Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 264-271

  Mead, Louise S ^a   Arnold, Stevan J ^a  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTION; GENETIC ANALYSIS; MODELING; ORNAMENTATION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SEXUAL SELECTION;

MARTES PENNANTI;

EID: 1942489256     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.003     Document Type: Review

References (62)

1. Andersson M. Sexual Selection. 1994;Princeton.
2. Fisher R.A. The evolution of sexual preference. Eugen. Rev. 7:1915;184-192.
3. Fisher R.A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. 1930;Clarendon Press.
4. Fisher R.A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. 1958;Dover.
5. Maynard Smith J. Evolution and the Theory of Games. 1982;Cambridge University Press.
6. Darwin C. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. 1871;Murray.
7. Kokko H., et al. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 270:2003;653-664.
8. Kokko H., et al. The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 269:2002;1331-1340.
9. Lande R. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 78:1981;3721-3725.
10. Lande R. Rapid origin of sexual isolation and character divergence in a cline. Evolution. 36:1982;213-223.
11. Lande R., Arnold S.J. Evolution of mating preferences and sexual dimorphism. J. Theor. Biol. 117:1985;651-664.
12. Kirkpatrick M., et al. The Darwin-Fisher theory of sexual selection in monogamous birds. Evolution. 44:1990;180-193.
13. Pomiankowski A., et al. The evolution of costly mate preferences I. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution. 45:1991;1422-1430.
14. Pomiankowski A., Iwasa Y. Evolution of multiple sexual preferences by Fisher's runaway process of sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 253:1993;173-181.
15. Iwasa Y., Pomiankowski A. Continual change in mate preference. Nature. 377:1995;420-422.
16. Pomiankowski A., Iwasa Y. Runaway ornament diversity caused by Fisherian sexual selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95:1998;5106-5111.
17. Hall D.W., et al. Runaway sexual selection when female preferences are directly selected. Evolution. 54:2000;1862-1869.
18. Day T. Sexual selection and the evolution of costly female preferences: spatial effects. Evolution. 54:2000;715-730.
19. Kirkpatrick M. Evolution of female choice and male parental investment in polygynous species: the demise of the 'sexy son'. Am. Nat. 125:1985;788-810.
20. Schluter D., Price T. Honesty, perception and population divergence in sexually selected traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 253:1993;117-122.
21. Iwasa Y., Pomiankowski A. Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. J. Theor. Biol. 200:1999;97-109.
22. Kirkpatrick (1986) The handicap mechanism of sexual selection does not work. Am. Nat. 127, 222-240.
23. Iwasa Y., et al. The evolution of costly mate preferences II. The 'handicap' principle. Evolution. 45:1991;1431-1442.
24. Iwasa Y., Pomiankowski A. The evolution of mate preferences for multiple sexual ornaments. Evolution. 48:1994;853-867.
25. Gavrilets S. Rapid divergence of reproductive barriers driven by sexual conflict. Nature. 403:2000;886-889.
26. Gavrilets S., et al. The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 268:2001;531-539.
27. Houle D., Kondrashov A.S. Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 269:2001;97-104.
28. Zahavi A. Mate selection: a selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53:1975;205-214.
29. Kirkpatrick M. Good genes and direct selection in the evolution of mating preferences. Evolution. 50:1996;2125-2140.
30. Kirkpatrick M., Barton N. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94:1997;1282-1286.
31. Turelli M., et al. Theory and speciation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16:2001;330-343.
32. Arnold S.J., et al. The evolution of asymmetry in sexual isolation: a model and a test case. Evolution. 50:1996;1024-1033.
33. Holland B., Rice W.R. Chase-away sexual selection when female preferences are directly selected. Evolution. 52:1998;1-7.
34. Arnold S.J., Duvall D. Animal mating systems: a synthesis based on selection theory. Am. Nat. 143:1994;317-348.
35. Brodie E.D. III, et al. Visualizing and quantifying natural selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10:1995;313-318.
36. Kirkpatrick M., Barton N. Déjà vu all over again. Nature. 377:1995;388-389.
37. Lande R. The genetic covariance between characters maintained by pleiotropic mutation. Genetics. 94:1980;203-215.
38. Turelli M. Phenotypic evolution, constant covariances, and the maintenance of additive variance. Evolution. 42:1988;1342-1347.
39. Bürger R., Lande R. On the distribution of the mean and variance of a quantitative trait under mutation-selection-drift balance. Genetics. 138:1994;901-912.
40. Arnold S.J., Phillips P.C. Hierarchical comparison of genetic variance-covariance matrices. II. Coastal-inland divergence in the garter snake, Thamnophis elegans. Evolution. 53:1999;1516-1527.
41. Roff D.A. The evolution of the G matrix: selection or drift? Heredity. 84:2000;135-142.
42. Steppan S.J., et al. Comparative quantitative genetics: evolution of the G matrix. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17:2002;320-327.
43. Jones A.G., et al. Stability of the G-matrix in a population experiencing mutation, stabilizing selection, and genetic drift. Evolution. 57:2003;1747-1760.
44. Clark A.G., et al. Female x male interactions in Drosophila sperm competition. Science. 283:1999;217-220.
45. Nilsson T., et al. Patterns of divergence in the effects of mating on female reproductive performance in flour beetles. Evolution. 56:2002;111-120.
46. Hollocher H.C., et al. Incipient speciation by sexual isolation in Drosophila melanogaster: variation in mating preference and correlation between sexes. Evolution. 51:1997;1175-1181.
47. Wilkinson G.S., Reillo P.R. Female choice response to artificial selection on exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 255:1994;1-6.
48. Gray D.A., Cade W.H. Sexual selection and speciation in field crickets. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97:2000;14449-14454.
49. Wagner W.E., et al. Females receive a life-span benefit from male ejaculates in a field cricket. Evolution. 55:2001;994-1001.
50. Houde A.E. Effect of artificial selection on male colour patterns on mating preference of female guppies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 256:1994;125-130.
51. Bakker T.C.M. Positive genetic correlation between female preference and preferred male ornament in sticklebacks. Nature. 363:1993;255-257.
52. Blows M. Evolution of the genetic covariance between male and female components of mate recognition: an experimental test. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 266:1999;2169-2174.
53. Rice W.R. Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature. 381:1996;232-234.
54. Iyengar V.K., Eisner T. Female choice increases offspring fitness in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96:1999;15013-15016.
55. Andersson M., Iwasa Y. Sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:1996;53-58.
56. Boake C.R.B., et al. Is sexual selection and species recognition a continuum? Mating behavior of the stalk-eyed fly Drosophila heteroneura. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94:1997;12442-12445.
57. Ryan M.J., et al. Auditory tuning and call frequency predict population-based mating preferences in the cricket frog, Acris crepitans. Am. Nat. 139:1992;1370-1383.
58. Shaw K.L. Interspecific genetics of mate recognition: inheritance of female acoustic preference in Hawaiian crickets. Evolution. 54:2000;1303-1312.
59. Sinervo B., Zamudio K.R. The evolution of alternative reproductive strategies: fitness differential, heritability, and genetic correlation between the sexes. J. Hered. 92:2001;198-205.
60. Ritchie M.G. The shape of female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93:1996;14628-14631.
61. Rowe L., et al. Sexual conflict and the evolutionary ecology of mating patterns: water striders as a model system. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9:1994;289-293.
62. Blanckenhorn W.U. The costs of copulation in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Behav. Ecol. 13:2002;353-358.