Sexual and natural selection both influence male genital evolution

PLoS One. 2013 May 22;8(5):e63807. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063807. Print 2013.

Abstract

Rapid and divergent evolution of male genital morphology is a conspicuous and general pattern across internally fertilizing animals. Rapid genital evolution is thought to be the result of sexual selection, and the role of natural selection in genital evolution remains controversial. However, natural and sexual selection are believed to act antagonistically on male genital form. We conducted an experimental evolution study to investigate the combined effects of natural and sexual selection on the genital-arch lobes of male Drosophila simulans. Replicate populations were forced to evolve under lifetime monogamy (relaxed sexual selection) or lifetime polyandry (elevated sexual selection) and two temperature regimes, 25°C (relaxed natural selection) or 27°C (elevated natural selection) in a fully factorial design. We found that natural and sexual selection plus their interaction caused genital evolution. Natural selection caused some aspects of genital form to evolve away from their sexually selected shape, whereas natural and sexual selection operated in the same direction for other shape components. Additionally, sexual and natural selection tended to favour larger genitals. Thus we find that the underlying selection driving genital evolution is complex, does not only involve sexual selection, and that natural selection and sexual selection do not always act antagonistically.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Animals
  • Biological Evolution
  • Drosophila / physiology
  • Female
  • Genitalia, Male / physiology*
  • Male
  • Mating Preference, Animal / physiology*
  • Selection, Genetic / physiology*

Grants and funding

D. Hoskin, JH, D. Hodgson, and NW were funded by the Natural Environment Research Council to investigate genital evolution, CMH was funded by a Leverhulme Trust fellowship and JH by a Royal Society Fellowship. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.