Mating asymmetry resulting from sexual conflict in the brachypterous grasshopper Podisma sapporensis
We explored why interpopulation crosses often yield mating asymmetry in the grasshopper Podisma sapporensis. Previous studies show that when local populations are crossed, mating frequency differs significantly between the 2 types of heterotypic mating. Mating asymmetry has been explained by 3 hypotheses: female choice, sexual conflict, or the consequences of bottlenecking events (Kaneshiro's hypothesis). The present study assessed which hypothesis best explained the observed mating patterns. Each test population was crossed with populations used in the previous studies. Of the 10 combinations of interpopulation crossing, 6 exhibited significant asymmetry in the frequency of heterotypic mating, 2 had marginal P values, and 2 exhibited symmetry. The mating frequency of one sex of a test population was mainly determined by the mating propensities of 2 crossed populations, but no interactions were detected between the populations. Conspicuous mating asymmetry arose when the 2 populations had greatly different mating propensities (i.e., the combination of vigorous males in 1 population and receptive females in the other population). In contrast, when 2 populations with similar female receptivity were crossed, the mating tended to be assortative. The results of crossing of ancestral and derived chromosomal races do not support Kaneshiro's hypothesis. Furthermore, the finding that mating propensities for both sexes vary greatly among populations does not agree with the female choice hypothesis. In conclusion, our results are consistent with the sexual conflict hypothesis, which postulates that mating vigor/receptivity varies geographically due to antagonistic coevolution between the sexes. Copyright 2011, Oxford University Press.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 22 (2011)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page: http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.oup.co.uk/journals|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:22:y:2011:i:4:p:701-709. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press)or (Christopher F. Baum)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.