carly J. Wilson
  • Joseph L. Tomkins

Abstract

Adaptations and counteradaptations are central to sexually antagonistic coevolution and understanding how males and females respond to the selection imposed by the other. Although adaptations such as seminal fluid components can be subtle, female seed beetles, Callosobruchus maculatus, have a conspicuous pericopulatory kicking behavior thought to have evolved to shorten copula duration and reduce the damage from male genital spines. Our observations suggested, however, that the violent kicking may itself cause damage and negatively impact female fitness; therefore, we investigated the adaptive significance of kicking for both sexes. We show that females allowed to kick for longer die sooner and gain no benefit in lifetime reproductive success despite an elevated survival of fertilized eggs. The idea that kicking shortens copula was not upheld; when rival males were present during copulation, kicking duration doubled but copula duration remained unchanged. Furthermore, we found that males, not females, control the duration of kicking, indeed the duration of all copulation components, whereas females did not show any capacity to control mating behavior in this situation. These findings support the notion that males have hijacked control of female kicking to serve their own evolutionary interests.

Suggested Citation

  • Carly J. Wilson & Joseph L. Tomkins, 2014. "Editor's choice Countering counteradaptations: males hijack control of female kicking behavior," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 25(3), pages 470-476.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:25:y:2014:i:3:p:470-476.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/aru022
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:25:y:2014:i:3:p:470-476.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.