Sire coloration influences offspring survival under predation risk in the moorfrog

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 1288-1295

  Sheldon, B C ^a   Arponen, H ^b   Laurila, A ^b   Crochet, P A ^b,c   Merila J ^b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c CENTRE D ECOLOGIE FONCTIONNELLE ET EVOLUTIVE   (France)

^d UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Genetic benefits; Half sibling; Sexual selection; Tadpole

Indexed keywords

COLOR; FROG; GENETIC VARIATION; PATERNAL EFFECT; PREDATION RISK; SEXUAL SELECTION; SURVIVAL;

ADAPTATION; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; FEMALE; FROG; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; HISTOLOGY; LARVA; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PIGMENTATION; PREDATION; REPRODUCTION; RISK FACTOR; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT; SURVIVAL;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ANIMALS; FEMALE; LARVA; MALE; PIGMENTATION; PREDATORY BEHAVIOR; RANIDAE; REPRODUCTION; RISK FACTORS; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

AMPHIBIA; ANIMALIA; ANURA; COLEOPTERA; DYTISCUS; DYTISCUS MARGINALIS; RANA ARVALIS; REPTILIA;

EID: 0242542685     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00606.x     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Alatalo, R.V., Kotiaho, J., Mappes, J. & Parri, S. 1998. Mate choice for offspring performance: major benefits or minor costs? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 265: 2297-2301.
2. Alford, R.A. 1999. Ecology: resource use, competition and predation. In: Tadpoles: the Biology of Anuran Larvae (R. W. McDiarmid & R. Altig, eds), pp. 240-278. Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL.
3. Alonzo, S.H. & Sinervo, B. 2001. Mate choice games, context-dependent good genes, and genetic cycles in the side-blotched lizard, Uta stansburiana. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 49: 176-186.
4. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
5. APHA 1985. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 16th edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.
6. Barber, I. & Arnott, S.A. 2000. Split-clutch IVF: a technique to examine indirect fitness consequences of mate preference in sticklebacks. Behaviour 137: 1129-1140.
7. Barber, I., Arnott, S.A., Braithwaite, V.A., Andrew, J. & Huntingford, F.A. 2001. Indirect fitness consequences of mate choice in sticklebacks: offspring of brighter males grow slowly but resist parasitic infections. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 268: 71-76.
8. Beath, K.J. 2000. GLMStat 5.1. http://www.ozemail.com/~ kjbeath/glmstat.html
9. Charlesworth, B. 1987. The heritability of fitness. In: Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives (J.W. Bradbury & M.B. Andersson, eds), pp. 21-40. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
10. David, P., Bjorksten, T.A. Fowler, K. & Pomiankowski, A. 2000. Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyes flies. Nature 406: 186-188.
11. Doty, G.V. & Welch, A.M. 2001. Advertisement call duration indicates good genes for offspring feeding rate in gray tree frogs (Hyla versicolor). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 49: 150-156.
12. Fog, K., Schmedens, A. & Rosenørn-de Lasson, D. 1997. Nordens padder og krybdyr. G.E.C. Gads Forlag, Copenhagen, (in Danish)
13. Harosi, F.I. 1982. Recent results from single-cell microspectrophotometry - cone pigments in frog, fish and monkey. Col. Res. Appl. 7: 135-141.
14. Hasselquist, D., Bensch, S. & von Schantz, T. 1996. Correlation between male song repertoire, extra-pair paternity and offspring survival in the great reed warbler. Nature 381: 229-232.
15. Hedengren, I. 1987. Selection of Body Size, Arm Length and Colour in Male and Female Moor Frogs (Rana arvalis). MSc Thesis, Section of Ethology, Department of Zoology, University of Stockholm, Stockholm.
16. Hoikkala, A., Aspi, J. & Suvanto, L. 1998. Male courtship song frequency as an indicator of male genetic quality in an insect species. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 265: 503-508.
17. Houle, D. 1998. How should we explain variation in genetic variance of traits? Genetica 102/103: 241-253.
18. Jennions, M.D. & Petrie, M. 2000. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. 75: 21-64.
19. Jia, F.-Y. & Greenfield, M.D. 1997. When are good genes good? Variable outcomes of female choice in wax moths. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 264: 1057-1063.
20. Jia, F.-Y., Greenfield, M.D. & Collins, R.D. 2000. Genetic variance of sexually selected traits in wax moths: maintenance by genotype x environment interaction. Evolution 54: 953-967.
21. Johnsen, A., Andersen, V., Sunding, C. & Lifjeld, J.T. 2000. Female bluethroats enhance offspring immunocompetence through extra-pair copulations. Nature 406: 296-299.
22. Kicliter, E. & Goytia, E.J. 1995. A comparison of spectral response functions of poisitive and negative phototaxis in two anuran amphibians. Neurosci. Lett. 185: 144-146.
23. Kicliter, E., Kay, C.J. & Chino, Y.M. 1981. Spectral opponency of on-type ganglion cells and the blue preference of Rana pipiens. Brain Res. 210: 103-113.
24. Kotiaho, J.S., Simmons, L.W. & Tomkins, J.L. 2001. Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410: 684-686.
25. 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.
26. Lardner, B. 1998. Plasticity or fixed adaptive traits? Strategies for predation avoidance in Rana arvalis tadpoles. Oecologia 117: 119-126.
27. Lesna, I. & Sabelis, M.W. 1999. Diet-dependent female choice for males with 'good genes' in a soil predatory mite. Nature 401: 581-584.
28. Lynch, M. & Walsh, B. 1998. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
29. Møller, A.P. & Alatalo, R.V. 1999. Good genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 266: 85-91.
30. Merilä, J. & Sheldon, B.C. 1999. Genetic architecture of fitness and non-fitness traits: empirical patterns and development of ideas. Heredity 83: 103-109.
31. Merilä, J. & Sheldon, B.C. 2000. Lifetime reproductive success and heritability in nature. Am. Nat. 155: 301-310.
32. Merilä, J., Laurila, A., Pahkala, M., Timenes Laugen, A. & Räsänen, K. 2000. Adaptive phenotypic plasticity in the timing of metamorphosis in the common frog, Rana temporaria. Ecoscience 7: 18-24.
33. Moore, A.J. 1994. Genetic evidence for the 'good genes' process of sexual selection. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 35: 235-241.
34. Promislow, D.E.L., Smith, E.A. & Pearse, L. 1998. Adult fitness consequences of sexual selection in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95: 10687-10692.
35. Przyrembel, C., Keller, B. & Neumayer, C. 1995. Trichromatic color vision in the samalamander (Salamandra salamandra). J. Comp. Physiol. A 176: 575-586.
36. Qvarnström, A. 2001. Context-dependent genetic benefits from mate choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 5-7.
37. Qvarnström, A., Pärt, T. & Sheldon, B.C. 2000. Adaptive plasticity in mate preference linked to differences in reproductive effort. Nature 405: 344-347.
38. Rowe, L. & Houle, D. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition-dependant traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263: 1415-1421.
39. Rugh, R. 1962. Experimental Embryology. Burgess Publishing Company, Mineapolis, MN.
40. Sandvik, M., Rosenqvist, G. & Berglund, A. 2000. Male and female mate choice affects offspring quality in a sex-role reversed pipefish. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 267: 2151-2155.
41. SAS. 2001. JMP Version 4.0.4. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
42. Sheldon, B.C. 2000. Environmental dependence of genetic indicator mechanisms. In: Animal Signals: Signalling and Signal Design in Animal Communication (Y. Espmark, T. Amundsen & G. Rosenqvist, eds), pp. 195-207. Tapir Publishers, Trondheim.
43. Sheldon, B.C., Merilä, J., Qvarnström, A., Gustafsson, L. & Ellegren, H. 1997. Paternal genetic contribution to offspring condition predicted by size of male sexual ornament. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 264: 297-302.
44. Sillman, A.J. 1987. Extraction and characterization of the blue-sensitive visual pigment of the toad Bufo marinus. Can. J. Zool. 65: 884-887.
45. Summers, K., Symula, R., Clough, M. & Cronin, T. 1999. Visual mate choice in poison frogs. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 266: 2141-2145.
46. Tregenza, T. & Wedell, N. 2000. Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage. Mol. Ecol. 9: 1013-1027.
47. Wedekind, C., Müller, R. & Spicher, H. 2001. Potential genetic benefits of mate selection in whitefish. J. Evol. Biol. 14:980-986.
48. Welch, A.M., Semlitsch, R.D. & Gerhardt, H.C. 1998. Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280: 1928-1930.
49. Wilczynski, W. 1992. The nervous system. In: Environmental Physiology of the Amphibians (M. E. Feder & W. W. Burggren, eds), pp. 9-39. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
50. Wilkinson, G.S., Presgraves, D.C. & Crymes, L. 1998. Male eye span in stalk-eyed flies indicates genetic quality by meiotic drive suppression. Nature 391: 276-279.
51. Zeh, J.A. & Zeh, D.A. 2001. Reproductive mode and the genetic benefits of polyandry. Anim. Behav. 61: 1051-1063.