Sensory bias as an explanation for the evolution of mate preferences

American Naturalist

Volumn 166, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 437-446

  Fuller, Rebecca C ^a,b   Houle, David ^a   Travis, Joseph ^a  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Direct benefits; Female choice; Fisherian runaway; Good genes model; Sensory exploitation; Sexual conflict

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; MATE CHOICE; NATURAL SELECTION; SEXUAL CONFLICT;

ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; DECISION MAKING; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; MALE; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; PHYSIOLOGY; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCUS; REVIEW; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALS; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CHOICE BEHAVIOR; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; FEMALE; MALE; MODELS, GENETIC; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCI; SELECTION (GENETICS); SELECTION, GENETIC; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

EID: 26644432045     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/444443     Document Type: Review

References (77)

1. Andersson, M. B. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
2. Arak, A., and M. Enquist. 1993. Hidden preferences and the evolution of signals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 340:207-213.
3. Arnold, S. J. 1994. Bateman principles and the measurement of sexual selection in plants and animals. American Naturalist 144(suppl.): S126-S149.
4. Arnqvist, G., and L. Rowe. 2005. Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
5. Basolo, A. L. 1990. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 250:808-810.
6. _. 1995. Phylogenetic evidence for the role of a preexisting bias in sexual selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 259:307-311.
7. _. 1996. The phylogenetic distribution of a female preference. Systematic Biology 45:290-307.
8. _. 1998. Evolutionary change in a receiver bias: a comparison of female preference functions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 265:2223-2228.
9. Basolo, A. L., and J. A. Endler. 1995. Sensory biases and the evolution of sensory systems. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10:489.
10. Blows, M. W., and R. Brooks. 2003. Measuring nonlinear selection. American Naturalist 162:815-820.
11. Caswell, H. 1989. Matrix population models: construction, analysis, and interpretation. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
12. Christy, J. H. 1995. Mimicry, mate choice, and the sensory trap hypothesis. American Naturalist 146:171-181.
13. Christy, J. H., and P. R. Y. Backwell. 1995. The sensory exploitation hypothesis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10:417.
14. Dawkins, M. S., and T. Guilford. 1996. Sensory bias and the adaptiveness of female choice. American Naturalist 148:937-942.
15. Endler, J. A. 1986. Natural selection in the wild. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
16. _. 1992. Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution. American Naturalist 139(suppl.):S125-S153.
17. _. 1993. Some general comments on the evolution and design of animal communication systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 340:215-225.
18. Endler, J. A., and A. L. Basolo. 1998. Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13:415-420.
19. Gavrilets, S. 2000. Rapid evolution of reproductive barriers driven by sexual conflict. Nature 403:886-889.
20. Gavrilets, S., G. Arnqvist, and U. Friberg. 2001. The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268:531-539.
21. Ghirlanda, S., and M. Enquist. 2003. A century of generalization. Animal Behaviour 66:15-36.
22. Greenfield, M. D., and T. Weber. 2000. Evolution of ultrasonic signalling in wax moths: discrimination of ultrasonic mating calls from bat echolocation signals and the exploitation of an antipredator receiver bias by sexual advertisement. Ethology Ecology and Evolution 12:259-279.
23. Grether, G. F., J. Hudon, and J. A. Endler. 2001. Carotenoid scarcity, synthetic pteridine pigments and the evolution of sexual coloration in guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268:1245-1253.
24. Hall, D. W., M. Kirkpatrick, and B. West. 2000. Runaway sexual selection when female preferences are directly selected. Evolution 54:1862-1869.
25. Hamilton, W. D., and M. Zuk. 1982. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites. Science 218:384-387.
26. Holland, B., and W. R. Rice. 1998. Perspective: chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52:1-7.
27. _. 1999. Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 96:5083-5088.
28. Houde, A. E. 1997. Sex, color, and mate choice in guppies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
29. Houle, D., and A. S. Kondrashov. 2002. Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269:97-104.
30. Iwasa, Y., and A. Pomiankowski. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The handicap principle. Evolution 45:1431-1442.
31. _. 1999. Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology 200:97-109.
32. Jennions, M. D., and R. Brooks. 2001. A sense of history. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16:113-115.
33. Jennions, M. D., and M. Petrie. 2000. Why do females mate multiply? a review of the genetic benefits. Biological Reviews 75:21-64.
34. Kennedy, C. E. J., J. A. Endler, S. L. Poynton, and H. McMinn. 1987. Parasite load predicts mate choice in guppies. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 21:291-295.
35. Kirkpatrick, M. 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36:1-12.
36. _. 1985. Evolution of female mate choice and parental investment in polygynous species: the demise of the "sexy son." American Naturalist 125:788-810.
37. _. 1987. The evolutionary forces acting on female mating preferences in polygynous animals. Pages 67-82 in J. W. Bradbury and M. B. Andersson, eds. Sexual selection: testing the alternatives. Wiley, Chichester.
38. _. 1996. Good genes and direct selection in evolution of mating preferences. Evolution 50:2125-2140.
39. Kirkpatrick, M., and M. J. Ryan. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33-38.
40. Kirkpatrick, M., T. Price, and S. J. Arnold. 1990. The Darwin-Fisher theory of sexual selection in monogamous birds. Evolution 44:180-193.
41. Kodric-Brown, A., and J. H. Brown. 1984. Truth in advertising: the kinds of traits favored by sexual selection. American Naturalist 124:309-323.
42. Kokko, H., R. Brooks, J. M. McNamara, and A. I. Houston. 2002. The sexual selection continuum. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269:1331-1340.
43. Lande, R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 78:3721-3725.
44. Marler, C. A., and M. J. Ryan. 1997. Origin and maintenance of a female mating preference. Evolution 51:1244-1248.
45. McClintock, W. J., and G. W. Uetz. 1996. Female choice and preexisting bias: visual cues during courtship in two Schizocosa wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae). Animal Behaviour 52:167-181.
46. Mead, L. S., and S. J. Arnold. 2004. Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19:264-271.
47. Morris, M. R., W. E. Wagner, and M. J. Ryan. 1996. A negative correlation between trait and mate preference in Xiphophorus pygmaeus. Animal Behaviour 52:1193-1203.
48. O'Donald, P. 1962. Theory of sexual selection. Heredity 17:541-552.
49. Payne, R. J. H., and M. Pagel. 2001. Inferring the origins of state-dependent courtship traits. American Naturalist 157:42-50.
50. Phelps, S. M., and M. J. Ryan. 2000. History influences signal recognition: neural network models of túngara frogs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 267:1633-1639.
51. Pomiankowski, A. 1987a. The costs of choice in sexual selection. Journal of Theoretical Biology 128:195-218.
52. _. 1987b. Sexual selection: the handicap principle does work - sometimes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 231:123-145..
53. Pomiankowski, A., Y. Iwasa, and S. Nee. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences. I. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution 45:1422-1430.
54. Porter, B. A., A. C. Fiumera, and J. C. Avise. 2002. Egg mimicry and allopaternal care: two mate-attracting tactics by which nesting striped darter (Etheostoma virgatum) males enhance reproductive success. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 51:350-359.
55. Price, T., D. Schluter, and N. E. Heckman. 1993. Sexual selection when the female directly benefits. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 48:187-211.
56. Proctor, H. C. 1991. Courtship in the water mite Neu mania papillator. males capitalize on female adaptations for predation. Animal Behaviour 42:589-598.
57. Ptacek, M. B., and J. Travis. 1997. Mate choice in the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna. Evolution 51:1217-1231.
58. Reeve, H. K., and P. W. Sherman. 1993. Adaptation and the goals of evolutionary research. Quarterly Review of Biology 68:1-32.
59. Reynolds, J. D., and M. R. Gross. 1990. Costs and benefits of female mate choice: is there a lek paradox? American Naturalist 136:230-243.
60. Rodd, F. H., K. A. Hughes, G. F. Grether, and C. T. Baril. 2002. A possible non-sexual origin of mate preference: are male guppies mimicking fruit? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269:475-481.
61. Rosenthal, G. G., and C. S. Evans. 1998. Female preference for swords in Xiphophorus hellen reflects a bias for large apparent size. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 95:4431-4436.
62. Ryan, M. J. 1990. Signals, species, and sexual selection. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology 7:157-195.
63. _. 1998. Sexual selection, receiver biases, and the evolution of sex differences. Science 281:1999-2003.
64. Ryan, M. J., and A. Keddy-Hector. 1992. Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. American Naturalist 139(suppl.):S4-S35.
65. Ryan, M. J., and A. S. Rand. 1990. The sensory basis of sexual selection for complex calls in the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus (sexual selection for sensory exploitation). Evolution 44:305-314.
66. _. 1993. Sexual selection and signal evolution: the ghost of biases past. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 340:187-195.
67. Ryan, M. J., J. H. Fox, W. Wilczynski, and A. S. Rand. 1990. Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature 343:66-67.
68. Ryan, M. J., S. M. Phelps, and A. S. Rand. 2001. How evolutionary history shapes recognition mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5:143-148.
69. Ryan, M. J., W. Rand, P. L. Hurd, S. M. Phelps, and A. S. Rand. 2003. Generalization in response to mate recognition signals. American Naturalist 161:380-394.
70. Schluter, D., and T. Price. 1993. Honesty, perception and population divergence in sexually selected traits. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 253:117-122.
71. Shaw, K. 1995. Phylogenetic tests of the sensory exploitation model of sexual selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10:117-120.
72. Sherman, P. W., and H. K. Reeve. 1999. Sexual selection and sensory exploitation. Science 283:1083a.
73. Sherman, P. W., and L. L. Wolfenbarger. 1995. Genetic correlations as tests for sensory exploitation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10:246-247.
74. Shuster, S. M., and M. J. Wade. 2003. Mating systems and strategies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
75. Smith, C., L. Barber, R. J. Wootton, and L. Chittka. 2004. A receiver bias in the origin of three-spined stickleback mate choice. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 271:949-955.
76. Weller, S. J., N. L. Jacobson, and W. E. Conner. 1999. The evolution of chemical defences and mating systems in tiger moths (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 68: 557-578.
77. West-Eberhard, M. J. 1984. Sexual selection, competitive communication and species-specific signals in insects. Pages 283-324 in T. Lewis, ed. Insect communication. Academic Press, New York.