Author
Listed:
- Jonathan M Parrett
- Veronica Ghobert
- Fenn S Cullen
- Robert J Knell
- Michael D Jennions
Abstract
Sexual selection is predicted to influence population persistence because skew in male reproductive success may facilitate the purging of mutation load. We manipulated the strength of sexual selection in populations of Indian meal moths, Plodia interpunctella, by adjusting adult sex ratios to be either male- or female-biased, leading to strong and weak sexual selection in males, respectively. After between 19 and 22 generations of experimental evolution, we examined whether mutation load differed between these populations by enforcing successive generations of inbreeding, tracking extinction events, offspring viability and assaying the effect of inbreeding on male mating success and female choice. We found no effect of the strength of sexual selection on the rate of extinction or offspring viability. We did, however, find changes in both male mating success and female choice, with both being influenced by the sex ratio treatment and the number of generations of inbreeding. Males from male-biased populations were more successful at mating with stock females, and mating success declined rapidly with inbreeding regardless of sex ratio treatment. Females from male-biased populations were less likely to mate with stock males at the onset of the experiment, but tended to mate more frequently with increasing inbreeding compared to females from female-biased populations. Our results demonstrate that while mating behaviors have diverged between male-biased and female-biased lines mutation loads remained similar. This suggests that the benefits of sexual selection to population fitness may be low or slow to accumulate under the benign environmental conditions in which these populations evolved.
Suggested Citation
Jonathan M Parrett & Veronica Ghobert & Fenn S Cullen & Robert J Knell & Michael D Jennions, 2021.
"Strong sexual selection fails to protect against inbreeding-driven extinction in a moth,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 32(5), pages 875-882.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:32:y:2021:i:5:p:875-882.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:32:y:2021:i:5:p:875-882.. 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.