Sexual conflict and sexual selection: Measuring antagonistic coevolution

Arnqvist (2004) raises some concerns with several of the points made by Pizzari and Snook (2003) on the study of sexually antagonistic coevolution (SAC) generated by sexual conflict, arguing that: (1) sexual conflict cannot be expressed in terms of average male and female fitness; (2) our criticism...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Pizzari, T, Snook, R
Format: Journal article
Language:English
Published: 2004
_version_ 1826259346177130496
author Pizzari, T
Snook, R
author_facet Pizzari, T
Snook, R
author_sort Pizzari, T
collection OXFORD
description Arnqvist (2004) raises some concerns with several of the points made by Pizzari and Snook (2003) on the study of sexually antagonistic coevolution (SAC) generated by sexual conflict, arguing that: (1) sexual conflict cannot be expressed in terms of average male and female fitness; (2) our criticism of current experimental approaches, particularly interpopulation crosses, is unjustified; and (3) the alternative experimental approach we proposed is problematic. Here we discuss and respond to these criticisms by: (1) clarifying that we can distinguish between SAC and mutualistic sexual coevolution by measuring changes in the average fitness of the reproducing subsamples of males and females of a population across generations, (2) maintaining that testing SAC using interpopulation crosses is undermined by the lack of a priori knowledge of what traits mediate SAC across isolated populations, and (3) reinforcing the advantages of our experimental approach to distinguish between sexually mutualistic and antagonistic selection.
first_indexed 2024-03-06T18:48:24Z
format Journal article
id oxford-uuid:0f55c691-8b82-470e-acd1-df69fde9621e
institution University of Oxford
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-06T18:48:24Z
publishDate 2004
record_format dspace
spelling oxford-uuid:0f55c691-8b82-470e-acd1-df69fde9621e2022-03-26T09:50:40ZSexual conflict and sexual selection: Measuring antagonistic coevolutionJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:0f55c691-8b82-470e-acd1-df69fde9621eEnglishSymplectic Elements at Oxford2004Pizzari, TSnook, RArnqvist (2004) raises some concerns with several of the points made by Pizzari and Snook (2003) on the study of sexually antagonistic coevolution (SAC) generated by sexual conflict, arguing that: (1) sexual conflict cannot be expressed in terms of average male and female fitness; (2) our criticism of current experimental approaches, particularly interpopulation crosses, is unjustified; and (3) the alternative experimental approach we proposed is problematic. Here we discuss and respond to these criticisms by: (1) clarifying that we can distinguish between SAC and mutualistic sexual coevolution by measuring changes in the average fitness of the reproducing subsamples of males and females of a population across generations, (2) maintaining that testing SAC using interpopulation crosses is undermined by the lack of a priori knowledge of what traits mediate SAC across isolated populations, and (3) reinforcing the advantages of our experimental approach to distinguish between sexually mutualistic and antagonistic selection.
spellingShingle Pizzari, T
Snook, R
Sexual conflict and sexual selection: Measuring antagonistic coevolution
title Sexual conflict and sexual selection: Measuring antagonistic coevolution
title_full Sexual conflict and sexual selection: Measuring antagonistic coevolution
title_fullStr Sexual conflict and sexual selection: Measuring antagonistic coevolution
title_full_unstemmed Sexual conflict and sexual selection: Measuring antagonistic coevolution
title_short Sexual conflict and sexual selection: Measuring antagonistic coevolution
title_sort sexual conflict and sexual selection measuring antagonistic coevolution
work_keys_str_mv AT pizzarit sexualconflictandsexualselectionmeasuringantagonisticcoevolution
AT snookr sexualconflictandsexualselectionmeasuringantagonisticcoevolution