Genetic variance and phenotypic plasticity in a component of female mate choice in an ultrasonic moth

Evolution

Volumn 57, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 1304-1313

  Rodríguez, Rafael L ^a,b   Greenfield, Michael D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

Achroia grisella; Cross environmental genetic correlation; Insect communication; Lepidoptera; Pyralidae

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOTYPE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; MATE CHOICE; MOTH; PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY; REACTION NORM; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ACHROIA GRISELLA; ANIMALIA; INSECTA; LEPIDOPTERA; PYRALIDAE;

EID: 0038641228     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00338.x     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
2. Arnold, S. 1994. Multivariate inheritance and evolution: a review of concepts. Pp. 17-48 in C. R. B. Boake, ed. Quantitative genetic studies of behavioral evolution. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
3. Bailey, W. J. 1998. Do large bushcrickets have more sensitive ears? Natural variation in hearing thresholds within populations of the bushcricket Requena verticalis (Litroscelidinae: Tettigoniidae). Physiol. Entomol. 23:105-112.
4. Bakker, T. C. M., and A. Pomiankowski. 1995. The genetic basis of female mate preferences. J. Evol. Biol. 8:129-171.
5. Bakker, T. C. M., R. Künzler, and D. Mazzi. 1999. Condition-related mate choice in sticklebacks. Nature 401:234.
6. Bertram, S. M. 2002. Temporally fluctuating selection of sex-limited signaling traits in the Texas field cricket, Gryllus texensis. Evolution 56:1831-1839.
7. Bradbury, J. W., and S. L. Vehrencamp. 1998. Principles of animal communication. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
8. Brandt, L. S. E. 2002. Evolutionary origin and consequences of female mate choice in an ultrasonic moth. Ph.D. diss., University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
9. Brodie, E. D., III. 2000. Why evolutionary genetics does not always add up. Pp. 3-19 in J. B. Wolf, E. D. Brodie III, and M. J. Wade, eds. Epistasis and the evolutionary process. Oxford, New York.
10. Charlesworth, B. 1987. The heritability of fitness. Pp. 21-40 in J. W. Bradbury, and M. B. Andersson, eds. Sexual selection: testing the alternatives. Wiley, New York.
11. Clutton-Brock, T. H., F. E. Guinness, and S. D. Albon. 1982. Red deer. Behavior and ecology of two sexes. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
12. Collins, R., Y. Jang, K. Reinhold, and M. D. Greenfield. 1999. Quantitative genetics of ultrasonic advertisement signalling in the lesser waxmoth Achroia grisella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Heredity 83:644-651.
13. Conner, W. E. 1999. Un chant d'appel amoureux: Acoustic communication in moths. J. Exp. Biol. 202:1711-1723.
14. Darwin, C. 1871. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. J. Murray, London.
15. Doty, G. V., and A. M. Welch. 2001. Advertisement call duration indicates good genes for offspring feeding rate in gray tree frogs (Hyla versicolor). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 49:150-156.
16. Dusenbery, D. B. 1992. Sensory ecology. Freeman, New York.
17. Dutky, S. R., J. V. Thompson, and G. E. Cantwell. 1962. A technique for mass rearing the greater waxmoth (Lepidoptera: Galleridae). Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 64:56-58.
18. Eberhard, W. G. 1980. Horned beetles. Sci. Am. 242:166-182.
19. Emlen, D. 1997. Alternative reproductive tactics and male dimorphism in the horned beetle Onthophagus acuminatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 41:355-341.
20. Eshel, I., and W. D. Hamilton. 1984. Parent-offspring correlation in fitness under fluctuating selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 222:1-14.
21. Falconer, D. S. 1952. The problem of environment and selection. Am. Nat. 86:293-298.
22. Fisher, R. 1958. The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford, New York.
23. Fry, J. D. 1992. The mixed-model analysis of variance applied to quantitative genetics: biological meaning of the parameters. Evolution 46:540-550.
24. Fry, J. D., S. L. Heinsohn, and T. F. C. MacKay. 1996. The contribution of new mutations to genotype-environment interaction for fitness in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 50:2316-2327.
25. Gerhardt, H. C. 1991. Female mate choice in treefrogs: static and dynamic acoustic criteria. Anim. Behav. 42:615-635.
26. Gerhardt, H. C., and F. Huber. 2002. Acoustic communication in insects and anurans. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
27. Gillespie, J. H., and M. Turelli. 1989. Genotype-environment interactions and the maintenance of polygenic variation. Genetics 121:129-138.
28. Gray, D. A., and W. H. Cade. 1999a. Sex, death and genetic variation: natural and sexual selection on cricket song. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266:707-709.
29. _. 1999b. Quantitative genetics of sexual selection in the field cricket, Gryllus integer. Evolution 53:848-854.
30. Greenfield, M. D. 2002. Signalers and receivers. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
31. Greenfield, M. D., and J. A. Coffelt. 1983. Reproductive behaviour of the lesser waxmoth, Achroia grisella (Pyralidae: Gallerinae): signalling, pair formation, male interactions, and mate guarding. Behaviour 84:287-315.
32. Greenfield, M. D., and T. Weber. 2000. Evolution of ultrasonic signalling in wax moths: discrimination on ultrasonic mating calls from bat echolocation signals and the exploitation of an anti-predator receiver bias by sexual advertisement. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 12:259-279.
33. Haldane, J. B. S., and S. D. Jayakar. 1963. Polymorphism due to selection of varying direction. J. Genet. 58:237-242.
34. Hamilton, W. D. 1986. Instability and cycling of two competing hosts with two parasites. Pp. 645-668 in S. Karlin and E. Nevo, eds. Evolutionary processes and theory. Academic Press, New York.
35. Höglund, J., and R. V. Alatalo. 1995. Leks. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
36. Hollocher, H., C.-T. Ting, F. Pollack, and C.-I. Wu. 1997. Incipient speciation by sexual selection in Drosophila melanogaster: variation in mating preference and correlation between sexes. Evolution 51:1175-1181.
37. Houle, D. 1992. Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130:195-204.
38. _. 1998. How should we explain variation in the genetic variance of traits? Genetica 102/103:241-253.
39. Jang, Y., and M. D. Greenfield. 1996. Ultrasonic communication and sexual selection in waxmoths: female choice based on energy and asynchrony of male signals. Anim. Behav. 51:1095-1106.
40. _. 1998. Absolute versus relative measurements of sexual selection: assessing the contributions of ultrasonic signal characters to mate attraction in waxmoths, Achroia grisella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Evolution 52:1383-1393.
41. _. 2000. Quantitative genetics of female choice in an ultrasonic pyralid moth, Achroia grisella: variation and evolvability of preference along multiple dimensions of the male advertisement signal. Heredity 84:73-80.
42. Jennions, M. D., A. P. Møller, and M. Petrie. 2001. Sexually selected traits and adult survival: a meta-analysis. Q. Rev. Biol. 76:3-36.
43. Jia, F.-Y., and M. D. Greenfield. 1997. When are good genes good? Variable outcomes of female choice in waxmoths. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264:1057-1063.
44. Jia, F.-Y., M. D. Greenfield, and R. D. Collins. 2000. Genetic variance of sexually selected traits in waxmoths: maintenance by genotype x environment interaction. Evolution 54:953-967.
45. Jiggins, C. D., R. E. Naisbit, R. L. Coe, and J. Mallet. 2001. Reproductive isolation caused by colour pattern mimicry. Nature 411:302-305.
46. Kassen, R. 2002. The experimental evolution of specialists, generalists, and the maintenance of diversity. J. Evol. Biol. 15:173-190.
47. Kelly, J. K. 2000. Epistasis, linkage, and balancing selection. Pp. 146-157 in J. B. Wolf, E. D. Brodie III, and M. J. Wade, eds. Epistasis and the evolutionary process, Oxford, New York.
48. Kotiaho, J. S., L. W. Simmons, and J. L. Tomkins. 2001. Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410:684-687.
49. Kruuk, L. E. B., T. H. Clutton-Brock, J. Slate, J. M. Pemberton, and S. Brotherstone. 2000. Heritability of fitness in a wild mammal population. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97:698-703.
50. Lesna, I., and M. W. Sabelis. 1999. Diet-dependent female choice for males with "good genes" in a soil predatory mite. Nature 401:581-584.
51. Lewontin, R. C. 1974. The genetic basis of evolutionary change. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.
52. Lynch, M., and B. Walsh. 1998. Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
53. Merilä, J., and B. C. Sheldon. 2000. Lifetime reproductive success and heritability in nature. Am. Nat. 155:301-310.
54. Mousseau, T. A., and D. A. Roff. 1987. Natural selection and the heritability of fitness components. Heredity 59:181-197.
55. Pfennig, K. S., and R. C. Tinsley. 2002. Different mate preferences by parasitized and unparasitized females potentially reduces sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 15:399-406.
56. Pomiankowski, A., and A. P. Møller. 1995. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 260:21-29.
57. Qvarnström, A., T. Pärt, and B. C. Sheldon. 2000. Adaptive plasticity in mate preference linked to differences in reproductive effort. Nature 405:344-347.
58. Reinhold, K., M. D. Greenfield, Y. Jang, and A. Broce. 1998. Energetic cost of sexual attractiveness: ultrasonic advertisement in wax moths. Anim. Behav. 55:905-913.
59. Rodríguez., R. L. 2002. Functional design in the communication system of an ultrasonic moth. Ph.D. diss., University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
60. Roff, D. A. 1997. Evolutionary quantitative genetics. Chapman and Hall, New York.
61. _. 1998. The detection and measurement of maternal effects. Pp. 83-96 in T. A. Mousseau and C. W. Fox, eds. Maternal effects as adaptations. Oxford, New York.
62. Rohlf, F. J., and R. R. Sokal. 1995. Statistical tables. Freeman, New York.
63. Rowe, L., and D. Houle. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263:1415-1421.
64. Schlichting, C. D., and M. Pigliucci. 1998. Phenotypic evolution. A reaction norm perspective. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
65. Sherman, P. W., H. K. Reeve, and D. W. Pfennig. 1997. Recognition systems. Pp. 69-96 in J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies, eds. Behavioural ecology. 4th ed. Blackwell, Cambridge, U.K.
66. Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry. Freeman, New York.
67. Taylor, P. D., and G. C. Williams. 1982. The lek paradox is not resolved. Theor. Popul. Biol. 22:392-409.
68. Via, S., and R. Lande, 1985. Genotype-environment interaction and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Evolution 39:505-522.
69. _. 1987. Evolution of genetic variability in a spatially heterogeneous environment: effects of genotype-environment interaction. Genet. Res. 49:147-156.
70. Walker, T. J. 1957. Specificity in the response of female tree crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae, Oecanthinae) to calling songs of the males. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 50:626-636.
71. West-Eberhard, M. J. 1983. Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Q. Rev. Biol. 58:155-183.
72. _. 1989. Phenotypic plasticity and the origins of diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20:249-278.
73. Winston, M. L. 1987. The biology of the honey bee. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA.
74. Zar, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. 4th: ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.