BUSN125 U3 IP template.docxRunning head BUSN125 – Applied Bu.docx

BUSN125 U3 IP template.docx
Running head: BUSN125 – Applied Business Mathematics 4
Unit 3 – Business mathematics
Type your Name Here
American InterContinental University
Abstract
This is a single paragraph, no indentation is required. The next

page will be an abstract; “a brief, comprehensive summary of
the contents of the article; it allows the readers to survey the
contents of an article quickly” (Publication Manual, 2010). The
length of this abstract should be 35-50 words (2-3 sentences).
NOTE: the abstract must be on page 2 and the body of the paper
will begin on page 3.
Introduction
Remember to always indent the first line of a paragraph (use the
tab key). The introduction should be short (perhaps 3-4
sentences). The margins, font size, spacing, and font type
(italics or plain) are set in APA format. While you may change
the names of the headings and subheadings, do not change the
font or style of font.
In this section, please explain and describe the business you
will start by answering the following questions:
a. What will your business sell?
b. Why is this business interesting to you?
Revenue and Profits
This section should be at least 5 sentences in length.
Demonstrate that you understand how mathematics is used in
business by discussing how your business will generate money.
Please answer the following questions:

a. What are your projected year #1 sales? Please discuss how
many units will be sold and at what price.
b. What are your projected year #1 expenses and costs? Please
discuss what the business will spend money in order to produce
the units that are sold.
c. What portion of your sales revenue will be consumed by
expenses? Express in fractions and in percentages.
d. What portion of your sales revenue will be profits? Express
in fractions and in percentages.
Product Price and Cost
Demonstrate that you understand how mathematics is used in
business by providing financial information about the
products/services that people will buy from your business.
Provide the following information:
a. Provide detail on the prices you will charge (be specific for
each product/service you will sell).
b. Provide detail on the costs you must pay to provide each of
your products.
c. Explain your price mark-up in percentages and in dollars.
Show your calculations.
Investment Requirements
Demonstrate that you understand the course content about
banking and loans by discussing your business banking and
loans. Answer the following questions:
a. What business accounts will your open? Explain your
banking requirements? Describe the bank(s) you would use.
b. Assume that you need to take out a business loan to cover
your initial costs and expenses. The amount of the loan is equal
to the amount of your projected year #1 expenses and costs (per
item 1b above).
c. Describe that loan and show your annual repayment
schedule over 10 years with 6% compound interest.

d. Then describe that loan and your repayment over 10 years
with 8% simple interest.
Balance Sheet
1. Prepare a BALANCE SHEET that reports your Year #1
business results in terms of ASSETS and LIABILITIES and
EQUITY. Use the BALANCE SHEET reviewed during Unit #3
Chat as a TEMPLATE (it is on the following page). 2.
Conduct a vertical analysis and explain your greatest Asset
(versus all other assets) and your greatest Liability (versus all
other Liabilities). Explain the results of your analysis.
Conclusion
Summarize your business desires, concerns and expectations
based on your content above. This section should be at least 5
sentences.

References
NOTE: The reference list starts on a new page after your
conclusion.
For help with formatting citations and references using rules
outlined in the APA Manual’s 6th Edition, please check out the
AIU APA guide located under the Interactive Learning section
on the left side of the course.
Examples:
American Psychological Association [APA]. (2010) Publication
manual of the American
Psychological association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Association of Legal Writing Directors (ALWD) (2005). ALWD
citation manual: A professional
system of citation (3rd ed.). New York: Aspen Publishers.
[Name of Your Company]
Amount $$Percentage
For the End of Year #1
Year #1
Assets
Current assets:
Cash (on hand, in your accounts)- #DIV/0!
Investments (cash)- #DIV/0!
Inventories (value of inventory)- #DIV/0!
Accounts receivable (payments due to you)-
#DIV/0!
Pre-paid expenses- #DIV/0!
Other- #DIV/0!
Total current assets

- #DIV/0!
Fixed assets:
Property (real estate you own)- #DIV/0!
Equipment (that you own)- #DIV/0!
Long term investments - #DIV/0!
Less accumulated depreciation (A Cost Recovery)-
#DIV/0!
Total fixed assets
- #DIV/0!
Other assets:
Goodwill- #DIV/0!
Patents Owned- #DIV/0!
Total other assets
- #DIV/0!
Total assets
- #DIV/0!
Liabilities and owner's equity
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable (Money you must pay for materials)-
#DIV/0!
Wages payable- #DIV/0!
Other compensation payable (employee benefits)-
#DIV/0!
Income taxes payable (include payroll, sales taxes)-
#DIV/0!
Unearned revenue- #DIV/0!
Other- #DIV/0!
Total current liabilities
- #DIV/0!
Long-term liabilities:
Mortgage payable- #DIV/0!
Long-term notes payable- #DIV/0!
Total long-term liabilities
- #DIV/0!
Total liabilities
- #DIV/0!

Owner's equity:
Investment capital- #DIV/0!
Accumulated retained earnings
- #DIV/0!
Total owner's equity
- #DIV/0!
Balance Sheet
Balance SheetBalance Sheet[Name of Your Company]Amount
$$PercentageFor the End of Year #1Year #1AssetsCurrent
assets:Cash (on hand, in your accounts)-
0ERROR:#DIV/0!Investments (cash)-
0ERROR:#DIV/0!Inventories (value of inventory)-
0ERROR:#DIV/0!Accounts receivable (payments due to you)-
0ERROR:#DIV/0!Pre-paid expenses- 0ERROR:#DIV/0!Other-
0ERROR:#DIV/0!Total current assets- 0ERROR:#DIV/0!Fixed
assets:Property (real estate you own)-
0ERROR:#DIV/0!Equipment (that you own)-
0ERROR:#DIV/0!Long term investments -
0ERROR:#DIV/0!Less accumulated depreciation (A Cost
Recovery)- 0ERROR:#DIV/0!Total fixed assets-
0ERROR:#DIV/0!Other assets:Goodwill-
0ERROR:#DIV/0!Patents Owned- 0ERROR:#DIV/0!Total other
assets- 0ERROR:#DIV/0!Total assets-
0ERROR:#DIV/0!Liabilities and owner's equityCurrent
liabilities:Accounts payable (Money you must pay for
materials)- 0ERROR:#DIV/0!Wages payable-
0ERROR:#DIV/0!Other compensation payable (employee
benefits)- 0ERROR:#DIV/0!Income taxes payable (include
payroll, sales taxes)- 0ERROR:#DIV/0!Unearned revenue-
0ERROR:#DIV/0!Other- 0ERROR:#DIV/0!Total current
liabilities- 0ERROR:#DIV/0!Long-term liabilities:Mortgage
payable- 0ERROR:#DIV/0!Long-term notes payable-
0ERROR:#DIV/0!Total long-term liabilities-
0ERROR:#DIV/0!Total liabilities - 0ERROR:#DIV/0!Owner's
equity:Investment capital- 0ERROR:#DIV/0!Accumulated
retained earnings- 0ERROR:#DIV/0!Total owner's equity-

0ERROR:#DIV/0!
Income StatementIncome Statement[Name of Company][Time
Period]RevenueGross SalesLess: Sales Returns and Allowances
Net Sales0Cost of Goods SoldBeginning
InventoryAdd:PurchasesFreight-inDirect LaborIndirect
ExpensesInventory Available0Less: Ending Inventory Cost of
Goods Sold0 Gross Profit
(Loss)0ExpensesAdvertisingAmortizationBad DebtsBank
ChargesCharitable ContributionsCommissionsContract
LaborDepreciationDues and SubscriptionsEmployee Benefit
ProgramsInsurance InterestLegal and Professional FeesLicenses
and FeesMiscellaneousOffice ExpensePayroll
TaxesPostageRentRepairs and
MaintenanceSuppliesTelephoneTravelUtilitiesVehicle
ExpensesWages Total Expenses0 Net Operating
Income0Other IncomeGain (Loss) on Sale of AssetsInterest
Income Total Other Income0 Net Income (Loss)0
Variables_ExampleFALSE_ShadingFALSE_SeriesOfficeReady
3.0_Look1
Examples
Functional Ecology
2008,
22
, 443– 453 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01417.x

© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 British
Ecological Society
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
T H E E VO LU T I O N A RY E C O LO G Y O F S E N E S
C E N C E
Sexual selection, sexual conflict and the evolution of
ageing and life span
R. Bonduriansky*, A. Maklakov, F. Zajitschek and R. Brooks
Evolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological,
Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South
Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia
Summary
1.
Classic evolutionary models interpret ageing as a cost of
reproduction, but evolutionary research
has thus far largely neglected the conceptual links between the
evolution of ageing and a key mode of

selection on male and female reproductive strategies – sexual
selection and sexual conflict.
2.
We synthesize ideas and evidence linking sex and ageing, and
make the case that a focus on this
fascinating problem will ultimately lead to a more complete
understanding of both the evolution of
ageing and the evolution of sexual strategies.
3.
The primary and secondary differentiation of male and female
reproductive strategies is expected
to produce sex-specific optima for traits that affect longevity
and ageing rate, often favouring a ‘live
fast, die young’ strategy in males, relative to females, although
numerous exceptions to this pattern
are observed and sex-differences in ageing rate, in particular,
remain poorly understood.
4.
Conversely, environmental factors that influence life
expectancy or ageing rate can thereby
determine the magnitude or even sign of sexual selection.
5.

Sexual conflict is expected to displace the sexes from their sex-
specific life-history optima through
sexually antagonistic interactions, as well as sex-specific
selection on loci expressed in both sexes.
6.
Despite the availability of interesting and testable hypotheses
linking sexual selection and ageing,
relevant empirical studies are remarkably sparse, and the
complex relation between sex, mortality
rate and ageing remains poorly understood.
Key-words:
phenotypic plasticity, life history evolution, senescence, aging
Introduction
Natural selection cannot eliminate ageing because selection
on genes expressed late in life is weak, permitting the
accumulation of late-acting deleterious mutations and, in
particular, genes that enhance early-life reproductive
performance while contributing to somatic deterioration.
Natural selection thus shapes the life history so as to achieve
an optimal compromise between reproductive rate and somatic
maintenance, under the constraints imposed by external
environment and phylogenetic history.

Theoretical inquiry on the evolution of ageing and life span
– as in so many other classic problems in evolutionary biology
– has sought to identify life-history optima that maximize
population growth rate, while largely ignoring within-
population variation and the dynamics of sexual selection and
conflict. The primary and secondary differentiation of male and
female reproductive traits typically yields sex-specific optima
for life-history traits, including investment in longevity and
somatic maintenance. A long-standing idea is that males are
often selected to pursue a ‘live fast, die young’ reproductive
strategy characterized by higher mortality rate and more
rapid ageing in males than females (Vinogradov 1998; Carranza
& Pérez-Barbería 2007). However, our understanding of the
costs of reproduction has recently been revolutionized by the
recognition of pervasive sexual conflict over the outcome
of male–female interactions, and evolution of loci affecting
reproductive traits (Parker 1979; Lande 1980; Rice 1984;
Arnqvist & Rowe 2005). Sexual conflict has the potential to
displace the sexes from their sex-specific optima for life span
and ageing rate (Promislow 2003). From the genomic point of
view, two modes of conflict are commonly recognized (Arnqvist
& Rowe 2005), depending on whether sexually antagonistic
co-evolution is observed within a locus (intralocus conflict),
or between loci (interlocus conflict). Interlocus sexual conflict
frequently intensifies the direct costs of reproduction for both
sexes through the (co)evolution of sexually antagonistic
traits that mediate male–female interactions. Although less
well understood, intralocus sexual conflict is expected to
*Correspondence author. E-mail: [email protected]

444
R. Bonduriansky
et al.
Ecological Society,
Functional Ecology
,
22
, 443– 453
generate substantial costs through sex-specific selection on
loci expressed in both sexes, resulting in an evolutionary
tug-of-war over the expression of sexually homologous traits.
Despite recognition of the fundamental importance of
sexual selection and sexual conflict in shaping reproductive
strategies, and continued interest in the evolution of ageing,
evolutionary research has largely neglected the need for
detailed exploration of the links between sex and ageing (but
see Svensson & Sheldon 1998; Promislow 2003; Tuljapurkar,

Puleston & Gurven 2007; Graves 2007). Here, we review and
synthesize key ideas and empirical studies linking these
disparate areas of research, and argue that our understanding
of ageing and life span will be revolutionized by a recognition
of the central role of sexual selection and sexual conflict in
the
evolution of life histories. In ‘sexual selection and life-history
evolution’, we examine the consequences of sexual selection
for
the evolution of male life history, and for sexual dimorphism
in mortality trajectories. We also consider the possibility that
variation in ageing and life span can mediate effects of
environ-
ment on sexual selection. In ‘sexual conflict in relation to life
span and ageing’, we focus on the potential for sexually
antagonistic co-evolution to influence life span and ageing in
both sexes. In ‘conclusions and future directions’, we highlight
the current dearth of empirical studies and gaps in theoretical
understanding bearing on these questions, and offer sugges-
tions for future work.
Sexual selection and life-history evolution
E F F E C T S
O F
S E X U A L

S E L E C T I O N
O N
L I F E
S P A N
A N D
A G E I N G
In this section, we make the case that male reproductive
strategies are typically associated with elevated mortality
risks and weaker selection for long life span relative to females,
resulting in ‘live fast, dye young’ male life histories. Although

males’ elevated mortality rate may also be expected to
weaken selection on somatic maintenance and thus drive the
evolution of accelerated ageing, current evidence offers little
support for this prediction.
Why does theory generally predict weaker selection for
long life in males than in females? In most species, the
opportunity for and intensity of sexual selection are greater in
males because fathers contribute less to each offspring than
mothers do. This frees up resources that males can use to
compete for additional matings, resulting in higher variance in
male fitness than female fitness (Bateman 1948, Trivers 1972).
Thus, because of the fundamental divergence in the sex roles
originally stemming from anisogamy, females are generally
expected to pursue low-risk, low-wear-and-tear strategies
with moderate rates of return over extended time periods,
whereas males are expected to pursue high-risk, high-wear-
and-tear strategies with the potential for a high yield over
short time periods (see Vinogradov 1998). Males can benefit
by sacrificing longevity for the possibility of enhanced mating
success, whereas females cannot gain as much by sacrificing
longevity because female fitness is limited by the time
investment and resources-acquisition demands inherent in
offspring production. This general prediction becomes less
clear-cut, or fails entirely, in relation to species with
secondarily
convergent sexual strategies, such as monogamous or sex role-
reversed animals, as well as in species with age-dependent
expression of male secondary sexual traits, where male
reproductive rate often increases with age. These considerations
suggest that sexual dimorphism in life span and ageing is a
complex function of several mating system parameters.
Male reproductive strategies often appear to involve high
rates of somatic damage, particularly in highly polygynous

species. For example, male–male combat may result in
cumulative somatic deterioration. This is particularly true in
insects, which are unable to repair damage to their exoskeleton.
Since females do not engage in combat, such cumulative
damage may result in higher mortality and ageing rates in
males, relative to females. Reduced life expectancy may also
drive the evolution of more rapid ageing in males (Williams
1957; Hamilton 1966; Kirkwood & Rose 1991; but see Graves
2007). Note, however, that average sex-differences in life span
and ageing do not reflect sex-differences in the magnitude
of reproductive costs: in most species, each individual has a
mother and a father, so the net costs of reproduction must be
equal for females and males. Rather, sex-differences in life span
and ageing are likely to reflect the nature and scheduling of
reproductive effort. Unfortunately, the effects of variation in
male sexual strategy and secondary sexual trait expression on
life span and ageing remain poorly understood (Kotiaho 2001).
A key element of male reproductive strategy is male-
specific hormone secretion. Hormones induce the expression
of sexual traits that increase mortality risks and enhance
somatic wear-and-tear, thus reducing male life expectancy
and probably weakening selection on male life span and
somatic maintenance. In vertebrates, testosterone is usually
present in higher concentrations in males than in females
(Ketterson, Nolan & Sandell 2005), and mediates the develop-
ment of secondary sexual traits (Ligon
et al
. 1990; Panzica
et al

. 1991; Mougeot
et al
. 2004; Blas
et al
. 2006) and
behaviours like territoriality and courtship (Collias, Barfield &
Tarvyd 2002; Sakata
et al
. 2003; Day, McBroom & Schlinger
2005; Hume & Wynne-Edwards 2005). Testosterone is also
associated with diverse physiological costs, including reduced
immunocompetence, increased susceptibility to oxidative stress,
and increased basal metabolic rate and energy expenditure
(Buchanan
et al
. 2001; Wingfield, Lynn & Soma 2001;
Bribiescas 2006; Alonso-Alvarez

et al
. 2007; Cox & John-Alder
2007). Insects lack testosterone, but exhibit male-specific
titres of juvenile hormone, insulin-like growth factors, and
other hormones that stimulate secondary sexual trait expression
(Emlen
et al
. 2006), and affect mortality and ageing (Tatar
2004; Flatt, Tu & Tatar 2005; Keller & Jemielity 2006). Males
thus
appear to sacrifice viability for enhanced sexual performance,
whereas females may benefit by investing more in immunity
and longevity (Rolff 2002).
The general prediction of ‘live fast, die young’ strategies
in males is supported by higher mortality rates in males
within a broad range of taxa (Comfort 1979; Finch 1990;
Sexual selection and ageing
445
Ecological Society,

Functional Ecology
,
22
, 443– 453
Promislow & Harvey 1990; Promislow 1992; Vieira
et al
. 2000).
Furthermore, comparative studies on vertebrates support the
key role of sexual competition in this pattern. Male mortality
rate covaries with sexual size dimorphism, which generally
reflects the intensity of male sexual competition (Promislow,
Montgomerie & Martin 1992). Likewise, male-biased mortality
rates are associated with polygynous mating systems charac-
terized by intense male sexual competition (Clutton-Brock &
Isvaran 2007).
However, theoretical considerations suggest that sexual
selection need not always promote ‘live fast, die young’
strategies in males, and empirical studies confirm that
mortality rates are not always male-biased (Lints

et al
. 1983;
Promislow, Montgomerie & Martin 1992; Fox, Dublin &
Pollitt 2003). There are several reasons why males may
sometimes be selected for long life.
First, selection on male condition and performance may
favour genes with positive pleiotropic effects on longevity and
somatic maintenance (Abrams 1993; Williams & Day 2003;
Bronikowski & Promislow 2005). For example, although an
increase in the abundance of predators (and concomitant
reduction in life expectancy) is generally assumed to permit
the evolution of accelerated ageing, the opposite effect has
been observed for some indices of ageing in guppies (Reznick
et al
. 2004). This may occur because predators select on
diverse aspects of whole-organism performance in their
prey (Bronikowski & Promislow 2005). Likewise, sexual
competition imposes strong selection on male condition
and whole-organism performance (Lailvaux & Irschick 2006),
potentially favouring alleles with positive pleiotropic effects
on life span and somatic maintenance.
Second, in species with age-dependent expression of
secondary sexual traits, sexual selection may favour males
that can survive and maintain their soma long enough to
attain a large body size, large weapons or signals, or high
social rank (Clutton-Brock 1982, 1988; Clinton & Le Boeuf
1993; Kokko

et al
. 1999). For example, selection on social
status may account for the high mating success of older men
in traditional human societies (Tuljapurkar
et al.
2007).
Indeed, Graves (2007) points out that selection may favour
slower ageing in males than in females, despite male-biased
mortality rates, if male mating success tends to increase with
age (also see Partridge & Barton 1996). Theory suggests
that signalers may sometimes be selected to increase signal
magnitude with age (see Kokko 1997), resulting in selection
for enhanced somatic maintenance.
Third, in species with secondarily convergent sex roles,
such as monogamous species (see Promislow 2003), or sex
role-reversed species where females compete for matings and
males invest heavily in offspring, males may adopt a female-
like ‘live slow, dye old’ strategy. This idea is supported by
comparative studies showing that the degree of male bias in
mortality rate covaries with indices of sexual selection
strength on males (Promislow, Montgomerie & Martin 1992;
Clutton-Brock & Isvaran 2007). Direct comparison of species
with reversed vs. conventional sex roles would provide an
additional, powerful test of the ideas discussed here.
Promislow (2003) suggested that longer life span may be
expected to evolve in cooperatively breeding birds because
helpers at the nest appear to reduce the costs of sexual conflict.

There are several other reasons why complex sociality may
promote long life (Blumstein & Møller 2008). Nonetheless, a
large comparative analysis found no evidence of an association
between complex sociality and extended life span (Blumstein
& Møller 2008).
Variation in life span and ageing among males also appears
to reflect variation in reproductive investment. Evidence from
a variety of organisms, and from both sexes, shows that
elevated
reproductive rate is associated with reduced life span and, in
some cases, accelerated ageing (Rose & Charlesworth 1981;
Ernsting & Isaaks 1991; Kirkwood & Rose 1991; Service 1993;
Tatar, Carey & Vaupel 1993; Kotiaho 2001; Hunt
et al
. 2004).
Such costs can be interpreted in light of the disposable soma
model (Kirkwood 1977; Kirkwood & Rose 1991; Kirkwood &
Austad 2000), which suggests that ageing occurs because
resources allocated to reproductive traits are unavailable for
investment in somatic repair. Consequently, individuals or
populations that invest more in sexual traits may be expected
to exhibit shorter life span and faster ageing. Several studies on
insects have reported reduced longevity in males that invest
more
heavily in reproduction or secondary sexual trait expression
(Partridge & Farquhar 1981; Alcock 1996; Cordts & Partridge
1996; Clutton-Brock & Langley 1997; Prowse & Partridge 1997;
Hunt
et al

. 2004; Bonduriansky & Brassil 2005), although
reproduction sometimes imposes only immediate costs
(Partridge & Andrews 1985). However, such studies do not
distinguish between the effects of elevated resource allocation
to
sexual functions, and other reproductive costs such as increased
wear-and-tear caused by more intense sexual competition.
Whereas accounting for variation in life span poses con-
siderable challenges, understanding variation in ageing rate is
likely to prove even more difficult. Although theory generally
predicts that higher mortality rate will drive the evolution
of more rapid ageing (Williams 1957; Hamilton 1966), the
available evidence does not yield any clear pattern of sexual
dimorphism in ageing, nor any simple relation between life span
and ageing. For example, in the fly
Telostylinus angusticollis
,
Kawasaki
et al
. (2008) observed both higher initial mortality
rate and more rapid ageing in males than in females in the
wild, and in most laboratory assays. In wild field crickets,
Teleogryllus commodus

, Zajitschek
et al
. (2008) also observed
a higher initial mortality rate in males, but found little evidence
of sexually dimorphic ageing rates. In seed beetles, Fox
et al
.
(2003) found lower initial mortality rate but faster ageing
in males than in females of
Callosobruchus maculatus
, but
higher initial mortality in males and no sex-difference in
ageing rate in
Stator limbatus
. Promislow & Haselkorn (2002)
found every combination of sexual dimorphism in life span,
initial mortality rate and ageing rate among five species of

Drosophila
. In a seabird, females aged more rapidly than males
(Reed
et al
. 2008). In humans, women exhibit lower mortality
rates than men in most populations (Hamilton & Mestler
1969; Kinsella & Gist 1998; Stindl 2004; Terioknin
et al
. 2004;
Kruger & Nesse 2006), and men are more susceptible to many
446
R. Bonduriansky
et al.
Ecological Society,

Functional Ecology
,
22
, 443– 453
‘diseases of ageing’ (Kinsella & Gist 1998). However, the
onset of ageing appears to be later in men than in women
(Graves, Strand & Lindsay 2006). It remains unclear how
sex-specific mortality relates to sexual dimorphism in ageing
rate, or why this relation varies among taxa.
E F F E C T S
O F
L I F E

S P A N
A N D
A G E I N G
O N
S E X U A L
S E L E C T I O N
A phenotype’s net (i.e. life time) fitness depends on its
early-life reproductive rate, pattern of change in reproductive
rate with age (ageing), and life span. As the preceding section
suggests, phenotypes are likely to vary in life span and ageing
rate, and this variation may reflect secondary sexual trait
expression. Below, we show that variation in life span and
ageing can therefore modulate the magnitude or even the sign
of sexual selection.

We begin with an empirical example. In a wild population
of the antler fly,
Protopiophila litigata
, male mating rate is an
increasing function of male body size (Bonduriansky &
Brooks 1998; Bonduriansky & Brooks 1999), but males suffer
reductions in both survival and mating rate with age (Bon-
duriansky & Brassil 2002). Moreover, the rate of reproductive
ageing increases with male body size (Bonduriansky & Brassil
2005), reflecting either the physiological costs of large body
size, or large males’ propensity to engage in more intense or
frequent combat (Bonduriansky & Brooks 1999). Because the
net (life time) advantage of large body size is diminished by
the tendency for large males to deteriorate more rapidly
with age, the covariation between male body size and ageing
rate is manifested in a reduction in the gradient of net sexual
selection on male body size (Bonduriansky
et al
. 2005). In
other words, if large males could maintain their mating rate
advantage over small males as they aged, net sexual selection
on male body size would have been stronger.
Reproductive rate need not always covary positively with
ageing rate, however. If high-condition individuals can achieve
both higher reproductive rate and better somatic maintenance,
then their relative advantage will increase with age, strength-

ening net sexual selection on their secondary sexual traits. This
may occur if variation in condition is sufficient to over-
whelm allocation trade-offs (Van Noordwijk & Dejong 1986;
Stearns 1989a,b; Houle 1991, also see Nussey et al in this
volume).
The antler fly example illustrates a general principle:
phenotypic variation in life span and ageing can affect sexual
selection. This example also suggests how such effects could
be modulated by ambient conditions. Life expectancy is a
function of extrinsic (background) mortality rate. If extrinsic
mortality is reduced and life expectancy correspondingly
extended, then the relative net fitness of phenotypes that age
more rapidly will be reduced (Fig. 1a). Conversely, if extrinsic
mortality rate increases, phenotypes that age more rapidly
will perform relatively better over the life time. These are basic
predictions of life-history theory (Williams 1957; Hamilton
1966), but they have interesting implications for sexual
selection.
If phenotypes that age more rapidly are those that invest more
in secondary sexual traits (as in the antler fly example and in
the model shown in Fig. 1), then, all else being equal, reduced
mortality will weaken or even reverse sexual selection, because
such phenotypes will have reduced net fitness, relative to
pheno-
types that invest less in secondary sexual traits. Conversely,
elevated mortality will tend to enhance the relative fitness
of phenotypes that invest more in secondary sexual traits,
strengthening sexual selection. Some of the variation among
populations in the strength and direction of sexual selection
may thus reflect variation in extrinsic mortality.
Moreover, environment can affect the expression of both
actuarial and reproductive ageing. Ageing is an extremely
plastic trait, influenced by diet (Medawar 1946; Tu & Tatar
2003), temperature (Tatar, Chien & Priest 2001), substrate

Fig. 1. Theory suggests that ageing can mediate effects of
environment on sexual selection when phenotypes vary in
lifespan or ageing rate.
(a) Environmental variation in extrinsic mortality risk: if life
expectancy is brief (denoted by vertical line I), then
individuals that invest more
heavily in reproduction in early life (solid line) will achieve
higher life-time fitness than individuals that invest less in
reproduction (dotted line),
and the traits mediating variation in reproductive rate will be
under positive sexual selection. If extrinsic mortality rate is
reduced (arrow),
extending life expectancy from vertical line I to II, then
individuals with a lower investment in reproduction will
achieve higher life-time fitness.
(b) Environmental effects on the expression of ageing: In this
example, an environmental change has resulted in accelerated
ageing (arrow) in
individuals that exhibit a high reproductive rate through large
investment in a secondary sexual trait (solid lines), but no
appreciable effect on
individuals that exhibit a lower reproductive rate as a result of
less investment in a secondary sexual trait (dotted line). Prior to
the environmental
change, at the life expectancy indicated by the vertical line,
high-investing individuals achieved higher life-time fitness and
sexual selection on
the secondary sexual trait was positive; after the change, the
sign of sexual selection is reversed. Age-specific fitness
functions are represented
as straight lines for simplicity, but similar results emerge with
more complex life histories.

Sexual selection and ageing
447
Ecological Society,
Functional Ecology
,
22
, 443– 453
(Shook & Johnson 1999; Van Voorhies, Fuchs & Thomas
2005), population density (Mysterud
et al
. 2001) and even
sensory stimuli (Nakamura
et al.

1999; Libert
et al
. 2007). If
environmental effects on the expression of ageing covary with
secondary sexual trait expression, then such environmental
effects will modulate sexual selection (Fig. 1b).
One potentially important environmental variable is
crowding, which can reflect population density or resource
distribution. The effect of a change in crowding on life span or
ageing may covary with secondary sexual trait expression if,
for example, such phenotypic variation is associated with dis-
crete or continuous variation in mating tactics, or the costs of
agonistic interactions. Another key environmental parameter
is diet. Dietary restriction appears to induce a sharp decline in
reproductive allocation and/or the biochemical damage
associated with reproduction (see Shanley & Kirkwood 2000;
Partridge, Gems & Withers 2005; Masoro 2006; Piper &
Partridge 2007; Lee 2008). Diet will affect sexual selection if
different phenotypic variants respond differently to diet, and
if these effects covary with secondary sexual trait expression.
Sexual conflict in relation to life span and ageing
Contrasting reproductive strategies may often result in
sex-specific optima for life-history traits. In this section, we
discuss how a fundamental property of sexual co-evolution –
sexual conflict – may displace both sexes from their sex-
specific optima for life span and ageing.

I N T E R L O C U S
S E X U A L
C O N F L I C T
Sexual conflict occurs when the genetic interests of males and
females diverge (Parker 1979; Holland & Rice 1998; Arnqvist
et al
. 2005). Such conflict can result in arms races where
adaptations in one sex are harmful for the other sex (Rice
1996b; Arnqvist & Rowe 2002; Chapman
et al
. 2003; Martin
& Hosken 2003). This co-evolution is now recognized as one
of the key evolutionary processes shaping life histories.
Male sexual traits can affect female life span and ageing
rate (Svensson & Sheldon 1998; Maklakov, Kremer & Arnqvist

2005; Promislow 2003). Such effects can be direct, via physical
damage or interference with foraging, or indirect, via
manipulation of female reproductive schedules. For example,
females of various insect species suffer from toxic male
ejaculates (Das
et al.
1980; Chapman
et al.
1995), physical
injuries incurred from spiky male genitalia (Crudgington &
Siva-Jothy 2000, Rönn, Katvala & Arnqvist 2007), or other
forms of ‘traumatic insemination’ (Stutt & Siva-Jothy 2001;
Tatarnic, Cassis & Hochuli 2006; Kamimura 2007). Such
male traits may evolve in response to sperm competition. On
the other hand, males in polyandrous species can increase
female short-term reproductive rate at the expense of female
future reproduction (Chapman
et al.
2001). If increased
investment in early reproduction translates into elevated
mortality late in life (Sgro & Partridge 1999), such male
adaptations can reduce female life expectancy and contribute
to female ageing.

Because female-specific selection typically favours lower
mating rate than male-specific selection, females are expected
to oppose harmful male adaptations with counter-adaptations
that may, in turn, lead to elevated mortality or accelerated
resource depletion and somatic deterioration in males. Putative
female counter-adaptations include aggressive behaviour
towards potential mates, sometimes involving sexual
cannibalism (Birkhead, Lee & Young 1988; Elgar & Fahey
1996), release of anti-aphrodisiacs (Andersson, Borg-Karlson &
Wiklund 2004), ejaculate dumping (Snook & Hosken 2004;
Wagner, Helfenstein & Danchin 2004), and ejaculate
ingestion (Bonduriansky, Wheeler & Rowe 2005). A common
form of female resistance to mating – male-female struggles
before and/or during copulation (Parker & Thompson 1980;
Rowe
et al
. 1994; Bonduriansky 2003) – results in elevated
energy expenditure and predation risk for both sexes (Rowe
1994; Watson, Arnqvist & Stallmann 1998), and may contribute
to somatic deterioration.
By increasing mortality rate, sexually antagonistic traits
and interactions may weaken selection against alleles with
deleterious late-life effects and, thus, promote the evolution
of rapid ageing (Promislow 2003). In general, more intense
interlocus sexual conflict should therefore result in shorter life
span and more rapid ageing for one or both sexes (Promislow
2003). This prediction is supported by the finding that
experimentally imposed monandry leads to the evolution of
males that cause reduced direct harm to females (Holland &
Rice 1999; Martin & Hosken 2003), although effects on female
ageing remain unclear. Note, however, that Promislow’s

prediction may be negated or even reversed – sexually
antagonistic co-evolution may have no net effect, or even result
in slower ageing – if sexually antagonistic interactions impose
strong selection on somatic condition and vigour (see ‘Effects
of sexual selection on life span and ageing’)!
C A S E
S T U D I E S
O F
S E X U A L L Y
A N T A G O N I S T I C
C O
-

E V O L U T I O N
For sexual co-evolution to contribute to the evolution of
ageing, evolutionary change in genes expressed in one sex
should affect senescence in the other sex. Recent experimental
studies with seed beetles
Acanthoscelides obtectus
support this
hypothesis and suggest that males in populations maintained
under different life-history schedules evolve to affect female
mortality rates differently (Maklakov
et al.
2005). Further-
more, age-specific change in female sexually selected traits
was found to be related to life-history evolution (Maklakov
et al. 2005). However, direct support for Promislow’s (2003)
prediction that higher levels of sexual conflict should result
in the evolution of more rapid ageing is currently lacking.
Maklakov, Fricke & Arnqvist (2007) subjected another seed
beetle,
C. maculatus

, to either true random monogamy or
polygamy. In theory, such an approach permits investigation
of the evolution of age-specific mortality rates when the
potential for both ‘good genes’ and antagonistic co-evolution is
removed. Virgin females from polygamous populations
exhibited
reduced life span compared to those from monogamous
448
R. Bonduriansky
et al.
Ecological Society,
Functional Ecology
,
22
, 443– 453

populations, as predicted by the sexual conflict theory.
However, while re-mating rates were slightly higher in polyg-
amous populations, there was little evidence that monandrous
males evolved to be more benign towards females (Fricke &
Arnqvist 2007). Notably, differences in female life span
between
distinct selection regimes seemed to reflect differences in
background mortality rather than ageing. We need more
experimental studies that assess the effects of both pre- and
post-copulatory sexual selection on ageing, under levels of
sexual conflict reflecting the recent evolutionary history of the
study organisms.
I N T R A L O C U S
S E X U A L
C O N F L I C T
The evolution of optimal sexual dimorphism is constrained
by the fact that most genes are expressed and subject to
divergent (i.e. sex-specific) selection in both sexes. The result
is
intralocus sexual conflict

, whereby evolution of a locus towards
the sex-specific optimum is impeded by selection on the same
locus in the opposite sex (Rice & Chippindale 2001; Arnqvist
et al
. 2005). Several genetic mechanisms can potentially
ameliorate intralocus sexual conflict, including
sex-limitation
(Rhen 2000),
sex-linkage
(Bull 1983; Rice 1984; Rice 1996a),
and
genomic imprinting
(Day & Bonduriansky 2004;
Bonduriansky & Rowe 2005). Evidence for intralocus sexual
conflict comes from breeding experiments in the laboratory
(Fedorka & Mousseau 2004), cytogenetic cloning of haploid
chromosome sets in
Drosophila melanogaster

(Chippindale,
Gibson & Rice 2001; Pischedda & Chippindale 2006), studies
of pedigreed wild vertebrate populations (Foerster
et al
.
2007), and experimental evolution where selection on one
sex is removed (Prasad
et al
. 2007). These studies suggest that
intralocus sexual conflict is widespread, and imposes an
appreciable genetic load on populations.
Sexual selection and sexual conflict generate sex-dependent
selection on life span and ageing, as well as the nature,
amount and scheduling of reproductive effort. However, the
possibility that life span and ageing mediate intralocus sexual
conflict has received little attention from theorists or
empiricists.
The potential importance of intralocus sexual conflict is
illustrated by the work of Tuljapurkar
et al.
(2007), who

characterized differences between men and women in several
societies in the age-dependence of reproductive success. They
suggested that the substantial reproductive success of older
men in ‘traditional’ societies may have favoured autosomal
alleles that promote long life and slow ageing, and argued that
expression of such male-benefit alleles in both sexes may
explain women’s long post-menopausal life spans. This
example would represent a case of intralocus sexual conflict if
it could be shown that female investment in post-menopausal
longevity results in reduced fecundity, and such costs are not
balanced by inclusive-fitness benefits (e.g. via grand-maternal
care). If we are to understand the extent of intralocus sexual
conflict over life span and ageing, we need estimates of realized
mortality and ageing rates in both sexes, and sex-specific
optima for investment in longevity and somatic maintenance.
In addition to understanding sex-differences in selection
and in patterns of ageing, we need a firm understanding of the
genetic basis of ageing and related traits in both sexes. Strong
positive intersexual genetic correlations would suggest genetic
constraints on the potential for male and female life span and
ageing to be optimized independently. Few if any comparable
estimates of the genetic basis of ageing
per se
in males
and females exist (but see Spencer
et al

. 2003). However, an
accumulating body of evidence suggests that the genetic
architecture of life span differs markedly between the sexes
(Nuzhdin
et al
. 1997; Spencer
et al
. 2003; Fox
et al
. 2006;
Tower 2006; Zajitschek
et al
. 2007). The only study to test
explicitly for intralocus sexual conflict over ageing-related
traits (Zajitschek
et al

. 2007) found a low intersexual genetic
correlation for longevity (compared with other traits),
suggesting little contemporary potential for intralocus sexual
conflict. Studies that estimate genetic parameters for both
reproductive and actuarial ageing are a high priority.
Whereas interlocus sexual conflict is likely to result in
reduced life span (and perhaps in accelerated ageing) in one or
both sexes, the effects of intralocus sexual conflict on these
traits can be either positive or negative. Indeed, intralocus
sexual conflict may displace both sexes from their sex-specific
optima towards intermediate (less dimorphic) trait values.
For example, if males experience weaker positive selection on
life span than females as a result of sexual selection, then
intralocus sexual conflict may result in an extension of male
life span and reduction of female life span, relative to the
sex-specific optima (or vice versa: see Tuljapurkar
et al.
2007).
Such effects may occur if selection on life span and ageing is
strongly divergent in males and females, and if the intersexual
genetic correlation is substantial. It remains unclear how
broadly these conditions are met (Zajitschek
et al
. 2007).
N O N

-
M E N D E L I A N
I N H E R I T A N C E
Although there are few direct estimates of genetic correlations
between male and female expression of ageing-related traits,
one possible signature of intralocus sexual conflict is non-
Mendelian inheritance of genetic variation for such traits.
Strong intralocus sexual conflict is expected to favour the
evolution of strategies that bias either the inheritance (Bull
1983; Rice 1984, 1996a) or expression (Rhen 2000; Day &
Bonduriansky 2004) of sexually antagonistic fitness traits
toward the sex in which they deliver a fitness benefit and away
from the other sex. Consistent with this prediction, the sex
chromosomes appear to be hotspots of sexually antagonistic
variation (Lindholm & Breden 2002; Parisi
et al
. 2003;
Fitzpatrick 2004; Tower 2006).
Across taxa, sex-biased mortality rates are often associated
with heterogamy (Trivers 1985; Liker & Szekely 2005; Fox

et al
. 2006; Tower 2006), suggesting that the accumulation
of sexually antagonistic genes on sex chromosomes relates
(perhaps causally) to sex differences in mortality rates
and, potentially, ageing. It remains possible, however, that
heterogamy and sex-biased gene expression are as much a
cause of sex-biased mortality as a consequence of intralocus
sexual conflict. Deleterious recessive X- or Z-linked alleles
Sexual selection and ageing 449
Ecological Society, Functional Ecology, 22, 443– 453
will be expressed in the heterogametic sex (males in XX/XY
systems, females in ZZ/ZW systems) more often than in the
homogametic sex, where they are masked from selection by
dominance. By similar argument, sex-specific ageing could be
a consequence of heterogamy because Y- or W-linked alleles
are only expressed in the heterogametic sex, and seldom or
never
recombine. Alleles that cause ageing (or other deleterious
effects) can accumulate on these chromosomes if they also
deliver sex-specific benefits, or via hitch-hiking or Muller’s
ratchet (Rice 1996a; Brooks 2000; Chippindale & Rice 2001).
M I T O C H O N D R I A A N D I N T R A G E N O M I C C
O N F L I C T
Exclusively maternal inheritance of the mitochondrial genome
means that selection cannot produce a response to male-

specific selection on the mitochondria, or the interaction
between the mitochondrial and nuclear genomes (Zeh & Zeh
2007). In line with this notion, Rand et al. (2001) showed that
cytoplasms that are ‘good’ for females can be ‘bad’ for males
and vice versa. The mitochondria are integral to the ageing
process not least through association with reactive oxygen
species pathways (Ballard & Whitlock 2004). Recent work on
Drosophila shows that variation in mtDNA can affect ageing
(James & Ballard 2003; Maklakov et al. 2006). The
accumulation
of mtDNA mutations that reduce male fitness may be expected
to result in accelerated ageing in males, compared to females
(Tower 2006) but, contrary to this prediction, some taxa
exhibit female-biased mortality rates (Liker & Szekely 2005
and references therein). Further, work on Drosophila shows
that sex-specific differences in mitochondrial metabolism are
associated with sex-specific differences in ageing, but not
necessarily with females living longer than males (Ballard
et al. 2007). Nonetheless, it remains a strong possibility that
maternal inheritance of mtDNA could be a major source of
intralocus sexual conflict over life-history optimization, a
possibility supported by evidence of sexually antagonistic
fitness effects of interactions between cytoplasmic and X-
linked factors (Rand et al. 2001; Rand, Fry & Sheldahl 2006).
Conclusions and future directions
The ideas and evidence reviewed above suggest that, as a
general rule-of-thumb, sexual selection results in elevated
mortality and weakened selection on life span in males,
relative to females. However, this general prediction applies
only partially, or not at all, to systems characterized by age-
dependent expression of male secondary sexual traits, where
long-lived males may be the most successful, or to species
with secondarily convergent sex roles, such as monogamous
or sex role-reversed species. A further complication might

arise if male sexual competition imposes strong selection on
condition, favouring genes with positive pleiotropic effects on
survival and somatic maintenance. Theory and evidence also
suggest that sexual conflict may displace one or both sexes
from their sex-specific optima for ageing and life span.
Observed variation in life span among males within and across
species, and between the sexes, is broadly consistent with
these expectations, although numerous apparent exceptions
remain. On the other hand, sex-differences in ageing rate
remain poorly understood, perhaps because of the theoretical
difficulties inherent in characterizing ageing rate and
predicting its evolution (see Williams et al. 2006). Variation
within and among species in mortality rate, life span and
ageing,
and in sexual dimorphism for these traits, may thus reflect a
complex interplay of numerous mating system parameters, as
well as phylogenetic history and ambient conditions.
Despite the complexity of the problem, several broad pre-
dictions are possible: (i) Within species, male phenotypes that
invest more heavily in sexual competition should generally
suffer more rapid ageing, except when mean male reproduc-
tive success increases with male age. This prediction applies
both to discrete genetic or conditional polymorphisms, and
to continuous variation in male phenotype; (ii) among spe-
cies, those that exhibit more intense sexual selection and
interlocus sexual conflict will generally suffer more rapid age-
ing in one or both sexes. However, the tendency for sexual
selection and conflict to increase mortality and ageing rate
may be weakened or reversed if male sexual competition
selects strongly on whole-organism performance, or if mean
male mating success increases with male age (Partridge &
Barton 1996; Graves 2007); (iii) where one sex appears to
have a relative disadvantage in the sexual arms race, that sex
will tend to exhibit a higher mortality rate or faster ageing,

relative to the same sex in related species (Promislow 2003);
(iv) since the intensity of sexual selection may generally be
reflected in morphological sexual dimorphism, variation
among species in the degree of dimorphism in morphology
may be expected to covary positively with dimorphism in
mortality and ageing (Promislow, Montgomerie & Martin 1992;
Promislow 2003); and (v) the degree of sexual dimorphism
in life span and ageing will be reduced in proportion to the
magnitude of the intersexual genetic correlation for these
traits (see Zajitschek et al. 2007).
Several open-ended questions also arise: (i) how much of
the variation among populations in ageing and life span is
accounted for by variation in sexual selection and conflict,
relative to more conventional factors such as background
mortality rate and phylogenetic history?; (ii) what is the
relative contribution of ‘good genes’ sexual selection vs.
sexually antagonistic co-evolution to inter-population variation
in ageing and life span?; and (iii) how much of the variation
among populations in sexual selection gradients reflects the
downstream consequences of environmental effects on ageing
or life span?
Surprisingly, at this point, very few studies have directly
addressed the key hypotheses and assumptions of the sexual
conflict theory of ageing and life span. We have evidence that
males evolve to affect life span and ageing in females, and that
such evolution is contingent upon female life history.
Consistent with theory, the evidence also suggests that such
evolution always benefits males, but may or may not be
beneficial to females. We have no evidence that sexual
selection improves survival when sexual conflict is operating.
In addition, fascinating indirect evidence suggests that

450 R. Bonduriansky et al.
selection on mtDNA in females may impede the optimization
of male life history.
All previous studies that attempted to test for the role of
sexual selection in the evolution of ageing manipulated either
mating system or life-history schedule. Given the complex
nature of the interaction between sexual selection and life
history, future experimental studies should aim to control
both the mating system and the direction of selection on life-
history traits. Such an approach has yielded important insights
into the role of sexual selection in evolution and adaptation
to different hosts (Fricke & Arnqvist 2007), and is likely to
further our understanding of the evolution of life span and
ageing.
Artificial selection and experimental evolution represent
two powerful means to address the relation between sexual
selection, life span and ageing. Traditionally, such studies
have been conducted using a handful of model organisms
(Chippindale 2006), particularly Drosophila melanogaster
(Partridge & Barton 1993, but see Tucic et al. 1996). However,
to assess the generality of our findings, we will need to broaden
the taxonomic horizon of ageing research. In addition,
comparative studies have been of paramount importance in
identifying general patterns of sexual dimorphism in life span
and in providing correlative tests of evolutionary hypotheses
(Promislow 1992; Promislow, Montgomerie & Martin 1992;
Liker & Szekely 2005. One potentially powerful methodology
is to combine comparative and experimental techniques in
the same research program (Rönn et al. 2007).

A further issue is the need to understand the effects of
environment on the expression of ageing and life span and, in
particular, the implications of studying ageing and sexual
selection in the highly artificial environment of the laboratory.
As noted above, ageing and life span are highly plastic traits.
Likewise, it is clear that estimates of selection gradients,
fitness components and quantitative-genetic parameters are
highly sensitive to environment, and experimental results,
including the outcome of selection experiments, may be
strongly
influenced by the peculiarities of the laboratory setting
(Harshman & Hoffmann 2000; Pigliucci & Kaplan 2006;
Kawasaki et al. 2008). This has been shown most clearly
in studies that use quantitative-genetic breeding designs to
estimate genetic correlations in order to test for trade-offs
associated with age-dependent antagonistic pleiotropy (Service
& Rose 1985; Houle 1991). Moreover, there is strong evidence
that wild animals exhibit much higher extrinsic mortality
rates, shorter life expectancies and, in some cases, more rapid
ageing, than their captive counterparts (Ricklefs 2000;
Bonduriansky & Brassil 2002; Bronikowski et al. 2002;
Kawasaki
et al. 2008), despite possessing the genetic capacity for long
life span and slow ageing (Sgrò & Partridge 2000; Linnen,
Tatar & Promislow 2001; Miller et al. 2002). Although
challenging, research on ageing and sexual selection in wild
populations can yield important insights and complement
results from conventional laboratory studies.
In addition to addressing these questions empirically, there
is a need for further development of theory. Given the
complex dynamics of sexual co-evolution (e.g. Gavrilets &
Hayashi 2006), simulation analysis may yield useful insights
into the evolution of ageing and life span under sexual
conflict, and lead to novel hypotheses. Variation in ageing rate

remains especially poorly understood, highlighting the need
for further theoretical work to clarify the relation between
reproductive strategy, life expectancy and ageing.
Acknowledgements
We thank the editors for the invitation that finally galvanized us
to write this
long-planned review. Bill Ballard, Anne Charmantier and two
anonymous
referees provided helpful comments and suggestions. Funding
was provided by
the Australian Research Council through fellowships and
Discovery grants to
AM, RB and RB.
References
Abrams, P.A. (1993) Does increased mortality favor the
evolution of more
rapid senescence? Evolution, 47, 877– 887.
Alcock, J. (1996) Male size and survival: the effects of male
combat and bird
predation in Dawson’s burrowing bees, Amegilla dawsoni.
Ecological Ento-
mology, 21, 309–316.,
Alonso-Alvarez, C., Bertrand, S., Faivre, B., Chastel, O. &
Sorci, G. (2007)
Testosterone and oxidative stress: the oxidation handicap
hypothesis.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series B, 274, 819
–825.
Andersson, J., Borg-Karlson, A.-K. & Wiklund, C. (2004)

Sexual conflict and
anti-aphrodisiac titre in a polyandrous butterfly: male ejaculate
tailoring
and absence of female control. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London:
Series B, 271, 1765–1770.
Arnqvist, G. & Rowe, L. (2002) Antagonistic coevolution
between the sexes in
a group of insects. Nature, 415, 787–789.
Arnqvist, G. & Rowe, L. (2005) Sexual Conflict. Princeton
University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
Ballard, J.W.O. & Whitlock, M.C. (2004) The incomplete
natural history of
mitochondria. Molecular Ecology, 13, 729–744.
Ballard, J.W.O., Melvin, R.G., Miller, J.T. & Katewa, S.D.
(2007) Sex differ-
ences in survival and mitochondrial bioenergetics during aging
in Dro-
sophila. Aging Cell, 6, 699–708.
Bateman, A.J. (1948) Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila.
Heredity, 2, 349–
368.
Birkhead, T.R., Lee, K.E. & Young, P. (1988) Sexual
cannibalism in the praying
mantis Hierodula membranacea. Behavior, 106, 112–118.
Blas, J., Perez-Rodriguez, L., Bortolotti, G.R., Vinuela, J. &
Marchant, T.A.
(2006) Testosterone increases bioavailability of carotenoids:

Insights into
the honesty of sexual signaling. Proceedings of the National
Academy of
Sciences, USA, 103, 18633–18637.
Blumstein, D.T. & Møller, A.P. (2008) Is sociality associated
with high longevity in
North American birds? Biology Letters, 4, 146–148.
Bonduriansky, R. (2003) Layered sexual selection: a
comparative analysis of
sexual behaviour within an assemblage of piophilid flies.
Canadian Journal
of Zoology, 81, 479 – 491.
Bonduriansky, R. & Brassil, C.E. (2002) Rapid and costly
ageing in wild male
flies. Nature, 420, 377.
Bonduriansky, R. & Brassil, C.E. (2005) Reproductive ageing
and sexual
selection on male body size in a wild population of antler flies
(Protopiophila
litigata). Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 18, 1332–1340.
Bonduriansky, R. & Brooks, R.J. (1998) Male antler flies
(Protopiophila
litigata; Diptera: Piophilidae) are more selective than females in
mate choice.
Canadian Journal of Zoology, 76, 1277–1285.
Bonduriansky, R. & Brooks, R.J. (1999) Why do male antler
flies (Protopi-
ophila litigata) fight? The role of male combat in the structure
of mating
aggregations on moose antlers. Ethology, Ecology and

Evolution, 11, 287–
301.
Bonduriansky, R. & Rowe, L. (2005) Intralocus sexual conflict
and the genetic
architecture of sexually dimorphic traits in Prochyliza
xanthostoma
(Diptera: Piophilidae). Evolution, 59, 1965–1975.
Bonduriansky, R., Wheeler, J. & Rowe, L. (2005) Ejaculate
feeding and female
fitness in the sexually dimorphic fly Prochyliza xanthostoma
(Diptera:
Piophilidae). Animal Behaviour, 69, 489–497.
Bribiescas, R.G. (2006) On the evolution, life history, and
proximate mechanisms
of human male reproductive senescence. Evolutionary
Anthropology, 15,
132 –141.
Bronikowski, A.M. & Promislow, D.E.L. (2005) Testing
evolutionary theories
of aging in wild populations Trends in Ecology and Evolution,
20, 271–273.
Bronikowski, A.M., Alberts, S.C., Altmann, J., Packer, C., Dee
Carey, K. &
Tatar, M. (2002) The aging baboon: comparative demography in

a non-
human primate. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, USA, 99,
9591–9595.
Brooks, R. (2000) Negative genetic correlation between male
sexual attractive-
ness and survival. Nature, 406, 67–70.
Buchanan, K.L., Evans, M.R., Goldsmith, A.R., Bryant, D.M. &
Rowe, L.V.
(2001) Testosterone influences basal metabolic rate in male
house sparrows:
a new cost of dominance signalling? Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London:
Series B, 268, 1337–1344.
Bull, J.J. (1983) Evolution of Sex Determining Mechanisms.
Benjamin Cummings,
Menlo Park, CA.
Carranza, J. & Pérez-Barbería, F.J. (2007) Sexual selection and
senescence:
male size-dimorphic ungulates evolved relatively smaller molars
than
females. American Naturalist, 170, 370 –380.
Chapman, T., Liddle, L.F., Kalb, J.M., Wolfner, M.F. &
Partridge, L. (1995)
Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated
by male
accessory gland products. Nature, 373, 241– 244.
Chapman, T., Herndon, L.A., Heifetz, Y., Partridge, L. &
Wolfner, M.F. (2001)
The Acp26Aa seminal fluid protein is a modulator of early egg

hatchability
in Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the Royal Society
of London
Series B-Biological Sciences, 268, 1647 –1654.
Chapman, T., Arnqvist, G., Bangham, J. & Rowe, L. (2003)
Sexual conflict.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18, 41– 47.
Chippindale, A.K. (2006) Experimental evolution. Evolutionary
Genetics (eds
C. Fox & J. Wolf ), pp. 482–501. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, UK.
Chippindale, A.K. & Rice, W.R. (2001) Y chromosome
polymorphism is a
strong determinant of male fitness in Drosophila melanogaster.
Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 98, 5677–
5682.
Chippindale, A.K., Gibson, J.R. & Rice, W.R. (2001) Negative
genetic
correlation for adult fitness between the sexes reveals
ontogenetic conflict in
Drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
USA, 98,
1671–1675.
Clinton, W.L. & Le Boeuf, B.J. (1993) Sexual selection’s
effects on male life
history and the pattern of male mortality. Ecology, 74, 1884–
1892.
Clutton-Brock, T.H. (1982) The functions of antlers.
Behaviour, 79, 108 –124.

Clutton-Brock, T.H. (1988) Reproductive success. Reproductive
Success:
Studies of Individual Variation in Contrasting Breeding Systems
(ed. T.H.
Clutton-Brock), pp. 472– 485. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, USA.
Clutton-Brock, T.H. & Isvaran, K. (2007) Sex differences in
ageing in natural
populations of vertebrates. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London:
Series B, 274, 3097–3104.
Clutton-Brock, T.H. & Langley, P. (1997) Persistent courtship
reduces male
and female longevity in captive tsetse flies Glossina morsitans
morsitans
Westwood (Ditpera: Glossinidae). Behavioral Ecology, 8, 392–
395.
Collias, N.E., Barfield, R.J. & Tarvyd, E.S. (2002) Testosterone
versus
psychological castration in the expression of dominance,
territoriality and
breeding behavior by male village weavers (Ploceus cucullatus).
Behaviour,
139, 801–824.
Comfort, A. (1979) The Biology of Senescence. Elsevier, New
York.
Cordts, R. & Partridge, L. (1996) Courtship reduces longevity
of male
Drosophila melanogaster. Animal Behaviour, 52, 269–278.
Cox, R.M. & John-Alder, H.B. (2007) Increased mite parasitism

as a cost of
testosterone in male striped plateau lizards Sceloporus virgatus.
Functional
Ecology, 21, 327 –334.
Crudgington, H.S. & Siva-Jothy, M.T. (2000) Genital damage,
kicking and
early death. Nature, 407, 855 –856.
Das, A.K., Huignard, J., Barbier, M., Quesneau-Thierry, &
Aagaard, J.E.
(1980) Isolation of two paragonial substances deposited into
the spermato-
phores of Acanthoscelides obtectus (Coleoptera, Bruchidae).
Experientia,
36, 918 –920.
Day, L.B., Mcbroom, J.T. & Schlinger, B.A. (2005)
Testosterone activates
courtship display but does not alter plumage in the tropical
golden-collared
manakin (Manacus vitellinus). Hormones and Behavior, 48, 96 –
97.
Day, T. & Bonduriansky, R. (2004) Intralocus sexual conflict
can drive the
evolution of genomic imprinting. Genetics, 167, 1537–1546.
Elgar, M.A. & Fahey, B.F. (1996) Sexual cannibalism,
competition, and size
dimorphism in the orb-weaving spider Nephila plumipes
Latreille (Araneae:
Araneoidea). Behavioral Ecology, 7, 195–198.
Emlen, D.J., Szafran, Q., Corley, L.S. & Dworkin, I. (2006)

Insulin signaling
and limb-patterning: candidate pathways for the origin and
evolutionary
diversification of beetle ‘horns’. Heredity, 2006, 1–13.
Ernsting, G. & Isaaks, J.A. (1991) Accelerated ageing: a cost of
reproduction in
the carabid beetle Notiophilus biguttatus F. Functional Ecology,
5, 299–303.
Fedorka, K.M. & Mousseau, T.A. (2004) Female mating bias
results in con-
flicting sex-specific offspring fitness. Nature, 429, 65–67.
Finch, C.E. (1990) Longevity, Senescence, and the Genome.
University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.
Fitzpatrick, M.J. (2004) Pleiotropy and the genomic location of
sexually
selected genes. American Naturalist, 163, 800–808.
Flatt, T., Tu, M.P. & Tatar, M. (2005) Hormonal pleiotropy and
the juvenile
hormone regulation of Drosophila development and life history.
Bioessays,
27, 999–1010.
Foerster, K., Coulson, T., Sheldon, B.C., Pemberton, J.M.,
Clutton-Brock, T.H. &
Kruuk, L.E.B. (2007) Sexually antagonistic genetic variation for
fitness in
red deer. Nature, 447, 1107–1109.
Fox, C.W., Dublin, L. & Pollitt, S.J. (2003) Gender differences
in lifespan and

mortality rates in two seed beetle species. Functional Ecology,
17, 619 –
626.
Fox, C.W., Scheibly, K.L., Wallin, W.G., Hitchcock, L.J.,
Stillwell, R.C. &
Smith, B.P. (2006) The genetic architecture of life span and
mortality rates:
gender and species differences in inbreeding load of two seed-
feeding beetles.
Genetics, 174, 763–773.
Fricke, C. & Arnqvist, G. (2007) Rapid adaptation to a novel
host in a seed
beetle (Callosobruchus maculatus): the role of sexual selection.
Evolution, 61,
440 – 454.
Gavrilets, S. & Hayashi, T.I. (2006) The dynamics of two- and
three-way sexual
conflicts over mating. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society
London: Series B, 361, 345 –354.
Graves, B.M. (2007) Sexual selection effects on the evolution
of senescence.
Evolution and Ecology, 21, 663 – 668.
Graves, B.M., Strand, M. & Lindsay, A.R. (2006) A
reassessment of sexual
dimorphism in human senescence: theory, evidence, and
causation.
American Journal of Human Biology, 18, 161–168.
Hamilton, J.B. & Mestler, G.E. (1969) Mortality and survival:
comparison of

eunuchs with intact men and women in a mentally retarded
population.
Journal of Gerontology, 24, 395 – 411.
Hamilton, W.D. (1966) The moulding of senescence by natural
selection.
Journal of Theoretical Biology, 12, 12– 45.
Harshman, L. & Hoffmann, A.A. (2000) Laboratory selection
experiments
using Drosophila: what do they really tell us? Trends in
Ecology and Evolution,
15, 32–36.
Holland, B. & Rice, W.R. (1998) Chase-away sexual selection:
Antagonistic
seduction versus resistance. Evolution, 52, 1–7.
Holland, B. & Rice, W.R. (1999) Experimental removal of
sexual selection
reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a
reproductive
load. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
USA, 96, 5083 –
5088.
Houle, D. (1991) Genetic covariance of fitness correlates: what
genetic
correlations are made of and why it matters. Evolution, 45,
630–648.
Hume, J.M. & Wynne-Edwards, K.E. (2005) Castration reduces
male testo-
sterone, estradiol, and territorial aggression, but not paternal
behavior in
biparental dwarf hamsters (Phodopus campbelli). Hormones

and Behavior,
48, 303 –310.
Hunt, J., Brooks, R., Jennions, M.D., Smith, M.J., Bentsen, C.L.
& Bussiere,
L.F. (2004) High-quality male field crickets invest heavily in
sexual display
but die young. Nature, 432, 102 –1027.
James, A.C. & Ballard, J.W.O. (2003) Mitochondrial genotype
affects fitness in
Drosophila simulans. Genetics, 164, 187 –194.
Kamimura, Y. (2007) Twin intromittent organs of Drosophila
for traumatic
insemination. Biology Letters, 3, 401– 404.
Kawasaki, N., Brassil, C.E., Brooks, R. & Bonduriansky, R.
(2008) Environ-
mental effects on the expression of lifespan and aging: an
extreme contrast
between wild and captive cohorts of Telostylinus angusticollis
(Diptera:
Neriidae). American Naturalist (in press).
Keller, L. & Jemielity, S. (2006) Social insects as a model to
study the molecular
basis of ageing. Experimental Gerontology, 41, 553 –556.
Ketterson, E.D., Nolan, V. Jr & Sandell, M. (2005) Testosterone
in females:
mediator of adaptive traits, constraint on sexual dimorphism, or
both?
American Naturalist, 166, S85 – S98.
Kinsella, K. & Gist, Y.J. (1998) Gender and Aging: Mortality

and Health. US
Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics.
Administration
Beureu of the Census., Washington.
Kirkwood, T.B. & Austad, S.N. (2000) Why do we age? Nature,
408, 233 –238.
Kirkwood, T.B.L. (1977) Evolution of aging. Nature, 270, 301–
304.
Kirkwood, T.B.L. & Rose, M.R. (1991) Evolution of
senescence: late survival
sacrificed for reproduction. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society
London: Series B, 332, 15 –24.
Kokko, H. (1997) Evolutionarily stable strategies of age-
dependent sexual
advertisement. Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology, 41, 99–107.
452 R. Bonduriansky et al.
Kokko, H., Rintamäki, P.T., Alatalo, R.V., Höglund, J.,
Karvonen, E. & Lundberg,
A. (1999) Female choice selects for lifetime lekking
performance in black
grouse males. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London:
Series B, 266,
2109 –2115.
Kotiaho, J.S. (2001) Costs of sexual traits: a mismatch between

theoretical con-
siderations and empirical evidence. Biological Reviews, 76, 365
–376.
Kruger, D.J. & Nesse, R.M. (2006) An evolutionary life-history
framework for
understanding sex differences in human mortality rates. Human
Nature, 17,
74 – 97.
Lailvaux, S.P. & Irschick, D.J. (2006) A functional perspective
on sexual
selection: insights and future prospects. Animal Behaviour, 72,
263–273.
Lande, R. (1980) Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and
adaptation in
polygenic characters. Evolution, 34, 292–305.
Lee, K.P., Simpson, S.J., Clissold, F.J., Brooks, R., Ballard,
J.W.O., Taylor,
P.W., Soran, N. & Raubenheimer, D. (2008) Lifespan and
reproduction in
Drosophila: new insights from nutritional geometry.
Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105, 2498 –2503.
Libert, S., Zwiener, J., Chu, X.W., Van Voorhies, W., Roman,
G. & Pletcher,
S.D. (2007) Regulation of Drosophila life span by olfaction and
food-derived
odors. Science, 315, 1133–1137.
Ligon, J.D., Thornhill, R., Zuk, M. & Johnson, K. (1990) Male–
male compe-
tition, ornamentation and the role of testosterone in sexual

selection in red
jungle fowl. Animal Behaviour, 40, 367–373.
Liker, A. & Szekely, T. (2005) Mortality costs of sexual
selection and parental
care in natural populations of birds. Evolution, 59, 890–897.
Lindholm, A. & Breden, F. (2002) Sex Chromosomes and
Sexual Selection in
Poeciliid Fishes. American Naturalist, 160, S214 –S224.
Linnen, C., Tatar, M. & Promislow, D. (2001) Cultural artifacts:
a comparison
of senescence in natural, laboratory-adapted and artificially
selected lines of
Drosophila melanogaster. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 3
877–888.
Lints, F.A., Bourgois, M., Delalieux, A., Stoll, J. & Lints, C.V.
(1983) Does the
female life-span exceed that of the male – a study in
Drosophila melanogaster.
Gerontology, 29, 336 –352.
Maklakov, A.A., Kremer, N. & Arnqvist, G. (2005) Adaptive
male effects on
female ageing in seed beetles. Proceedings of the Royal Society
B-Biological
Sciences, 272, 2485 –2489.
Maklakov, A.A., Friberg, U., Dowling, D.K. & Arnqvist, G.
(2006) Within-
population variation in cytoplasmic genes affects female life
span and aging
in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution, 60, 2081–2086.

Maklakov, A.A., Fricke, C. & Arnqvist, G. (2007) Sexual
selection affects
lifespan and aging in a beetle. Aging Cell, 6, 739–744.
Martin, O.Y. & Hosken, D.J. (2003) Costs and benefits of
evolving under
experimentally enforced polyandry or monogamy. Evolution,
57, 2765 –
2772.
Masoro, E.J. (2006) Dietary restriction-induced life extension: a
broadly based
biological phenomenon. Biogerontology, 7, 153–155.
Medawar, P.B. (1946) Old age and natural death. Modern
Quarterly, 2, 30 – 49.
Miller, R.A., Harper, J.M., Dysko, R.C., Durkee, S.J. & Austad,
S.N. (2002)
Longer life spans and delayed maturation in wild-derived mice.
Experimen-
tal Biology and Medicine, 227, 500–508.
Mougeot, F., Irvine, J.R., Seivwright, L., Redpath, S.M. &
Piertney, S. (2004)
Testosterone, immunocompetence, and honest sexual signaling
in male red
grouse. Behavioral Ecology, 15, 930–937.
Mysterud, A., Yoccoz, N.G., Stenseth, N.C. & Langvatn, R.
(2001) Effects of
age, sex and density on body weight of Norwegian red deer:
evidence of
density-dependent senescence. Proceedings of the Royal Society
of London:
Series B, 268, 911–919.

Nakamura, H., Kobayashi, S., Ohashi, Y. & Ando, S. (1999)
Age-changes of
brain synapses and synaptic plasticity in response to an enriched
environment.
Journal of Neuroscience Research, 56, 307–315.
Nuzhdin, S.V., Pasyukova, E.G., Dilda, C.L., Zeng, Z. &
Mackay, T.F.C. (1997)
Sex-specific quantitative trait loci affecting longevity in
Drosophila mela-
nogaster. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the USA, 94,
9734–9739.
Panzica, G., Vigliettipanzica, C., Sanchez, F., Sante, P. &
Balthazart, J. (1991)
Effects of testosterone on a selected neuronal population within
the preoptic
sexually dimorphic nucleus of the Japanese quail. Journal of
Comparative
Neurology, 303, 443 – 456.
Parisi, M., Nuttall, R., Naiman, D., Bouffard, G., Malley, J.,
Andrews, J.,
Eastman, S. & Oliver, B. (2003) Paucity of genes on the
Drosophila X
chromosome showing male-biased expression. Science, 299,
697–700.
Parker, G.A. (1979) Sexual selection and sexual conflict. Sexual
selection and
Reproductive Competition in Insects (eds M.S. Blum & N.A.
Blum), pp. 123 –
166. Academic Press, New York.

Parker, G.A. & Thompson, E.A. (1980) Dung fly struggles: a
test of the war of
attrition. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 7, 37– 44.
Partridge, L. & Andrews, R. (1985) The effect of reproductive
activity on the
longevity of male Drosophila melanogaster is not caused by an
acceleration
of ageing. Journal of Insect Physiology, 31, 393 –395.
Partridge, L. & Barton, N.H. (1993) Evolution of aging: testing
the theory
using Drosophila. Genetica, 91, 89 –98.
Partridge, L. & Barton, N.H. (1996) On measuring the rate of
ageing. Proceed-
ings of the Royal Society of London: Series B, 263, 1365–1371.
Partridge, L. & Farquhar, M. (1981) Sexual activity reduces
lifespan of male
fruitflies. Nature, 294, 580–582.
Partridge, L., Gems, D. & Withers, D.J. (2005) Sex and death:
What is the con-
nection? Cell, 120, 461–472.
Pigliucci, M. & Kaplan, J. (2006) Making Sense of Evolution.
The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.
Piper, M.D.W. & Partridge, L. (2007) Dietary restriction in
Drosophila: delayed
aging or experimental artifact? PLoS Genetics, 3, e57.
Pischedda, A. & Chippindale, A.K. (2006) Intralocus sexual
conflict diminishes the

benefits of sexual selection. PLoS Biology, 4, 2099 –2103.
Prasad, N.G., Bedhomme, S., Day, T. & Chippindale, A.K.
(2007) an evolu-
tionary cost of separate genders revealed by male limited
evolution. The
American Naturalist, 169, 29–37
Promislow, D. (2003) Mate choice, sexual conflict, and
evolution of senescence.
Behavior Genetics, 33, 191–201.
Promislow, D.E.L. (1992) Costs of sexual selection in natural
populations of
mammals. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series
B-Biological
Sciences, 247, 203–210.
Promislow, D.E.L. & Harvey, P.H. (1990) Living fast and dying
young: a com-
parative analysis of life-history variation among mammals.
Journal of
Zoology, 220, 417– 437.
Promislow, D.E.L. & Haselkorn, T.S. (2002) Age-specific
metabolic rates and
mortality rates in the genus Drosophila. Aging Cell, 1, 66–74.
Promislow, D.E.L., Montgomerie, R. & Martin, T.E. (1992)
Mortality costs of
sexual dimorphism in birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London:
Series B-Biological Sciences, 250, 143–150.
Prowse, N. & Partridge, L. (1997) The effects of reproduction
on longevity and

fertility in male Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of Insect
Physiology, 43,
501–512.
Rand, D.M., Clark, A.G. & Kann, L.M. (2001) Sexually
antagonistic cytonu-
clear fitness interactions in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics,
159, 173–
187.
Rand, D.M., Fry, A. & Sheldahl, L. (2006) Nuclear-
mitochondrial epistasis
and Drosophila aging: introgression of Drosophila simulans
mtDNA
modifies longevity in D. melanogaster nuclear backgrounds.
Genetics, 172,
329–341.
Reed, T.E., Kruuk, L.E.B., Wanless, S., Frederiksen, M.,
Cunningham, E.J.A.
& Harris, M.P. (2008) Reproductive senescence in a long-lived
seabird: rates
of decline in late-life performance are associated with varying
costs of darly
reproduction. Americal Naturalist, 171, E89–E101.
Reznick, D.N., Bryant, M.J., Roff, D., Ghalambor, C.K. &
Ghalambor, D.E.
(2004) Effect of extrinsic mortality on the evolution of
senescence in guppies.
Nature, 431, 1095–1099.
Rhen, T. (2000) Sex-limited mutations and the evolution of
sexual dimorphism.
Evolution, 54, 37–43.

Rice, W.R. (1984) Sex chromosomes and the evolution of
sexual dimorphism.
Evolution, 38, 735–742.
Rice, W.R. (1996a) Evolution of the Y sex chromosome in
animals. BioScience,
46, 331–343.
Rice, W.R. (1996b) Sexually antagonistic male adaptation
triggered by
experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature, 381, 232–234.
Rice, W.R. & Chippindale, A.K. (2001) Intersexual ontogenetic
conflict.
Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14, 685 – 693.
Ricklefs, R.E. (2000) Intrinsic aging-related mortality in birds.
Journal of Avian
Biology, 31, 103 –111.
Rolff, J. (2002) Bateman’s principle and immunity. Proceedings
of the Royal
Society of London: Series B, 269, 867– 872.
Rönn, J., Katvala, M. & Arnqvist, G. (2007) Coevolution
between harmful
male genitalia and female resistance in seed beetles.
Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 104, 10921–10925.
Rose, M.R. & Charlesworth, B. (1981) Genetics of life history
in Drosophila
melanogaster. I. Sib analysis of adult females. Genetics, 97,
173 –186.
Rowe, L. (1994) The costs of mating and mate choice in water

striders. Animal
Behaviour, 48, 1049–1056.
Rowe, L., Arnqvist, G., Sih, A. & Krupa, J. (1994) Sexual
conflict and the
evolutionary ecology of mating patterns – water striders as a
model system.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 289–293.
Sakata, J.T., Woolley, S.C., Gupta, A. & Crews, D. (2003)
Differential effects of
testosterone and progesterone on the activation and retention of
courtship
behavior in sexual and parthenogenetic whiptail lizards.
Hormones and
Behavior, 43, 523–530.
Service, P.M. (1993) Laboratory evolution of longevity and
reproductive fitness
components in male fruit flies: mating ability. Evolution, 47,
387–399.
Service, P.M. & Rose, M.R. (1985) Genetic covariation among
life-history
components – the effect of novel environments. Evolution, 39,
943 –945.
Sgro, C.M. & Partridge, L. (1999) A delayed wave of death

from reproduction
in Drosophila. Science, 286, 2521–2524.
Sgrò, C.M. & Partridge, L. (2000) Evolutionary responses of
the life history of
wild-caught Drosophila melanogaster to two standard methods
of labora-
tory culture. American Naturalist, 156 341–353.
Shanley, D.P. & Kirkwood, T.B. (2000) Calorie restriction and
aging: a life-
history analysis. Evolution, 54, 740–750.
Shook, D.R. & Johnson, T.E. (1999) Quantitative trait loci
affecting survival
and fertility-related traits in Caenorhabditis elegans show
genotype-environment
interactions, pleiotropy and epistasis. Genetics, 153, 1233 –
1243.
Snook, R.R. & Hosken, D.J. (2004) Sperm death and dumping in
Drosophila.
Nature, 428, 939–941.
Spencer, C.C., Howell, C.E., Wright, A.R. & Promislow, D.E.L.
(2003) Testing
an ‘aging gene’ in long-lived Drosophila strains: increased
longevity depends
on sex and genetic background. Aging Cell, 2, 123–130.
Stearns, S.C. (1989a) The evolutionary significance of
phenotypic plasticity.
BioScience, 39, 436–445.
Stearns, S.C. (1989b) Trade-offs in life-history evolution.
Functional Ecology,

3, 259–268.
Stindl, R. (2004) Tying it all together: telomeres, sexual size
dimorphism and
the gender gap in life expectancy. Medical Hypotheses, 62,
151–154.
Stutt, A.D. & Siva-Jothy, M.T. (2001) Traumatic insemination
and sexual
conflict in the bed bug Cimex lectularius. Proceedings of the
National Academy
of Sciences of the USA, 98, 5683–5687.
Svensson, E. & Sheldon, B.C. (1998) The social context of life
history evolution.
Oikos, 83, 466 – 477.
Tatar, M. (2004) The neuroendocrine regulation of Drosophila
aging. Experi-
mental Gerontology, 39, 1745 –1750.
Tatar, M., Carey, J.R. & Vaupel, J.W. (1993) Long-term cost of
reproduction
with and without accelerated senescence in Callosobruchus
maculatus:
analysis of age-specific mortality. Evolution, 47, 1302 –1312.
Tatar, M., Chien, S.A. & Priest, N.K. (2001) Negligible
senescence during
reproductive dormancy in Drosophila melanogaster. American
Naturalist,
158, 248–258.
Tatarnic, N.J., Cassis, G. & Hochuli, D.F. (2006) Traumatic
insemination in the
plant bug genus Coridromius Signoret (Heteroptera: Miridae).

Biology
Letters, 2, 58–61.
Terioknin, A.T., Budilova, E.V., Thomas, F. & Guegan, J.-F.
(2004) Worldwide
variation in life-span sexual dimorphism and sex-specifc
environmental
mortality rates. Human Biology, 76, 623–641.
Tower, J. (2006) Sex-specific regulation of aging and
apoptosis. Mechanisms of
Ageing and Development, 127, 705–718.
Trivers, R. (1985) Social Evolution. Benjamin/Cummings
Publishing, Menlo
Park, California, USA.
Trivers, R.L. (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection.
Sexual Selection
and the Descent of Man, 1871–1971 (ed. B. Campbell), pp. 136–
179. Aldine
Publishing Co., Chicago, USA.
Tu, M.P. & Tatar, M. (2003) Juvenile diet restriction and the
aging and
reproduction of adult Drosophila melanogaster. Aging Cell, 2,
327–
333.
Tucic, N., Gliksman, I., Seslija, D., Milanovic, D., Mikuljanac,
S. & Stojkovic, O.
(1996) Laboratory evolution of longevity in the bean weevil
(Acanthoscelides
obtectus). Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 9, 485 –503.
Tuljapurkar, S.D., Puleston, C.O. & Gurven, M.D. (2007) Why

men matter:
mating patterns drive evolution of human lifespan. PLoS
Biology, August
2007, e785.
Van Noordwijk, A.J. & Dejong, G. (1986) Acquisition and
allocation of
resources – their influence on variation in life-history tactics.
American
Naturalist, 128, 137–142.
Van Voorhies, W.A., Fuchs, J. & Thomas, S. (2005) The
longevity of
Caenorhabditis elegans in soil. Biology Letters, 1, 247–249.
Vieira, C., Pasyukova, E.G., Zeng, Z.-B., Hackett, J.B., Lyman,
R.F. &
Mackay, T.F.C. (2000) Genotype-environment interaction for
quantitative
trait loci affecting life span in Drosophila melanogaster.
Genetics, 154, 213 –
227.
Vinogradov, A.E. (1998) Male reproductive strategy and
decreased longevity.
Acta Biotheoretica, 46, 157–160.
Wagner, R.H., Helfenstein, F. & Danchin, E. (2004) Female
choice of young
sperm in a genetically monogamous bird. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of
London: Series B, 271, S134–S137.
Watson, P.J., Arnqvist, G. & Stallmann, R.R. (1998) Sexual
conflict and the
energetic costs of mating and mate choice in water striders.

American
Naturalist, 151, 46–58.
Williams, G.C. (1957) Pleiotropy, natural selection, and the
evolution of
senescence. Evolution, 11, 398– 411.
Williams, P.D. & Day, T. (2003) Antagonistic pleiotropy,
mortality source
interactions and the evolutionary theory of senescence.
Evolution, 57, 1478 –
1488.
Williams, P.D., Day, T., Fletcher, Q. & Rowe, L. (2006) The
shaping of senescence
in the wild. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 21, 458 – 463.
Wingfield, J.C., Lynn, S.E. & Soma, K.K. (2001) Avoiding the
‘costs’ of testo-
sterone: ecological bases of hormone-behavior interactions.
Brain, Behavior
and Evolution, 57, 239 –251.
Zajitschek, F., Hunt, J., Zajitschek, S.R.K., Jennions, M.D. &
Brooks, R.
(2007) No intra-locus sexual conflict over reproductive fitness
or ageing in
field crickets. PLoS One, 2, e155
Zajitschek, F., Brassil, C.E., Bonduriansky, R. & Brooks, R.
(2008) Lifespan
and demographic ageing in a natural population of black field
crickets,
Teleogryllus Commodus. (submitted).
Zeh, J.A. & Zeh, D.W. (2007) Maternal inheritance, epigenetics

and the evolution
of polyandry. Genetica. Online publication.
Received 8 November 2007; accepted 31 March 2008
Handling Editor: Anne Charmantier
<<
/ASCII85EncodePages false
/AllowTransparency false
/AutoPositionEPSFiles true
/AutoRotatePages /None
/Binding /Left
/CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%)
/CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated 050SWOP051 v2)
/sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning
/CompatibilityLevel 1.4
/CompressObjects /Tags
/CompressPages true
/ConvertImagesToIndexed true
/PassThroughJPEGImages true
/CreateJDFFile false
/CreateJobTicket false
/DefaultRenderingIntent /Default
/DetectBlends true
/DetectCurves 0.1000
/ColorConversionStrategy /sRGB
/DoThumbnails false
/EmbedAllFonts true
/EmbedOpenType false
/ParseICCProfilesInComments true
/EmbedJobOptions true
/DSCReportingLevel 0
/EmitDSCWarnings false
/EndPage -1

/ImageMemory 1048576
/LockDistillerParams false
/MaxSubsetPct 35
/Optimize true
/OPM 1
/ParseDSCComments true
/ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true
/PreserveCopyPage true
/PreserveDICMYKValues true
/PreserveEPSInfo true
/PreserveFlatness true
/PreserveHalftoneInfo false
/PreserveOPIComments false
/PreserveOverprintSettings true
/StartPage 1
/SubsetFonts true
/TransferFunctionInfo /Apply
/UCRandBGInfo /Preserve
/UsePrologue false
/ColorSettingsFile ()
/AlwaysEmbed [ true
]
/NeverEmbed [ true
]
/AntiAliasColorImages false
/CropColorImages true
/ColorImageMinResolution 150
/ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleColorImages true
/ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/ColorImageResolution 120
/ColorImageDepth 8
/ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1
/ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000
/EncodeColorImages true
/ColorImageFilter /FlateEncode

/AutoFilterColorImages false
/ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/ColorACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
/HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
>>
/ColorImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
>>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/CropGrayImages true
/GrayImageMinResolution 150
/GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 120
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages true
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.76

>>
/GrayImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
>>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/CropMonoImages true
/MonoImageMinResolution 1200
/MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/MonoImageResolution 300
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /FlateEncode
/MonoImageDict <<
/K -1
>>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/CheckCompliance [
/None
]
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false

/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None)
/PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier ()
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org)
/PDFXTrapped /Unknown
/Description <<
/JPN
<FEFF3053306e8a2d5b9a306f30019ad889e350cf5ea6753b50cf3
092542b308030d730ea30d730ec30b9537052377528306e002000
50004400460020658766f830924f5c62103059308b3068304d306
b4f7f75283057307e305930023053306e8a2d5b9a30674f5c62103
057305f00200050004400460020658766f8306f00200041006300
72006f0062006100740020304a308830730020005200650061006
40065007200200035002e003000204ee5964d30678868793a3067
304d307e305930023053306e8a2d5b9a306b306f30d530a930f330
c8306e57cb30818fbc307f304c5fc59808306730593002>
/FRA
<FEFF004f007000740069006f006e007300200070006f00750072
00200063007200e900650072002000640065007300200064006f0
0630075006d0065006e0074007300200050004400460020006400

6f007400e900730020006400270075006e00650020007200e9007
3006f006c007500740069006f006e002000e9006c0065007600e90
06500200070006f0075007200200075006e006500200071007500
61006c0069007400e90020006400270069006d007000720065007
300730069006f006e00200070007200e900700072006500730073
0065002e0020005500740069006c006900730065007a002000410
0630072006f0062006100740020006f0075002000520065006100
6400650072002c002000760065007200730069006f006e0020003
5002e00300020006f007500200075006c007400e9007200690065
007500720065002c00200070006f007500720020006c006500730
020006f00750076007200690072002e0020004c00270069006e00
63006f00720070006f0072006100740069006f006e002000640065
007300200070006f006c006900630065007300200065007300740
0200072006500710075006900730065002e>
/DEU
<FEFF00560065007200770065006e00640065006e00200053006
90065002000640069006500730065002000450069006e00730074
0065006c006c0075006e00670065006e0020007a0075006d00200
0450072007300740065006c006c0065006e00200076006f006e00
20005000440046002d0044006f006b0075006d0065006e0074006
5006e0020006d00690074002000650069006e0065007200200068
00f60068006500720065006e002000420069006c0064006100750
066006c00f600730075006e0067002c00200075006d0020006500
69006e00650020007100750061006c00690074006100740069007
600200068006f0063006800770065007200740069006700650020
00410075007300670061006200650020006600fc0072002000640
069006500200044007200750063006b0076006f00720073007400
75006600650020007a0075002000650072007a00690065006c006
5006e002e00200044006900650020005000440046002d0044006f
006b0075006d0065006e007400650020006b00f6006e006e00650
06e0020006d006900740020004100630072006f00620061007400
20006f0064006500720020006d00690074002000640065006d002
000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000200075006e
00640020006800f600680065007200200067006500f6006600660
06e00650074002000770065007200640065006e002e0020004200
6500690020006400690065007300650072002000450069006e007

300740065006c006c0075006e0067002000690073007400200065
0069006e006500200053006300680072006900660074006500690
06e00620065007400740075006e00670020006500720066006f00
72006400650072006c006900630068002e>
/PTB
<FEFF005500740069006c0069007a00650020006500730074006
1007300200063006f006e00660069006700750072006100e700f5
00650073002000700061007200610020006300720069006100720
0200064006f00630075006d0065006e0074006f00730020005000
44004600200063006f006d00200075006d0061002000720065007
3006f006c007500e700e3006f00200064006500200069006d0061
00670065006d0020007300750070006500720069006f007200200
0700061007200610020006f006200740065007200200075006d00
610020007100750061006c0069006400610064006500200064006
500200069006d0070007200650073007300e3006f0020006d0065
006c0068006f0072002e0020004f007300200064006f0063007500
6d0065006e0074006f0073002000500044004600200070006f006
40065006d0020007300650072002000610062006500720074006f
007300200063006f006d0020006f0020004100630072006f00620
0610074002c002000520065006100640065007200200035002e00
300020006500200070006f00730074006500720069006f0072002
e00200045007300740061007300200063006f006e006600690067
00750072006100e700f5006500730020007200650071007500650
0720065006d00200069006e0063006f00720070006f0072006100
e700e3006f00200064006500200066006f006e00740065002e>
/DAN
<FEFF00420072007500670020006400690073007300650020006
9006e0064007300740069006c006c0069006e0067006500720020
00740069006c0020006100740020006f007000720065007400740
0650020005000440046002d0064006f006b0075006d0065006e00
74006500720020006d006500640020006800f8006a00650072006
5002000620069006c006c00650064006f0070006c00f80073006e0
069006e0067002000740069006c0020007000720065002d007000
72006500730073002d007500640073006b007200690076006e006
9006e0067002000690020006800f8006a0020006b00760061006c
0069007400650074002e0020005000440046002d0064006f006b0

075006d0065006e007400650072006e00650020006b0061006e00
2000e50062006e006500730020006d00650064002000410063007
2006f0062006100740020006f0067002000520065006100640065
007200200035002e00300020006f00670020006e0079006500720
065002e00200044006900730073006500200069006e0064007300
740069006c006c0069006e0067006500720020006b007200e6007
60065007200200069006e0074006500670072006500720069006e
006700200061006600200073006b0072006900660074007400790
07000650072002e>
/NLD
<FEFF004700650062007200750069006b002000640065007a006
500200069006e007300740065006c006c0069006e00670065006e
0020006f006d0020005000440046002d0064006f00630075006d0
065006e00740065006e0020007400650020006d0061006b006500
6e0020006d00650074002000650065006e00200068006f0067006
5002000610066006200650065006c00640069006e006700730072
00650073006f006c007500740069006500200076006f006f007200
2000610066006400720075006b006b0065006e0020006d0065007
400200068006f006700650020006b00770061006c006900740065
0069007400200069006e002000650065006e00200070007200650
0700072006500730073002d006f006d0067006500760069006e00
67002e0020004400650020005000440046002d0064006f0063007
5006d0065006e00740065006e0020006b0075006e006e0065006e
00200077006f007200640065006e002000670065006f007000650
06e00640020006d006500740020004100630072006f0062006100
7400200065006e002000520065006100640065007200200035002
e003000200065006e00200068006f006700650072002e00200042
0069006a002000640065007a006500200069006e0073007400650
06c006c0069006e00670020006d006f006500740065006e002000
66006f006e007400730020007a0069006a006e00200069006e006
700650073006c006f00740065006e002e>
/ESP
<FEFF0055007300650020006500730074006100730020006f007
000630069006f006e006500730020007000610072006100200063
007200650061007200200064006f00630075006d0065006e00740
06f0073002000500044004600200063006f006e0020006d006100

79006f00720020007200650073006f006c00750063006900f3006e
00200064006500200069006d006100670065006e0020007100750
0650020007000650072006d006900740061006e0020006f006200
740065006e0065007200200063006f00700069006100730020006
4006500200070007200650069006d0070007200650073006900f3
006e0020006400650020006d00610079006f00720020006300610
06c0069006400610064002e0020004c006f007300200064006f00
630075006d0065006e0074006f007300200050004400460020007
30065002000700075006500640065006e00200061006200720069
007200200063006f006e0020004100630072006f0062006100740
0200079002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000
200079002000760065007200730069006f006e006500730020007
0006f00730074006500720069006f007200650073002e00200045
00730074006100200063006f006e0066006900670075007200610
063006900f3006e00200072006500710075006900650072006500
20006c006100200069006e0063007200750073007400610063006
900f3006e0020006400650020006600750065006e007400650073
002e>
/SUO
<FEFF004e00e4006900640065006e00200061007300650074007
5007300740065006e0020006100760075006c006c006100200076
006f0069006400610061006e0020006c0075006f0064006100200
05000440046002d0061007300690061006b00690072006a006f00
6a0061002c0020006a006f006900640065006e002000740075006
c006f0073007400750073006c00610061007400750020006f006e
0020006b006f0072006b006500610020006a00610020006b00750
0760061006e0020007400610072006b006b007500750073002000
730075007500720069002e0020005000440046002d00610073006
90061006b00690072006a0061007400200076006f006900640061
0061006e0020006100760061007400610020004100630072006f0
06200610074002d0020006a006100200052006500610064006500
7200200035002e00300020002d006f0068006a0065006c006d006
1006c006c0061002000740061006900200075007500640065006d
006d0061006c006c0061002000760065007200730069006f006c0
06c0061002e0020004e00e4006d00e40020006100730065007400
75006b0073006500740020006500640065006c006c00790074007

400e4007600e4007400200066006f006e0074007400690065006e
002000750070006f00740075007300740061002e>
/ITA
<FEFF00550073006100720065002000710075006500730074006
500200069006d0070006f007300740061007a0069006f006e0069
00200070006500720020006300720065006100720065002000640
06f00630075006d0065006e007400690020005000440046002000
63006f006e00200075006e00610020007200690073006f006c007
5007a0069006f006e00650020006d0061006700670069006f0072
0065002000700065007200200075006e006100200071007500610
06c0069007400e000200064006900200070007200650073007400
61006d007000610020006d00690067006c0069006f00720065002
e0020004900200064006f00630075006d0065006e007400690020
00500044004600200070006f00730073006f006e006f0020006500
73007300650072006500200061007000650072007400690020006
3006f006e0020004100630072006f006200610074002000650020
00520065006100640065007200200035002e00300020006500200
0760065007200730069006f006e00690020007300750063006300
6500730073006900760065002e002000510075006500730074006
500200069006d0070006f007300740061007a0069006f006e0069
00200072006900630068006900650064006f006e006f0020006c0
02700750073006f00200064006900200066006f006e0074002000
69006e0063006f00720070006f0072006100740069002e>
/NOR
<FEFF004200720075006b0020006400690073007300650020006
9006e006e007300740069006c006c0069006e00670065006e0065
002000740069006c002000e50020006f007000700072006500740
07400650020005000440046002d0064006f006b0075006d006500
6e0074006500720020006d006500640020006800f800790065007
20065002000620069006c00640065006f00700070006c00f80073
006e0069006e006700200066006f00720020006800f8007900200
07500740073006b00720069006600740073006b00760061006c00
690074006500740020006600f800720020007400720079006b006
b002e0020005000440046002d0064006f006b0075006d0065006e
0074006500720020006b0061006e002000e50070006e006500730
020006d006500640020004100630072006f006200610074002000

BUSN125 U3 IP template.docxRunning head BUSN125 – Applied Bu.docx

BUSN125 U3 IP template.docxRunning head BUSN125 – Applied Bu.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to BUSN125 U3 IP template.docxRunning head BUSN125 – Applied Bu.docx

Similar to BUSN125 U3 IP template.docxRunning head BUSN125 – Applied Bu.docx (16)

More from RAHUL126667

More from RAHUL126667 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

BUSN125 U3 IP template.docxRunning head BUSN125 – Applied Bu.docx