Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 323-328

  Tomkins, Joseph L ^a   Radwan, Jacek ^b   Kotiaho, Janne S ^c   Tregenza, Tom ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

^b JAGIELLONIAN UNIVERSITY   (Poland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GENETIC VARIATION; SEXUAL SELECTION;

EID: 2942570086     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.029     Document Type: Review

References (76)

1. Borgia G. Sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. Blum M.S., Blum N.A. Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in the Insects. 1979;19-80 Academic Press
2. Rowe L., Houle D. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 263:1996;1415-1421
3. Taylor P.D., Williams G.C. The lek paradox is not resolved. Theor. Pop. Biol. 22:1982;392-409
4. Pomiankowski A., Møller A.P. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 260:1995;21-29
5. Barton N.H., Turelli M. Evolutionary quantitative genetics: how little do we know? Annu. Rev. Genet. 23:1989;337-370
6. Barton N.H., Keightley P.D. Understanding quantitative genetic variation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 3:2002;11-21
7. Roff D.A., Mousseau T.A. Quantitative genetics and fitness: lessons from Drosophila. Heredity. 58:1987;103-118
8. Charlesworth B., Hughes K.A. The maintenance of genetic variation in life-history traits. Singh R.S., Crimbas C.B. Evolutionary Genetics: From Molecules to Morphology. 1999;369-392 Cambridge University Press
9. Keightley P.D., Lynch M. Towards a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution. 57:2003;683-685
10. Jia F.Y., et al. Genetic variance of sexually selected traits in waxmoths: maintenance by genotype x environment interaction. Evolution Int. J. Org. Evolution. 54:2000;953-967
11. Amos W., Balmford A. When does conservation genetics matter? Heredity. 87:2001;257-265
12. Westneat D.F., Birkhead T.R. Alternative hypotheses linking the immune system and mate choice for good genes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 265:1998;1065-1073
13. Hamilton W.D., Zuk M. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science. 218:1982;384-387
14. Houle D. Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics. 130:1992;195-204
15. Houle D. How should we explain variation in genetic variation of traits. Genetica. 102/103:1998;241-253
16. LeBas N.R., et al. Nonlinear and correlational sexual selection on 'honest' female ornamentation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 270:2003;2159-2165
17. Iwasa Y., Pomiankowski A. The evolution of mate preferences for multiple sexual ornaments. Evolution. 48:1994;853-867
18. Iwasa Y., et al. The evolution of costly mate preferences II. The 'handicap' principle. Evolution. 45:1991;1431-1442
19. Andersson M. Sexual selection, natural selection and quality advertisement. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 17:1982;375-393
20. Andersson M. Evolution of condition dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution. 40:1986;804-816
21. Kotiaho J.S., et al. Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature. 410:2001;684-686
22. Houle D., Kondrashov A.S. Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 269:2002;97-104
23. Lorch P.D., et al. Condition-dependent sexual selection can accelerate adaptation. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5:2003;867-881
24. Kirkpatrick M., Barton N.H. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94:1997;1282-1286
25. Charlesworth B. The heritability of fitness. Bradbury J.W., Andersson M.B. Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives. 1987;21-40 John Wiley & Sons
26. Zeh D.W., Zeh J.A. Condition dependent sex ornaments and field tests of sexual-selection theory. Am. Nat. 132:1988;454-459
27. Houle D. Genetic covariance of fitness correlates: what genetic correlations are made of and why it matters. Evolution. 45:1991;630-648
28. García-Berthou E. On the misuse of residuals in ecology: testing regression residual vs the analysis of covariance. J. Anim. Ecol. 70:2001;708-711
29. Tomkins J.L., Simmons L.W. Measuring relative investment: a case study of testes investment in species with alternative male reproductive tactics. Anim. Behav. 63:2002;1009-1016
30. Cattet M.R.L., et al. A body condition index for ursids. Can. J. Zool. 80:2002;1156-1161
31. Sutton S.G., et al. Relationships among fat weight, body weight and condition factors in wild Atlantic salmon parr. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 129:2000;527-538
32. Cavallini P. Comparison of body condition indices in the red fox (Fissipedia; Canidae). Mammalia. 60:1996;449-462
33. Kotiaho J.S. Estimating fitness: comparison of body condition indices revisited. Oikos. 87:1999;399-400
34. Plaistow S., Siva-Jothy M.T. Energetic constraints and male mate-securing tactics in the damselfly Calopteryx splendens xanthostoma (Charpentier). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 263:1996;1233-1239
35. Cuthill I.C., et al. Colour bands, dominance, and body mass regulation in male zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 264:1997;1093-1099
36. Heller K.G., et al. The chemical composition of the spermatophore in some species of phaneropterid bushcrickets (Orthoptera: Tettigonioidea). J. Insect Physiol. 44:1998;1001-1008
37. Wedell N. Variation in nuptial gift quality in bush-crickets (Orthoptera Tettigoniidae). Behav. Ecol. 5:1994;418-425
38. Cotton, S., et al. Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B (in press).
39. Hunt, J., et al. (2004) What is genetic quality? Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 329-333.
40. Roff D.A. Evolutionary Quantitative Genetics. 1997;Chapman & Hall
41. Lynch M., et al. Perspective: spontaneous deleterious mutation. Evolution. 53:1999;645-663
42. Lynch M., et al. Mutation, selection, and the maintenance of life-history variation in a natural population. Evolution. 52:1998;727-733
43. Able K.P., Able M.A. Daytime calibration of magnetic orientation in a migratory bird requires a view of skylight polarization. Nature. 364:1993;523-525
44. Kärkkäinen K., et al. Genetic basis of inbreeding depression in Arabis petraea. Evolution. 53:1999;1354-1365
45. Aspi J. Inbreeding and outbreeding depression in male courtship song characters in Drosophila Montana. Heredity. 84:2000;273-282
46. van Oosterhout C., et al. Inbreeding depression and genetic load of sexually selected traits: how the guppy lost its spots. J. Evol. Biol. 16:2003;273-281
47. Kelly J.K. An experimental method for evaluating the contribution of deleterious mutations to quantitative trait variation. Genet. Res. 73:1999;263-273
48. Kelly J.K., Willis J.H. Deleterious mutations and genetic variation for flower size in Mimulus guttatus. Evolution. 55:2001;937-942
49. Agrawal A.F. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature. 411:2001;692-695
50. Siller S. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex. Nature. 411:2001;689-692
51. Chippindale A.K., et al. Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98:2001;1671-1675
52. Rice W.R. Experimental tests of the adaptive significance of sexual recombination. Nat. Rev. Genet. 3:2002;241-251
53. Burt A. The evolution of fitness. Evolution. 49:1995;1-8
54. Radwan J., et al. Effectiveness of sexual selection in preventing fitness deterioration in bulb mite populations under relaxed natural selection. J. Evol. Biol. 17:2004;94-99
55. Holland B. Sexual selection fails to promote adaptation to a new environment. Evolution. 56:2002;721-730
56. Hoikkala A., et al. Male courtship song frequency as an indicator of male genetic quality in an insect species, Drosophila Montana. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 265:1998;503-508
57. Suvanto L., et al. Courtship signals and mate choice of the flies of inbred Drosophila montana strains. J. Evol. Biol. 13:2000;583-592
58. Møller A.P., Alatalo R.V. Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 266:1999;85-91
59. Sheldon B.C. Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15:2000;397-402
60. Andersson M. Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature. 299:1982;818-830
61. Zahavi A. Mate selection-A selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53:1975;205-214
62. Johnstone R.A. Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 70:1995;1-65
63. Kotiaho J.S. Testing the assumptions of conditional handicap theory: costs and condition dependence of a sexually selected trait. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 48:2000;188-194
64. Scheuber H., et al. The effect of past condition on a multicomponent sexual signal. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 270:2003;1779-1784
65. David P., et al. Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyed flies. Nature. 406:2000;186-188
66. Wilkinson G.S., Taper M. Evolution of genetic variation for condition-dependent traits in stalk-eyed flies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 266:1999;1685-1690
67. Arnqvist G., Thornhill R. Evolution of animal genitalia: patterns of phenotypic and genotypic variation and condition dependence of genital and non-genital morphology in water strider (Heteroptera: Gerridae: Insecta). Genet. Res. 71:1998;193-212
68. Merilä J. Genetic variation in offspring condition: an experiment. Funct. Ecol. 10:1996;465-474
69. Merilä J., et al. Natural selection on the genetical component of variance in body condition in a wild bird population. J. Evol. Biol. 14:2001;918-929
70. Bjorksten T., et al. What does secondary sexual trait FA tell us about stress. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15:2000;163-166
71. Simmons L.W., Kotiaho J.S. Evolution of ejaculates: patterns of phenotypic and genotypic variation and condition dependence in sperm competition traits. Evolution. 56:2002;1622-1631
72. Qvarnström A. Genotype-by-environment interactions in the determination of the size of a secondary sexual character in the collared flycatcher (Ficedula albicollis). Evolution. 53:1999;1564-1572
73. Bjorksten T., et al. Fluctuating asymmetry of sexual and nonsexual traits in stalk-eyed flies: a poor indicator of developmental stress and genetic quality. J. Evol. Biol. 13:2000;89-97
74. Fry J.D. The general vigor problem: can antagonistic pleiotropy be detected when genetic covariances are positive? Evolution. 47:1993;327-333
75. Gillespie J.H., Turelli M. Genotype-environment interactions and the maintenance of polygenic variation. Genetics. 121:1989;129-138
76. Kondrashov A.S., Houle D. Genotype-environment interactions and the estimation of the genomic mutation rate in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 258:1994;221-227