IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v31y2020i1p194-201..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does meiotic drive alter male mate preference?

Author

Listed:
  • Sam Ronan Finnegan
  • Leslie Nitsche
  • Matteo Mondani
  • M Florencia Camus
  • Kevin Fowler
  • Andrew Pomiankowski
  • Per Smiseth

Abstract

Male mate preferences have been demonstrated across a range of species, including the Malaysian stalk-eyed fly, Teleopsis dalmanni. This species is subject to sex-ratio (SR), an X-linked male meiotic driver, which causes the dysfunction of Y-sperm and the production of all-female broods. While there has been work considering female avoidance of meiotic drive males, the mating decisions of drive-bearing males have not been considered previously. Drive males may be less able to bear the cost of choice as SR is associated with a low-frequency inversion that causes reduced organismal fitness. Drive males may also experience weaker selection for preference maintenance if they are avoided by females. Using binary choice trials, across two experiments, we confirmed male preference for large (fecund) females but found no evidence that the strength of male preference differs between drive and standard males. We showed that large eyespan males displayed strong preference for large females, whereas small eyespan males showed no preference. Taken together, these results suggest that, even though meiotic drive is associated with lower genetic quality, it does not directly interfere with male mate preference among available females. However, as drive males tend to have smaller eyespan (albeit only ~5% on average), this will to a minor extent weaken their strength of preference. Lay Summary Meiotic drive is a selfish genetic element that kills half a male's sperm and reduces survival. Despite this, male stalk-eyed flies carrying meiotic drive exert strong mating preferences for large females, just like wildtype males. Male mate preference is unaffected by the loss in fitness caused by meiotic drive. This outcome reflects the large benefits of mate choice (large females are more fecund), and that males can choose without much cost.

Suggested Citation

  • Sam Ronan Finnegan & Leslie Nitsche & Matteo Mondani & M Florencia Camus & Kevin Fowler & Andrew Pomiankowski & Per Smiseth, 2020. "Does meiotic drive alter male mate preference?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 31(1), pages 194-201.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:31:y:2020:i:1:p:194-201.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arz176
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard H. Baker & Matthew Denniff & Peter Futerman & Kevin Fowler & Andrew Pomiankowski & Tracey Chapman, 2003. "Accessory gland size influences time to sexual maturity and mating frequency in the stalk-eyed fly, Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 14(5), pages 607-611, September.
    2. Nakahashi, Wataru, 2008. "Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection by male choice," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 167-181.
    3. Alison J. Cotton & Samuel Cotton & Jennifer Small & Andrew Pomiankowski, 2015. "Male mate preference for female eyespan and fecundity in the stalk-eyed fly, Teleopsis dalmanni," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(2), pages 376-385.
    4. Pavitra Muralidhar, 2019. "Mating preferences of selfish sex chromosomes," Nature, Nature, vol. 570(7761), pages 376-379, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nakahashi, Wataru, 2010. "Evolution of learning capacities and learning levels," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 211-224.

    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:31:y:2020:i:1:p:194-201.. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.