Sexual selection when fertilization is not guaranteed

Evolution

Volumn 59, Issue 9, 2005, Pages 1876-1885

  Kokko, Hanna ^a,b   Mappes, Johanna ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

Author keywords

Female choice; Multiple mating; Phenotypic plasticity; Population consequences of sexual selection; Sequential mate choice; Sexual selection; Sperm limitation; Virgins

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTIONARY THEORY; MATE CHOICE; PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ERYSIMUM CHEIRI;

EID: 25644456111     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01058.x     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Alatalo, R. V., J. Kotiaho, J. Mappes, and S. Parri. 1998. Mate choice for offspring performance: major benefits or minor costs? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265:2297-2301.
2. Alexander, R. D., D. Marshall, and J. Cooley. 1997. Evolutionary perspectives on insect mating. Pp. 4-31 in J.C. Choe and B.J. Crespi, eds. The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.
3. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, NJ.
4. Bateman, A. J. 1948. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349-368.
5. Bateman, P. W., L. N. Gilson, and J. W. Ferguson. 2001. Male size and sequential mate preference in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Anim. Behav. 61:631-637.
6. Bessa-Gomes, C., J. Clobert, S. Legendre, and A. P. Møller. 2003. Modeling mating patterns given mutual mate choice: The importance of individual mating preferences and mating system. J. Biol. Syst. 11:205-219.
7. Birkhead, T. R., and A. P. Møller, eds. 1998. Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, London.
8. Bonduriansky, R. 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol. Rev. 76:305-339.
9. Calabrese, J. M., and W. F. Fagan. 2004. Lost in time, lonely, and single: reproductive asynchrony and the Allee effect. Am. Nat. 164:25-37.
10. Callahan, P. S., and T. Cascio. 1963. Histology of the reproductive tract and transmission of sperm in the corn earworm, Heliothis zea. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 56:535-555.
11. Cardé, R. T., and W. J. Bell, eds. 1995. Chemical ecology of insects. Chapman and Hall, New York.
12. Clutton-Brock, T. H., and G. A. Parker. 1992. Potential reproductive rates and the operation of sexual selection. Q. Rev. Biol. 67:437-456.
13. Cordero, C., and W. G. Eberhard. 2003. Female choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptations: a critical review of some current research. J. Evol. Biol. 16:1-6.
14. Danthanarayana, W., and H. Gu. 1991. Multiple mating and its effect on the reproductive success of female Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera, Tortricidae). Ecol. Entomol. 16:169-175.
15. de Jong, M. C. M., and M. W. Sabelis. 1991. Limits to runaway sexual selection: the wallflower paradox. J. Evol. Biol. 4:637-655.
16. Doherty, P. F., Jr., G. Sorci, J. A. Royle, J. E. Hines, J. D. Nichols, and T. Boulinier. 2003. Sexual selection affects local extinction and turnover in bird communities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:5858-5862.
17. Dombrovsky, Y., and N. Perrin. 1994. On adaptive search and optimal stopping in sequential mate choice. Am. Nat. 144:355-361.
18. Eberhard, W. G. 1996. Female control: Sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
19. Evans, J. P., L. Zane, S. Francescato, and A. Pilastro. 2003. Direct postcopulatory sexual selection revealed by artificial insemination. Nature 421:360-363.
20. Greenfield, M. D. 1981. Moth sex pheromones: an evolutionary perspective. Fla. Entomol. 64:4-17.
21. Haikola, S., M. C. Singer, and I. Pen. 2004. Has inbreeding avoidance led to avoidance of sib mating behaviour in the Glanville fritillary butterfly (Melitaea cinxia)? Evol. Ecol. 18:113-120.
22. Härdling, R., H. Kokko, and K. E. Arnold. 2003. Dynamics of the caring family. Am. Nat. 161:395-412.
23. Holt, R. D., T. M. Knight, and M. Barfield. 2004. Allee effects, immigration, and the evolution of species' niches. Am. Nat. 163:253-262.
24. Houde, A. E. 1997. Sex, color, and mate choice in guppies. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
25. Houston, A. I. and J. M. McNamara. 1999. Models of adaptive behaviour: an approach based on state. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.
26. Jennions, M. D., and M. Petrie. 1997. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: A review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. 72:283-327.
27. _. 2000. Why do females mate mutiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. 75:21-64.
28. Jiggins, F. M., G. D. D. Hurst, and M. E. N. Majerus. 2000. Sex-ratio-distorting Wolbachia causes sex-role reversal in its butterfly host. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267:69-73.
29. Johnstone, R. A. 1997. The tactics of mutual mate choice and competitive search. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 40:51-59.
30. Kawecki, T. J. 1995. Demography of source-sink populations and the evolution of ecological niches. Evol. Ecol. 9:38-44.
31. Kokko, H. 2005. Treat'em mean, keep'em (sometimes) keen: evolution of female preferences for dominant and coercive males. Evol. Ecol. In press.
32. Kokko, H., and R. Brooks. 2003. Sexy to die for? Sexual selection and the risk of extinction. Ann. Zool. Fennici 40:207-219.
33. Kokko, H., and R. A. Johnstone. 2002. Why is mutual mate choice not the norm? Operational sex ratios, sex roles, and the evolution of sexually dimorphic and monomorphic signalling. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 357:319-330.
34. Kokko, H., and D. J. Rankin. 2005. Lonely hearts or sex in the city? Density-dependent effects in mating systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. In press.
35. Kokko, H., and W. J. Sutherland. 2001. Ecological traps in changing environments: ecological and evolutionary consequences of a behaviourally mediated Allee effect. Evol. Ecol. Res. 3:537-551.
36. Kokko, H., R. Brooks, M. Jennions, and J. Morley. 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270:653-664.
37. Kuussaari, M., I. Saccheri, M. Camara, and I. Hanski. 1998. Allee effect and population dynamics in the Glanville fritillary butterfly. Oikos 82:384-392.
38. Levitan, D. R. 1998. Does Batemans principle apply to broadcast-spawning organisms? Egg traits influence in situ fertilisation rates among congeneric sea urchines. Evolution 52:1043-1056.
39. _. 2004. Density-dependent sexual selection in external fertilizers: variances in male and female fertilization success along the continuum from sperm limitation to sexual conflict in the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus franciscanus. Am. Nat. 164:298-309.
40. Lorch, P. D., S. Proulx, L. Rowe, and T. Day. 2003. Condition-dependent sexual selection can accelerate adaptation. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5:867-881.
41. Lynch, K. S., A. S. Rand, M. J. Ryan, and W. Wilczynski. 2005. Plasticity in female mate choice associated with changing reproductive states. Anim. Behav. 69:689-699.
42. Mair, J., and A. Blackwell, 1998. Effect of age and multiple mating on the mating behavior of Culicoides nubeculosus (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae). J. Med. Entomol. 35:996-1001.
43. Mazalov, V., N. Perrin, and Y. Dombrovsky. 1996. Adaptive search and information updating in sequential mate choice. Am. Nat. 148:123-137.
44. McCarthy, M. A. 1997. The Allee effect, finding mates and theoretical models. Ecol. Model. 103:99-102.
45. Milner-Gulland, E. J., O. M. Bukreeva, T. Coulson, A. A. Lushchekina, M. V. Kholodova, A. B. Bekenov, and I. A. Grachev. 2003. Reproductive collapse in saiga antelope harems. Nature 422:135.
46. Møller, A. P. 2003. Sexual selection and extinction: why sex matters and why asexual models are insufficient. Ann. Zool. Fennici 40:221-230.
47. Møller, A. P., and S. Legendre. 2001. Allee effect, sexual selection and demographic stochasticity. Oikos 92:27-34.
48. Parker, G. A. 1970. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol. Rev. 45:525-567.
49. _. 1983. Mate quality and mating decisions. Pp. 141-166 in P. Bateson, ed. Mate choice. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.
50. Peretti, A. V., and P. Carrera. 2005. Female control of mating sequences in the mountain scorpion Zabius fuscus: males do not use coercion as a response to unreceptive females. Anim. Behav. 69:453-462.
51. Phelan, P. L. 1992. Evolution of sex pheromones and the role of asymmetric tracking. Pp. 265-314 in B. D. Roitberg and M. B. Isman, eds. Insect chemical ecology: an evolutionary approach. Chapman and Hall, New York.
52. _. 1997. Evolution of mate-signaling in moths: phylogenetic considerations and predictions from the asymmetric tracking hypothesis. Pp. 240-256 in J. C. Choe and B. J. Crespi, eds. The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.
53. Preston, B. T., I. R. Stevenson, J. M. Pemberton, D. W. Coltman, and K. Wilson. 2005. Male mate choice influences female promiscuity in Soay sheep. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 272:365-373.
54. Proulx, S. R. 1999. Matings systems and the evolution of niche breadth. Am. Nat. 154:89-98.
55. Real, L. 1990. Search theory and mate choice. 1. Models of single-sex discrimination. Am. Nat. 136:376-405.
56. Rhainds, M., G. Gries, and M. M. Min. 1999. Size- and density-dependent reproductive success of bagworms, Metisa plana. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 91:375-383.
57. Ridley, M. 1988. Mating frequency and fecundity in insects. Biol. Rev. 63:509-549.
58. Rowe, S., and J. A. Hutchings. 2003. Mating systems and the conservation of commercially exploited marine fish. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18:567-572.
59. Rowe, L., D. Ludwig, and D. Schluter. 1994. Time, condition and the seasonal decline of avian clutch size. Am. Nat. 143:698-722.
60. Schäfer, M. A., and G. Uhl. 2005. Sequential mate encounters: female but not male body size influences female remating behavior. Behav. Ecol. 16:461-466.
61. Schmeller, D. S., R. O'Hara, and H. Kokko. 2005. Male adaptive stupidity: Male mating pattern in hybridogenetic frogs. Evol. Ecol. Res. In press.
62. Shackleton, M. A., M. D. Jennions, and J. Hunt. 2005. Fighting success and attractiveness as predictors of male mating success in the black field cricket, Teleogryllus commodus: the effectiveness of no-choice tests. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 58:1-8.
63. Sheldon, B. C. 1994. Male phenotype, fertility, and the pursuit of extra-pair copulations by female birds. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 257:25-30.
64. Simmons, L. W., and M. T. Siva-Jothy. 1998. Sperm competition in insects: mechanisms and the potential for selection. Pp. 341-434 in T. R. Birkhead and A. P. Møller, eds. Sperm competition and sexual selection.Academic Press, London.
65. Sullivan, M. S. 1994. Mate choice as an information gathering process under time constraint: Implications for behaviour and signal design. Anim. Behav. 47:141-151.
66. Svensson, M. 1996. Sexual selection in moths: The role of chemical communication. Biol. Rev. 71:113-135.
67. Tammaru, T., and E. Haukioja. 1996. Capital breeders and income breeders among Lepidoptera: consequences to population dynamics. Oikos 77:561-564.
68. Trivers, R. L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. Pp. 136-179 in B. Campbell, ed. Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971. Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago, IL.
69. Wedell, N., M. J. G. Gage, and G. A. Parker. 2002. Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17:313-320.
70. Wickman, P. O., and R. L. Rutowski. 1999. The evolution of mating dispersion in insects. Oikos 84:463-472.