Mating Strategies in a Darwinian Microworld: Simulating the Consequences of Female Reproductive Refractoriness

Abstract

Characteristic sex differences in mating strategies (e.g., choosy females, unselective males) have been claimed by Trivers and other theorists to evolve as an automatic consequence of sex differences in minimum parental investment, arising chiefly from greater female reproductive refractoriness. The theory has been supported by correlational evidence and conceptual analogies to economics. A simulated evolution experiment was performed to provide a clearer test of whether female reproductive refractoriness alone can drive the emergence of differences in mating selectivity. A population of male and female replicators initially differed only in that females were unavailable to mate for a fixed period prior to the appearance of offspring. Over succeeding generations, females evolved far greater selectivity than males with respect to the longevity of potential mates. This greater selectivity was relatively robust with respect to population and genetic parameters, but quantitatively unstable with realistic breeding population sizes.

Keywords

simulated evolution sex differences reparental investment Trivers mating strategies sexual selection

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alcock, J. (1989). Animal behavior(4th ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.

Bateman, A. J. (1948). Intrasexual selection in Drosophilia. Heredity, 2, 349–368.

Brooks, R. (2000). Negative genetic correlation between male sexual attractiveness and survival. Nature, 406, 67–70.

Bullock, S. (1998). A continuous evolutionary simulation model of the attainability of honest signalling equilibria. In C. Adami , R. Belew , H. Kitano , & C. Taylor (Eds.) Artificial life VI(pp. 339–348). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Collins, R. J. , & Jefferson, D. R. (1992). The evolution of sexual selection and female choice. In F. J. Varela & P. Bourgine (Eds.), Toward a practice of autonomous systems: Proceedings of the First European Conference on Artificial Life(pp. 327–336). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

Daly, M. , & Wilson, M. (1983). Sex, evolution, and behavior (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.

Fiedler, K. (1954). Vergleichende Verhaltensstudien an Seenadeln, Schlangennadeln und seepferdchen. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 11, 358–416.

Fogel, D. B. , Fogel, G. B. , & Andrews, P. C. (1997). On the instability of evolutionary stable strategies. Biosystems, 44, 135–152.

10.

Maynard Smith, J. (1999). Evolutionary genetics(2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

11.

Medawar, P. (1952). An unsolved problem in biology. London: Lewis.

12.

Miller, G. F. , & Todd, P. M. (1993). Evolutionary wanderlust: Sexual selection with directional mate preferences. In J.-A. Meyer , H. L. Roitblat , & S. W. Wilson (Eds.), From animals to animats 2: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior (pp. 21–30). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

13.

Mueller, L. D. , & Rose, M. R. (1996). Evolutionary theory predicts late-life mortality plateaus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 93, 15249–15253.

14.

Noble, J. (1999). Sexual signaling in an artificial population: When does the handicap principle work? In D. Floreano , J.-D. Nicoud , & F. Mondada (Eds.), Advances in artificial life: Fifth European Conference on Artificial Life (ECAL'99) (pp. 644–653). Berlin: Springer.

15.

Rossler, R. , Kloeden, P. E. , & Rossler, O. E. (1995). Slower aging in women: A proposed evolutionary explanation. Biosystems, 36, 179–185.

16.

Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871–1971. Chicago: Aldine.

17.

Werner, G. M. (1996). Why the peacock's tail is so short: Limits to sexual selection. In C. G. Langton & K. Shimohara (Eds.), Artificial life V(pp. 85–91). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

18.

Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.