Female soldier beetles display A flexible preference for selectively favored male phenotypes

Evolution

Volumn 59, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 1085-1095

  McLain, Denson Kelly ^a  

^a GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Beetle; Cline; Female choice; Flexible preference; Haploid genetic model

Indexed keywords

BEETLE; CLINE; LOCAL ADAPTATION; MATE CHOICE; NATURAL SELECTION; PHENOTYPE;

GEORGIA; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

CANTHARIDAE; CHAULIOGNATHUS PENNSYLVANICUS; COLEOPTERA;

EID: 19544381145     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01045.x     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Alonzo, S. H., and B. Sinervo. 2001. Mate choice games, context-dependent good genes, and genetic cycles in the side-blotched lizard, Uta stansburiana. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 49:176-186.
2. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
3. Barber, J., S. A. Arnott, V. A. Brathwaite, J. Andrew, and F. A. Huntingford. 2001. Indirect fitness consequences of mate choice in sticklebacks: offspring of brighter males grow slowly but resist parasitic infections. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., Ser. B: Biol. Sci. 268:71-76.
4. Beck, C. W., and L. A. Powell. 2000. Evolution of female choice based on male age: Are older males better maltes? Evol. Ecol. Res. 2:107-118.
5. Brooks, R., and D. J. Kemp. 2001. Can older males deliver good genes? Trends Ecol. Evol. 16:308-313.
6. Colegrave, N., J. S. Kotiaho, and J. L. Tomkins. 2002. Mate choice or polyandry: reconciling genetic compatibility and good genes sexual selection. Evol. Ecol. Res. 4:911-917.
7. Davis, M. A. 1984. The flight and migration ecologyt of the red milkweed beetle (Tetraopes tetraophthalmus). Ecology 65:203-234.
8. Ditchkoff, S. S., R. L. Lochmiller, R. E. Masters, S. R. Hoofer, and R. A. Van Den Bussche. 2001. Major-histocompatibility-complex-associated variation in secondary sexual traits of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus): evidence for good-genes advertisement. Evolution 55:616-625.
9. 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.
10. Endler, J. A. 1977. Geopgraphic variation, speciation, and clines. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
11. Fisher, R. A. 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford, U.K.
12. Fitzpatrick, M. J. 2004. Pleiotropy and the genomic location of sexually selected genes. Am. Nat. 163:800-808.
13. Foerster, K., K. Delhey, A. Johnsen, T. J. Lifjeld, and B. Kempenaers. 2003. Females increase offspring heterozygosity and fitness through extra-pair matings. Nature 425:714-717.
14. Ford, E. B. 1964. Ecological genetics. Methuen and Co., London.
15. Freeman-Gallant, C. R., M. Meguerdichian, N. T. Wheelwright, and S. V. Sollecito. 2003. Social pairing and female mating fidelity predicted by restriction fragment length polymorphism similarity at the major histocompatibility complex in a songbird. Mol. Ecol. 12:3077-3083.
16. Gwynne, D. T. 1981. Sexual difference theory: Mormon crickets show role reversal in mate choice. Science 213:779-780.
17. Hamilton, W. D., and M. Zuk. 1982. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: A role for parasites? Science 218:384-387.
18. Hanski, I. 1999. Metapopulation ecology. Oxford Univ. Press, London.
19. Harding, K. C., and J. M. McNamara. 2002. A unifying framework for metapopulation dynamics. Am. Nat. 160:173-185.
20. Houle, D., and A. S. Kondrashov. 2002. Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:97-104.
21. Hughes, K. A., L. Du, F. H. Rodd, and D. N. Reznick. 1999. Familiarity leads to female mate preference for novel males in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Anim. Behav. 58:907-916.
22. Ingvarsson, P. K., K. Olsson, and L. Ericson. 1997. Extinction- recolonization dynamics in the mycophagous beetle Phalacrus substriatus. Evolution 51:187-195.
23. Iwasa, Y., and A. Pomiankowski. 1999. Good parent or good genes models of handicap evolution. J. Theor. Biol. 200:97-109.
24. Jennions, M. D., P. R. Y. Backwell, and N. I. Passmore. 1995. Repeatability of mate choice: the effect of size in the African painted reed frog, Hyperolius marmoratus. Anim. Behav. 49:181-186.
25. 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.
26. Johnsen, A., A. Andersen, C. Sunding, and J. T. Lifjeld. 2000. Female bluethroats enhance offspring immunocompetence through extra-pair copulations. Nature 406:296-299.
27. Johnsen, A., J. T. Lifjeld, S. Andersson, J. Oernborg, and T. Amundsen. 2001. Male characteristics and fertilization success in bluethroats. Behaviour 138:1371-1390.
28. Jones, T. M., R. J. Quinnell, and A. Balmford. 1998. Fisherian flies: benefits of female choice in a lekking sandfly. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265:1651-1657.
29. Kempenaers, B., B. Congdon, P. Boag, and R. J. Robertson. 1999. Extrapair paternity and egg hatchability in tree swallows: evidence for the genetic compatibility hypothesis? Behav. Ecol. 10:304-311.
30. Kirkpatrick, M. 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36:1-12.
31. Kirkpatrick, M., and L. A. Dugatkin. 1994. Sexual selection and the evolutionary effects of copyiung mate choice. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 34:443-449.
32. Kokko, H. 1998. Good genes, old age and life-history trade-offs. Evol. Ecol. 12:739-750.
33. _. 2001. Fisherian and "good genes" benefits of mate choice: how (not) to distinguish between them. Ecol. Lett. 4:322-326.
34. Kokko, H., R. Brooks, J. M. McNamar, and A. I. Houston. 2002. The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:1331-1340.
35. Kotiaho, J. S., L. W. Simmins, and J. L. Tomkins. 2001. Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410:684-686.
36. Labeyrie, E., W. U. Blanckenhorn, and M. Rahier. 2003. Mate choice and toxicity in two species of leaf beetles with different types of chemical defense. J. Chem. Ecol. 29:1665-1680.
37. Lande, R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34:292-305.
38. Landry, C., D. Garant, P. Duchesne, and L. Bernatchez. 2001. "Good genes as heterozygosity": the major histocompatibility complex and mate choice in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268:1279-1285.
39. 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.
40. Loehle, C. 1997. The pathogen transmission avoidance theory of sexual selection. Ecol. Model. 103:231-250.
41. Lubjuhn, T., S. Strohbach, J. Bruen, T. Gerken, and J. T. Epplen. 1999. Extra-pair paternity in great tits (Parus major): a long term study. Behaviour 136:1157-1172.
42. Martin, O. Y., D. J. Hosken, and P. I. Ward. 2003. Post-copulatory sexual selection and female fitness in Scattophaga stercoraria. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271:353-359.
43. Mason, L. G. 1980. Sexual selection and the evolution of pair-bonding in soldier beetles. Evolution 34:174-180.
44. McCauley, D. E. 1981. Application of the Kence-Bryant model of mating behavior to a natural population of soldier beetles. Am. Nat. 117:400-402.
45. _. 1989. Extinction, colonization, and population structure: a study of a milkweed beetle. Am. Nat. 134:365-376.
46. McCauley, D. E., and M. J. Wade. 1978. Female choice and the mating structure of a natural population of the soldier beetle, Chauliognathus pennsylvanicus. Evolution 32:771-775.
47. McLain, D. K. 1980. Female choice and the adaptive significance of prolonged copulation in Nezara viridula. Psyche 87:325-336.
48. _. 1982. Density-dependent sexual selection and positive assortative mating in natural populations of the soldier beetle, Chauliognathus pennsylvanicus. Evolution 36:1227-1235.
49. _. 1984. Host plant morphology, speciation, and the economics of mate choice in the soldier beetle, Chauliognathus pennsylvanicus. Evol. Theory 7:63-67.
50. _. 1985. Clinal variation in morphology and assortative mating in the soldier beetle, Chauliognathus pennsylvanicus. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 25:105-117.
51. _. 1988. Male mating preferences and assortative mating in the soldier beetle. Evolution 42:729-735.
52. McLain, D. K. 1992. Population density and the intensity of sexual selection on body length in temporally and spatially restricted natural populations of a seed bug. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 30:347-356.
53. McLain, D. K., and N. B. Marsh. 1990. Male copulatory success: heritability and relationship to mate fecundity in the southern green stink bug, Nezara viridula (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Heredity 64:161-167.
54. Møller, A. P., and R. V. Alatalo. 1999. Good genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266:85-91.
55. Oberhauser, K. S. 1988. Lack of rare-male mating effect using bw and st Drosophila melanogaster mutants. Am. Nat. 131:143-148.
56. Penn, D. J., and W. K. Potts. 1999. The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility complex genes. Am. Nat. 153:145-164.
57. Rice, W. R. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223-225.
58. Schmoll, T., V. Dietrich, W. Winkel, J. T. Epplen, and T. Lubjuhn. 2003. Long-term fitness consequences of female extra-pair matings in a socially monogamous passerine. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270:259-264.
59. Siva-Jothy, M. T., and F. Skarstein. 1998. Towards a functional understanding of "good genes." Ecol. Lett. 1:178-185.
60. Solbreck, C. 1985. Insect migration strategies and population dynamics. Contr. Mar. Sci. 68:641-662.
61. Sultan, S. E., and H. G. Spencer. 2002. Metapopulation structure favors plasticity over local adaptation. Am. Nat. 160:271-283.
62. Tallamy, D. W., M. B. Darlington, J. D. Pesek, and B. E. Powell. 2003. Copulatory courtship signals male genetic quality in cucumber beetles. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., Ser. B: Biol. Sci. 270:77-82.
63. Terzic, T., M. Andjelkovic, D. Marinkovic, and M. Stamenkovic-Radak. 1996. Frequency dependent selection. I. Rare male phenomenon in D. subobscura dependent on the proportion of Amy genotypes and substrate composition. J. Evol. Biol. 9:337-355.
64. Toeroek, J., G. Hegyi, and L. Z. Garamszegi. 2003. Depigmented wing patch size is a condition-dependent indicator of viability in male collared flycatchers. Behav. Ecol. 14:382-388.
65. Tregenza, T., and N. Wedell. 1998. Benefits of multiple mates in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Evolution 52:1726-1730.
66. Ushatinskaya, R. S., and E. P. Ivanchik. 1982. Revrsibility of ecological-physiological adaptations in Leptinotarsa decemlineata. Zool. Zh. 61:358-363.
67. Van Gossum, H., R. Stoks, and L. DeBruyn. 2001. Reversible frequency-dependent switches in male mate choice. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268:83-85.
68. Voss, R. H., and D. N. Ferro. 1990. Phenology of flight and walking by Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) adults in western Massachusetts. Env. Entomol. 19:117-122.
69. Wedekind, C., R. Mueller, and H. Spicher. 2001. Potential genetic benefits of mate selection in whitefish. J. Evol. Biol. 14:980-986.
70. Welch, A. M. 2003. Genetic benefits of a female mating preference in gray tree frogs are context dependent. Evolution 57:883-893.
71. Welch, A. M., R. D. Semitsch, and H. C. Gerhardt. 1998. Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280:1928-1930.
72. Whitlock, M. C. 1992. Nonequilibrium population structure in forked fungus beetles: extinction, colonization, and the genetic variance among populations. Am. Nat. 139:952-970.