Evolución de la selección sexual en la naturaleza:
Un vistazo a la ignorada selección sexual femenina
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29105/bys7.13-99Palabras clave:
selección críptica femenina, preferencias, conflicto intralocus, conflicto interlocus, coevolución antagónicaResumen
Desde que Darwin emprendiera su travesía en el Beagle, hace casi 200 años, y se maravillara con las múltiples estrategias de cortejo, han habido grandes avances en el estudio de la selección sexual. Estos avances han permitido abandonar, en cierta medida, la visión androcentrista de la época victoriana en la que comenzó el campo de estudio del comportamiento reproductivo. Sin embargo, hoy en día esta visión sigue teniendo influencia en las hipótesis que se formulan al respecto. Esta problemática ha sido señalada solo recientemente, por lo que, las diferentes propuestas para su resolución concurren en la urgencia de una perspectiva holística, que necesariamente debe incluir el punto de vista femenino y queer. En este ensayo exploramos la selección críptica femenina desde un punto de vista evolutivo, considerando mecanismos, procesos y resultados de algunos estudios que han llevado a entender la selección sexual de dos formas: como un resultado adaptativo o simplemente como resultado de una coevolución.
Descargas
Citas
Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Nueva Jersey, 621 pp. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691207278
Bateman, A. J. 1948. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity, 2(3): 349–368. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1948.21 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1948.21
Byrne, R. J. y J.C. Avise. 2012. Genetic mating system of the brown smoothhound shark (Mustelus henlei), including a literature review of multiple paternity in other elasmobranch species. Marine biology. 159(4): 749–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-011-1851-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-011-1851-z
Cade, W. H. 1975. Acoustically Orienting Parasitoids: Fly Phonotaxis to Cricket Song. Science. 190(4221): 1312–1313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.190.4221.1312
Chapman, T., G. Arnqvist, J. Bangham, L. Rowe. 2003. Sexual conflict. Trends in ecology and evolution. 18(1): 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.03.052 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(02)00004-6
Conrath, C. L., y J.A. Musick. 2002. Reproductive biology of the smooth dogfish, Mustelus canis, in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. Environmental biology of fishes. 64(4): 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016117415855 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016117415855
Curtsinger, J. W. 1991. Sperm competition and the evolution of multiple mating. American naturalist. 138(1): 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1086/285206 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/285206
Darwin, C. 1871. El descenso del hombre y la selección en relación con el sexo. Editorial La Catarata, Barcelona, 512 pp.
Dawkins, R. 1976. La Batalla de los sexos. Pp. 186-224. En: Dawkins, R. (Ed.). El gen egoísta: Las bases biológicas de nuestra conducta. Barcelona, España, 345pp.
Dean, R., S. Nakagawa, T. Pizzari. 2011. The risk and intensity of sperm ejection in female birds. American naturalist. 178(3): 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1086/661244 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/661244
DiBattista, J. D., K. A. Feldheim, X. Thibert-Plante, S. H. Gruber, A. P. Hendry. 2008. A genetic assessment of polyandry and breeding-site fidelity in lemon sharks. Molecular ecology. 17(14): 3337–3351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03833.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03833.x
Dutilloy, A. y M. R. Dunn. 2020. Observations of sperm storage in some deep-sea elasmobranchs. Deep-sea research part I: oceanographic research papers. 166, 103405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2020.103405 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2020.103405
Eberhard, W. G. 1996. Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice. Princeton University Press, Nueva Jersey, 472 pp. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691207209
Eldegard, K. y G. A. Sonerud. 2009. Female offspring desertion and male-only care increase with natural and experimental increase in food abundance. Proceedings of the royal society B: biological sciences. 276(1662): 1713–1721. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1775 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1775
Emlen, S. T. y L. W. Oring. 1977. Ecology, Sexual Selection, and the Evolution of Mating Systems. Science. 197(4300): 215–233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.327542
Firman, R. C., C. Gasparini, M. K. Manier, T. Pizzari. 2017. Postmating Female Control: 20 Years of Cryptic Female Choice. Trends in ecology and evolution. 32(5): 368–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.02.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.02.010
Fitzpatrick, J. L., R. M. Kempster, T. S. Daly-Engel, S. P. Collin, J.
P. Evans. 2012. Assessing the potential for post-copulatory sexual selection in elasmobranchs. Journal of fish biology. 80(5): 1141–1158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2012.03256.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2012.03256.x
Fonseca-Hernández, C. y M. Quintero-Soto. 2009. La Teoría Queer: la de-construcción de las sexualidades periféricas. Sociológica. 24(69): 43–60. http://europa.sim.ucm.es/compludoc/AA?articuloId=743373
Ganna, A., K. J. H. Verweij, M.G. Nivard, R. Maier, R. Wedow, A.S. Busch, A. Abdellaoui, S. Guo, J. Fah Sathirapongsasuti, and Me Research Team, P. Lichtenstein, S. Lundström, N. Långström, A. Auton, K. M. Harris, G. W. Beecham, E. R. Martin, A. R. Sanders, J. R. B. Perry, B. M, Neale, B. P. Zietsch. 2019. Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behavior. Science. 365(6456): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7693 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7693
Hamilton, W. J., R. L. Tilson, L. G. Frank. 1986. Sexual Monomorphism in Spotted Hyenas, Crocuta crocuta. Ethology. 71(1): 63–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1986.tb00570.x
Hamlett, W.C. 1999. Male reproductive system. Pp. 444-470. En: Hamlett, W.C. (Ed.). Sharks, Skates, and Rays: The Biology of Elasmobranch Fishes. Baltimore, Estados Unidos, 528 pp.
Hamlett, W.C. y T. J. Koob. 1999. Female reproductive system. Pp. 398-443. En: Hamlett, W.C. (Ed.). Sharks, Skates, and Rays: The Biology of Elasmobranch Fishes. Baltimore, Estados Unidos, 528 pp. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56021/9780801860485
Hamlett, W. C., J. A. Musick, C. K. Hysell, D. M. Sever. 2002. Uterine epithelial-sperm interaction, endometrial cycle and sperm storage in the terminal zone of the oviducal gland in the placental smoothhound, Mustelus canis. Journal of experimental zoology. 292(2): 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.1149 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.1149
Harel, K. 2001. When Darwin flopped: The rejection of sexual selection. Sexuality and culture. 5(4): 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-001-1001-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-001-1001-8
Herberstein, M. E., J. M. Schneider, G. Uhl, P. Michalik. 2011. Sperm dynamics in spiders. Behavioral ecology. 22(4): 692–695. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr053 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr053
Kirkpatrick, M. 1987. Sexual Selection by Female Choice in Polygynous Animals. Annual review of ecology and systematics. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.18.110187.000355
: 43–70.
Lehrman, D.S. 1965. Interaction between internal and external environments in the regulation of the reproducive cycle of the ring dove. Pp. 355-380. En: Beach, F.A. (Ed.). Sex and behavior. Nueva York, Estados Unidos, 592 pp.
Lyons, K., D. Kacev, C. G. Mull. 2021. An inconvenient tooth: Evaluating female choice in multiple paternity using an evolutionarily and ecologically important vertebrate clade. Molecular ecology. 30(7): 1574–1593. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15844 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15844
Martjin, A. S., I. Pen, L. W. Beukeboom, J. C. Billeter. 2018. Making sense of intralocus and interlocus sexual conflict. Ecology and evolution. 8(24): 13035–13050. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4629 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4629
Miller, G. T. y S. Pitnick. 2002. Sperm-female coevolution in Drosophila. Science. 298(5596): 1230–1233. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1076968 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1076968
Oliver, M y J. P. Evans. 2014. Chemically moderated gamete preferences predict offspring fitness in a broadcast spawning invertebrate. Proceedings of the royal society B: biological sciences. 281(1784): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0148 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0148
Parker, G. A. 1979. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. Pp. 123-166. En: Blum, M. S. & N. A. Blum (Eds.). Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. Boston, Estados Unidos, 476 pp. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-108750-0.50010-0
Pizzari, T. y T. R. Birkhead. 2000. Female feral fowl eject sperm of subdominant males. Nature. 405(6788): 787–789. https://doi.org/10.1038/35015558 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/35015558
Pomiankowski, A. (1987). Sexual selection: the handicap priciple does work - sometimes. Proceedings of the royal society of London - biological sciences. 230(1262): 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1987.0038 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1987.0038
Pradhan, G. R. y C. P. Van Schaik. 2009. Why do females find ornaments attractive? The coercion-avoidance hypothesis. Biological journal of the Linnean society. 96(2): 372–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2008.01131.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2008.01131.x
Pratt, H. L. (1993). The storage of spermatozoa in the oviducal glands of western North Atlantic sharks. Environmental biology of fishes. 38(1–3): 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00842910 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00842910
Rendón-Herrera, J. J., J. C. Pérez-Jiménez, N. C. Saavedra-Sotelo. 2022. Regional variation in multiple paternity in the brown smooth-hound shark Mustelus henlei from the northeastern Pacific. Journal of fish biology. 100(6): 1399–1406. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.15050 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.15050
Rosenthal, G. G. y M. J. Ryan. 2022. Sexual selection and the ascent of women: Mate choice research since Darwin. Science. 375(6578): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abi6308 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abi6308
Ryan, M. J. 1985. The Túngara frog: a study in sexual selection and communication. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 246 pp.
Ryan, M. J. y A. Keddy-Hector. 1992. Directional Patterns of Female Mate Choice and the Role of Sensory Biases. American naturalist. 139(Supplement: Sensory Drive): S4–S35. https://doi.org/10.1086/285303 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/285303
Smuts, B. B. y R. W. Smuts. 1993. Male Aggression and Sexual Coercion of Females in Nonhuman Primates and Other Mammals: Evidence and Theoretical Implications. Advances in the study of behavior. 22(22): 1–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-3454(08)60404-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-3454(08)60404-0
Stölting, K. N. y A. B. Wilson. 2007. Male pregnancy in seahorses and pipefish: Beyond the mammalian model. Bioessays. 29(9): 884–896. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.20626 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.20626
Tamar-Mattis, A. 2006. Exceptions to the rule: curing the law’s failure to protect intersex infants. Berkeley journal of gender law & justice. 21: 59–110.
Tárula-Marín, A. O. y N.C. Saavedra-Sotelo. 2021. First record of the mating system in the grey smoothhound shark (Mustelus californicus). Marine Biology Research. 17(4): 362–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/17451000.2021.1964533 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17451000.2021.1964533
Thornhill, R. 1983. Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps. American naturalist. 122(6): 765–788. https://doi.org/10.1086/284170 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/284170
Troisi, A. y M. Carosi. 1998. Female orgasm rate increases with male dominance in Japanese macaques. Animal behaviour. 56(5): 1261–1266. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1998.0898 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1998.0898
Vasey L. P. 1996. Interventions and alliance formation between female Japanese macaques, Macaca fuscata, during homosexual consortships. Animal behaviour. 52(3): 539–551. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0196 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0196
Vincent, A. C. J. 1994. Operational Sex Ratios in Seahorses. Behaviour. 128(1), 153–167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853994X00091
Wagner, R. H., F. Helfenstein, E. Danchin. 2004. Female choice of young sperm in a genetically monogamous bird. Proceedings of the royal society B: biological sciences, 271(SUPPL. 4): 134–137. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2003.0142 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2003.0142
Wiley, R. H. 2015. Noiste Matters: The evolution of communication. Harvard University Press, Boston, 520 pp.
Yasui, Y. 1997. A “good-sperm” model can explain the evolution of costly multiple mating by females. American naturalist. 149(3): 573–584. https://doi.org/10.1086/286006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/286006
Yoshizawa, K., R. L. Ferreira, Y. Kamimura, C. Lienhard. 2014. Female penis, male vagina, and their correlated evolution in a cave insect. Current Biology. 24(9): 1006–1010. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.03.022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.03.022
Zahavi, A. 1977. The cost of honesty. Further Remarks on the Handicap Principle. Journal of theoretical biology. 67(3): 603–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(77)90061-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(77)90061-3
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2024 José Juan Rendón Herrera, Nancy Claudia Saavedra Sotelo
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
