Modelling the evolution of female choice strategies under inbreeding conditions

Genetica

Volumn 116, Issue 2-3, 2002, Pages 189-195

  Reinhold, Klaus ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Complementary choice; Good genes hypothesis; Inbreeding depression; Mate choice; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; INBREEDING; REVIEW; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALS; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; INBREEDING; MODELS, GENETIC; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 0036874752     PISSN: 00166707     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1021253014088     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Agrawal, A.F., 2001. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature 411: 692-695.
2. Andersson, M., 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
3. Bensch, S., D. Hasselquist & T. von Schantz, 1994. Genetic similarity between parents predicts hatching failure: nonincestuous inbreeding in the great reed warbler? Evolution 48: 317-326.
4. Brown, J.L., 1997. A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity. Behav. Ecol. 8: 60-65.
5. Charlesworth, D. & B. Charlesworth, 1987. Inbreeding depression and its evolutionary consequences. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18: 237-268.
6. Hoelzer, G.A., 1989. The good parent process of sexual selection. Anim. Behav. 38: 1067-1078.
7. Ingvarsson, P.K. & M.C. Whitlock, 2000. Heterosis increases the effective migration rate. Proc. Roy. Soc. London B 267: 1321-1326.
8. Irwin, A.J. & P.D. Taylor, 2000. Heterozygous advantage and the evolution of female choice. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2: 119-128.
9. Johnsen, A., V. Andersen, C. Sunding & J.T. Lifjeld, 2000. Female bluethroats enhance offspring immunocompetence through extra-pair copulations. Nature 406: 296-299.
10. Johnstone, R.A., 1995. Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence. Biol. Rev. 70: 1-65.
11. Kirkpatrick, K., 1996. Good genes and direct selection in the evolution of mating preferences. Evolution 50: 2125-2140.
12. Kirkpatrick, K. & N.H. Barton, 1997. The strength of indirect sexual selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94: 1282-1286.
13. Kondrashov, A.S., 1988. Deleterious mutations as an evolutionary factor. III. Mating preferences and some general remarks. J. Theor. Biol. 131: 487-496.
14. Landry, C., D. Garant, P. Duchesne & L. Bernatchez, 2001. Good genes as heterozygosity: the major histocompatibility complex and mate choice in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Proc. Roy. Soc. London B 268: 1279-1285.
15. Maynard Smith, J., 1956. Fertility, mating behaviour and sexual selection in Drosophila subobscura. J. Genet. 54: 261-279.
16. Møller, A.P. & R.V. Alatalo, 1999. Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. Roy. Soc. London B 266: 85-91.
17. Penn, D.J. & W.K. Potts, 1999. The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility complex genes. Am. Nat. 153: 145-164.
18. Price, T., D. Schluter & N.E. Heckman, 1993. Sexual selection when the female directly benefits. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 48: 187-211.
19. Pusey, A. & M. Wolf, 1996. Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Evol. Ecol. 11: 201-206.
20. Reinhold, K., 2002. Preferential sex linkage of sexually selected genes: evidence and a new explanation, in the Speciation of Modern Homo sapiens, edited by T.J. Crow. Proceedings of the British Academy, Vol 106, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
21. Reusch, T.B.H., M.A. Häberli, P.B. Aeschlimann & M. Millinski, 2001. Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism. Nature 414: 300-302.
22. Rossiter, S.J., G. Jones, R.D. Ransome & E.M. Barratt, 2001. Outbreeding increases offspring survival in wild greater horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum). Proc. Roy. Soc. London B 268: 1055-1061.
23. Tregenza, T. & N. Wedell, 2000. Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol. Ecol. 9: 1013-1027.
24. Wedekind, C., T. Seebeck, F. Bettens & A. Paepke, 1995. MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proc. Roy. Soc. London B 260: 245-249.