The evolution of mate choice and mating biases

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 270, Issue 1515, 2003, Pages 653-664

  Kokko, Hanna ^a,b   Brooks, Robert ^c   Jennions, Michael D ^b   Morley, Josephine ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

^b AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^d NONE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Direct and indirect benefits; Fisher process; Good genes; Mating preference; Sensory drive; Sexual conflict

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTION; GOOD GENES HYPOTHESIS; MATE CHOICE; SEXUAL CONFLICT;

COPULATION; DYNAMICS; EVOLUTION; FERTILIZATION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; MATING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCTION; REVIEW; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL SELECTION;

MARTES PENNANTI;

EID: 0037460856     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2235     Document Type: Review

References (123)

1. Agrawal, A. F. 2001 Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature 411, 692-695.
2. Alexander, R. D., Marshall, D. C. & Cooley, J. R. 1997 Evolutionary perspectives on insect mating. In Mating systems in insects and arachnids (ed. J. C. Choe & B. J. Crespi), pp. 4-31. Cambridge University Press.
3. Andersson, M. 1994 Sexual selection. Princeton University Press.
4. Andrés, J. A. & Morrow, E. H. 2003 The origin of interlocus sexual conflict: is sex-linkage important? J. Evol. Biol. (In the press.)
5. Arak, A. & Enquist, M. 1995 Conflict, receiver bias and the evolution of signal form. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 349, 337-344.
6. Arnqvist, G. & Nilsson, T. 2000 The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim. Behav. 60, 145-164.
7. Backwell, P. R. Y., Jennions, M. D., Christy, J. H. & Shuber, U. 1995 Pillar building in the fiddler crab Uca beebei: evidence for a condition-dependent ornament. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 36, 185-192.
8. Badyaev, A. V. & Qvarnström, A. 2002 Putting sexual traits into the context of an organism: a life-history perspective in studies of sexual selection. Auk 119, 301-310.
9. Bakker, T. C. M. 1993 Positive genetic correlation between female preference and preferred male ornament in stickle-backs. Nature 363, 255-257.
10. Bakker, T. C. M. 1999 The study of intersexual selection using quantitative genetics. Behaviour 136, 1237-1266.
11. Barton, N. H. & Turelli, M. 1989 Evolutionary quantitative genetics: how little do we know? A. Rev. Genet. 23, 337-370.
12. Bernasconi, G. & Keller, L. 2001 Female polyandry affects their sons' reproductive success in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum. J. Evol. Biol. 14, 186-193.
13. Birkhead, T. R., Møller, A. P. & Sutherland, W. J. 1993 Why do females make it so difficult for males to fertilize their eggs? J. Theor. Biol. 161, 51-60.
14. Blanckenhorn, W. U., Hosken, D. J., Martin, O. Y., Reim, C., Teuschl, Y. & Ward, P. I. 2002 The costs of copulating in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Behav. Ecol. 13, 353-358.
15. Blows, M. W. 1999 Evolution of the genetic covariance between male and female components of mate recognition: an experimental test. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266, 2169-2174. (DOI 10.1098/rspb.1999.0904.)
16. Blows, M. W. 2002 Interaction between natural and sexual selection during the evolution of mate recognition. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 1113-1118. (DOI 10.1098/rspb.2002, 2002.)
17. Boake, C. B. 1985 Genetic consequences of mate choice: a quantitative genetic method for testing sexual selection theory. Science 227, 1061-1063.
18. Borgia, G. 1979 Sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. In Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects (ed. M. S. Blum & N. A. Blum), pp. 19-80. New York: Academic Press.
19. Brommer, J. E., Merilä, J. & Kokko, H. 2002 Reproductive timing and individual fitness. Ecol. Lett. 5, 802-810.
20. Brooks, R. 2000 Negative genetic correlation between male sexual attractiveness and survival. Nature 406, 67-70.
21. Brooks, R. & Couldridge, V. 1999 Multiple sexual ornaments coevolve with multiple mating preferences. Am. Nat. 154, 37-45.
22. Brooks, R. & Endler, J. A. 2001 Direct and indirect selection and quantitative genetics of male traits in guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Evolution 55, 1002-1015.
23. Brooks, R. & Kemp, D. J. 2001 Can older males deliver the good genes? Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 308-313.
24. Bulmer, M. G. 1989 Structural instability of models of sexual selection. Theor. Popul. Biol. 35, 195-206.
25. Burt, A. 1995 Perspective: the evolution of fitness. Evolution 49, 1-8.
26. Candolin, U. 2000 Changes in expression and honesty of sexual signalling over the reproductive lifetime of sticklebacks. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267, 2425-2430. (DOI 10.1098/rspb.2000.1301.)
27. 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.
28. Chippindale, A. K., Gibson, J. R. & Rice, W. R. 2001 Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 1671-1675.
29. Christy, J. H., Backwell, P. R. Y., Goshima, S. & Kreuter, T. 2002 Sexual selection for structure building by courting male fiddler crabs: an experimental study of behavioral mechanisms. Behav. Ecol. 13, 366-374.
30. Civetta, A. & Clark, A. G. 2000 Correlated effects of sperm competition and post-mating female mortality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 13 162-13 165.
31. Cordero, C. & Eberhard, W. G. 2003 Female choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptations: a critical review of some current research. J. Evol. Biol. 16, 1-6.
32. Crudgington, H. S. & Siva-Jothy, M. T. 2000 Genital damage, kicking and early death: the battle of the sexes takes a sinister turn in the bean weevil. Nature 407, 855-856.
33. Darwin, C. 1871 The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: Murray.
34. Eberhard, W. 1996 Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press.
35. Endler, J. A. & Basolo, A. 1998 Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 415-420.
36. Eshel, I., Volovik, I. & Sansone, E. 2000 On Fisher-Zahavi's handicapped sexy son. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2, 509-523.
37. Fisher, R. A. 1930 The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
38. Fitzpatrick, S., Berglund, A. & Rosenqvist, G. 1995 Ornaments or offspring: costs to reproductive success restrict sexual selection processes. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 55, 251-260.
39. Gavrilets, S., Arnqvist, G. & Friberg, U. 2001 The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268, 531-539. (DOI 10.1098/rspb.2000.1382.)
40. Getty, T. 1999 Chase-away sexual selection as noisy reliable signaling. Evolution 53, 299-302.
41. Gilburn, A. S. & Day, T. H. 1996 The evolution of female choice when the preference and the preferred trait are linked to the same inversion system. Heredity 76, 19-27.
42. Gilburn, A. S. & Day, T. H. 1999 Female mating behaviour, sexual selection and chromosome I inversion karyotype in the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida. Heredity 82, 276-281.
43. Grafen, A. 1990 Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol. 144, 517-546.
44. Gray, D. A. & Cade, W. H. 1999 Quantitative genetics of sexual selection in the field cricket, Gryllus integer. Evolution 53, 848-854.
45. Hall, D. W., Kirkpatrick, M. & West, B. 2000 Runaway sexual selection when female preferences are directly selected. Evolution 54, 1862-1869.
46. Hamilton, W. D. & Zuk, M. 1982 Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218, 384-387.
47. Hansen, T. F. & Price, D. K. 1995 Good genes and old age: do old mates provide superior genes? J. Evol. Biol. 8, 759-778.
48. Heisler, I. L. (and 11 others) 1987 The evolution of mating preferences and sexually selected traits: group report. In Sexual selection: testing the alternatives (ed. J. W. Bradbury & M. B. Andersson), pp. 96-118. Chichester: Wiley.
49. Heywood, J. S. 1989 Sexual selection by the handicap mechanism. Evolution 43, 1387-1397.
50. Hine, E., Lachish, S., Higgie, M. & Blows, M. W. 2002 Positive genetic correlation between female preference and offspring fitness. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 2215-2219. (DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2149.)
51. Hoelzer, G. A. 1989 The good parent process of sexual selection. Anim. Behav. 38, 1067-1078.
52. Höglund, J. & Sheldon, B. C. 1998 The cost of reproduction and sexual selection. Oikos 83, 478-483.
53. Holland, B. & Rice, W. R. 1998 Chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52, 1-7.
54. Holland, B. & Rice, W. R. 1999 Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 5083-5088.
55. Houde, A. E. 1994 Effect of artificial selection on male colour patterns on mating preference of female guppies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 256, 125-130.
56. Houle, D. & Kondrashov, A. S. 2002 Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 97-104. (DOI 10.1098/rspb.2001. 1823.)
57. Iwasa, Y. & Pomiankowski, A. 1995 A continual change in mate preferences. Nature 377, 420-422.
58. Iwasa, Y. & Pomiankowski, A. 1999 A good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. J. Theor. Biol. 200, 97-109.
59. Iwasa, Y., Pomiankowski, A. & Nee, S. 1991 The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The handicap principle. Evolution 45, 1431-1442.
60. Iyengar, V. K. & Eisner, T. 1999 Heritability of body mass, a sexually selected trait, in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 9169-9171.
61. Iyengar, V. K., Reeve, H. K. & Eisner, T. 2002 Paternal inheritance of a female moth's mating preference: consequences for sexual selection. Nature 419, 830-832.
62. Jennions, M. D., Møller, A. P. & Petrie, M. 2001 Sexually selected traits and adult survival: a meta-analysis. Q. Rev. Biol. 76, 3-36.
63. Jones, T. M., Quinnell, R. J. & Balmford, A. 1998 Fisherian flies: benefits of female choice in a lekking sandfly. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265, 1651-1657. (DOI 10.1098/rspb.1998.0484.)
64. Keller, L. & Reeve, H. K. 1995 Why do females mate with multiple males? The sexually selected sperm hypothesis. Adv. Study Behav. 24, 291-315.
65. Kirkpatrick, M. 1996 Good genes and direct selection in the evolution of mating preferences. Evolution 50, 2125-2140.
66. Kirkpatrick, M. & Barton, N. H. 1997 The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 1282-1286.
67. Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M. J. 1991 The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350, 33-38.
68. Kokko, H. 1997 Evolutionarily stable strategies of age-dependent sexual advertisement. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 41, 99-107.
69. Kokko, H. 1998a Good genes, old age and life-history trade-offs. Evol. Ecol. 12, 739-750.
70. Kokko, H. 1998b Should advertising parental care be honest? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265, 1871-1878. (DOI 10.1098/rspb.1998.0515.)
71. Kokko, H. 1999 Cuckoldry and the stability of biparental care. Ecol. Lett. 2, 247-255.
72. Kokko, H. 2001 Fisherian and 'good genes' benefits of mate choice: how (not) to distinguish between them. Ecol. Lett. 4, 322-326.
73. Kokko, H. & Brooks, R. 2003 Sexy to die for? Sexual selection and the risk of extinction. Ann. Zool. Fennici (In the press.)
74. Kokko, H., Brooks, R., McNamara, J. M. & Houston, A. I. 2002 The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B269, 1331-1340. (DOI 10.1098/rspb.2002.2020.)
75. Kotiaho, J. S., Simmons, L. W. & Tomkins, J. L. 2001 Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410, 684-686.
76. Kruuk, L. E. B., Clutton-Brock, T. H., Slate, J., Pemberton, J. M., Brotherstone, S. & Guinness, F. E. 2000 Heritability of fitness in a wild mammal population. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 698-703.
77. Lande, R. 1980 Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34, 292-305.
78. Lande, R. 1981 Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 78, 3721-3725.
79. Lesna, I. & Sabelis, M. W. 1999 Diet-dependent female choice for males with 'good genes' in a soil predatory mite. Nature 401, 581-584.
80. Merilä, J. & Sheldon, B. C. 2000 Lifetime reproductive success and heritability in nature. Am. Nat. 155, 301-310.
81. Milinski, M. & Bakker, T. C. M. 1992 Costs influence sequential mate choice in stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 250, 229-233.
82. Møller, A. P. & Alatalo, R. V. 1999 Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266, 85-91. (DOI 10.1098/rspb.1999.0607.)
83. Møller, A. P. & Jennions, M. D. 2001 How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection? Naturwissenschaften 88, 401-415.
84. Møller, A. P. & Pomiankowski, A. 1993 Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 32, 167-176.
85. Moore, S. L. & Wilson, K. 2002 Parasites as a viability cost of sexual selection in natural populations of mammals. Science 297, 2015-2018.
86. Morley, J. I. & Balshine, S. 2002 Faithful fish: territory and mate defence favour monogamy in an African cichlid fish. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 52, 326-331.
87. Mühlhäuser, C. & Blankenhorn, W. U. 2002 The costs of avoiding matings in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Behav. Ecol. 13, 359-365.
88. Norris, K. J. 1993 Heritable variation in a plumage indicator of viability in male great tits Parus major. Nature 362, 537-539.
89. Parker, G. A. 1979 Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects (ed. M. S. Blum & N. A. Blum), pp. 123-166. New York: Academic Press.
90. Parker, G. A. 1983 Mate quality and mating decisions. In Mate choice (ed. P. Bateson), pp. 141-166. Cambridge University Press.
91. Payne, R. J. H. & Pagel, M. 2000 Inferring the origins of state-dependent courtship traits. Am. Nat. 157, 42-50.
92. Petrie, M. 1994 Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate trains. Nature 371, 598-599.
93. Pitnick, S. & Garcia-González, F. 2002 Harm to females increases with male body size in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 1821-1828. (DOI 10.1098/rspb.2002.2090.)
94. Pomiankowski, A. 1988 The evolution of female mating preferences for male genetic quality. Oxf. Surv. Evol. Biol. 5, 136-184.
95. Pomiankowski, A., Iwasa, Y. & Nee, S. 1991 The evolution of costly mate preferences. I. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution 45, 1422-1430.
96. Price, T. D., Schluter, D. & Heckman, N. E. 1993 Sexual selection when the female benefits directly. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 48, 187-211.
97. Proulx, S. 1999 Mating systems and the evolution of niche breadth. Am. Nat. 154, 89-98.
98. Qvarnström, A., Pärt, T. & Sheldon, B. C. 2000 Adaptive plasticity in mate preference linked to differences in reproductive effort. Nature 405, 344-347.
99. Reale, D., Bousses, P. & Chapuis, J. L. 1996 Female-biased mortality induced by male sexual harassment in a feral sheep population. Can. J. Zool. 74, 1812-1818.
100. Reynolds, J. D. & Gross, M. R. 1992 Female mate preference enhances offspring growth and reproduction in a fish, Poecilia reticulata. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 250, 57-62.
101. Rhen, T. 2000 Sex-limited mutations and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 54, 37-43.
102. Rice, W. R. 1992 Sexually antagonistic genes: experimental evidence. Science 256, 1436-1439.
103. Rice, W. R. 1996 Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 381, 232-234.
104. Rice, W. R. & Chippindale, A. K. 2001 Intersexual ontogenetic conflict. J. Evol. Biol. 14, 685-693.
105. Rice, W. R. & Holland, B. 1999 Reply to comments on the chase-away model of sexual selection. Evolution 53, 302-306.
106. Rodd, F. H., Hughes, K. A., Grether, G. F. & Baril, C. T. 2002 A possible non-sexual origin of a mate preference: are male guppies mimicking fruit? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 475-481. (DOI 10.1098/rspb.2001.1891.)
107. Rosenthal, G. G. & Servedio, M. R. 1999 Chase-away sexual selection: resistance to 'resistance'. Evolution 53, 296-299.
108. Rowe, L. & Houle, D. 1996 The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263, 1415-1421.
109. 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 Ecol. Evol. 9, 289-293.
110. Semple, S. 1998 The function of Barbary macaque copulation calls. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265, 287-291. (DOI 10.1098/ rspb.1998.0294.)
111. Sheldon, B. C., Merilä, J., Qvarnström, A., Gustafsson, L. & Ellegren, H. 1997 Paternal genetic contribution to offspring condition predicted by size of male secondary sexual character. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264, 297-302. (DOI 10.1098/ rspb.1997.0042.)
112. Siller, S. 2001 Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex. Nature 411, 689-692.
113. Tallamy, D. W., Powell, B. E. & McClafferty, J. A. 2002 Male traits under cryptic female choice in the spotted cucumber beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Behav. Ecol. 13, 511-518.
114. Taylor, P. D. & Williams, G. C. 1982 The lek paradox is not resolved. Theor. Popul. Biol. 22, 392-409.
115. Thornhill, R. 1980 Rape in Panorpa scorpionflies and a general rape hypothesis. Anim. Behav. 28, 52-59.
116. Weatherhead, P. J. & Robertson, R. J. 1979 Offspring quality and the polygyny threshold: 'the sexy son hypothesis'. Am. Nat. 113, 201-208.
117. Wedell, N. & Tregenza, T. 1999 Successful fathers sire successful sons. Evolution 53, 620-625.
118. Welch, A. M., Semlitsch, R. D. & Gerhardt, H. C. 1998 Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frog. Science 280, 1928-1930.
119. Whitlock, M. C. 2000 Fixation of new alleles and the extinction of small populations: drift load, beneficial alleles, and sexual selection. Evolution 54, 1855-1861.
120. Wiley, R. H. & Poston, J. 1996 Perspective: indirect mate choice, competition for mates, and coevolution of the sexes. Evolution 50, 1371-1381.
121. Wilkinson, G. S. & Reillo, P. R. 1994 Female choice response to artificial selection on an exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 255, 1-6.
122. Wilkinson, G. S. & Taper, M. 1999 Evolution of genetic variation for condition-dependent traits in stalk-eyed flies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266, 1685-1690. (DOI 10.1098/rspb.1999.0832.)
123. Zahavi, A. 1975 Mate selection: a selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53, 205-214.