No evidence for female mate choice based on genetic similarity in the túngara frog Physalaemus pustulosus

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

Volumn 59, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 796-804

  Lampert, Kathrin P ^a,b   Bernal, Ximena E ^a   Rand, A Stanley ^c   Mueller, Ulrich G ^a,c   Ryan, Michael J ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

^c SMITHSONIAN TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Panama)

Author keywords

Animal communication; Mate choice; Microsatellite marker; Relatedness; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

CALLING BEHAVIOR; COURTSHIP; FROG; GENETICS; MATE CHOICE; RELATEDNESS; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMALIA; ANURA; PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULOSUS;

EID: 33645057689     PISSN: 03405443     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-005-0125-5     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton
2. Bernatchez L, Landry C (2003) MHC studies in nonmodel vertebrates: What have we learned about natural selection in 15 years? J Evol Biol 16:363-377
3. Blouin MS, Parsons M, Lacaille V, Lotz S (1995) Use of microsatellite loci to classify individuals by relatedness. Mol Ecol 5:393-401
4. Coyne JA, Orr HA (1998) The evolutionary genetics of speciation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 353:287-305
5. Dobzhansky T (1975) Analysis of incipient reproductive isolation within a species of Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 72:3638-3641
6. Endler JA (1992) Signals, signal conditions and the direction of evolution. Am Nat 139:S125-S153
7. Endler JA, Basolo AL (1998) Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 13:415-420
8. Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon, Oxford
9. Gerhardt HC (1994) Reproductive character displacement of female mate choice in the grey treefrog, Hyla chrysoscelis. Anim Behav 47:959-969
10. Goodnight KF, Queller DC (1995) Relatedness, version 5.0.8. http://gsoftnet.us/GSoft.html
11. Goodnight KF, Queller DC (1996) Kinship 1.3.1. http://gsoftnet.us/GSoft. html
12. Grafen A (1990) Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J Theor Biol 144:473-516
13. Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds a role for parasites? Science 218:384-387
14. Hankison SJ, Morris MR (2003) Avoiding a compromise between sexual selection and species recognition: female swordtail fish assess multiple species-specific cues. Behav Ecol 14:282-287
15. Kirkpatrick M (1982) Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36:1-12
16. Kirkpatrick M, Barton NH (1997) The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94:1282-1286
17. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ (1991) The paradox of the lek and the evolution of mating preferences. Nature 350:33-38
18. Kokko H, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Morley J (2003) The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc Biol Sci 270:653-664
19. Lampert KP, Rand AS, Mueller UG, Ryan MJ (2003) Fine-scale genetic pattern and evidence for sex-biased dispersal in the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Mol Ecol 12:3325-3334
20. Lande R (1981) Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 78:3721-3725
21. Landry C, Garant D, Duchesne P, Bernatchez L (2001) Good genes as heterozygosity: the major histocompatibility complex and mate choice in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Proc Biol Sci 268:1279-1285
22. Lenington S, Coopersmith CB, Erhart M (1994) Female preference and variability among t-haplotypes in wild house mice. Am Nat 143:766-784
23. Liedloff A (1999) Mantel version 2.0, Mantel nonparametric test calculator. http://www.real.sci.qut.edu.au/NRS/mantel.htm
24. Lynch M, Ritland K (1999) Estimation of pairwise relatedness with molecular markers. Genetics 157:1753-1766
25. Marsh D, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2000) Effects of inter-pond distance on the inbreeding ecology of túngara frogs. Oecologia 122:505-513
26. Maynard Smith J, Harper D (2003) Animal signals. Oxford University Press, Oxford
27. Mays HL Jr, Hill GE (2004) Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol Evol 19:554-559
28. Milinski M (2003) The function of mate choice in sticklebacks: optimizing MHC genetics. J Fish Biol 63(Suppl A):1-16
29. Mousseau TA, Ritland K, Heath DD (1998) A novel method for estimating heritability using molecular markers. Heredity 80:218-224
30. Penn DJ (2002) The scent of genetic compatibility: sexual selection and the major histocompatibility complex. Ethology 108:1-21
31. Penn DJ, Potts WK (1999) The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibiliy complex genes. Am Nat 153:145-169
32. Petrie M (1994) Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate trains. Nature 371:598-599
33. Pfennig KS (1998) The evolution of mate choice and the potential for conflict between species and mate-quality recognition. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 265:1742-1748
34. Pomiankowski AN (1988) The evolution of female mate preferences for male genetic quality. Oxf Surv Evol Biol 5:136-184
35. Pröhl H, Adams RMM, Mueller UG, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2002) Polymerase chain reaction primers for polymorphic microsatellite loci from the túngara frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Mol Ecol Notes 2:341-343
36. Queller DC, Goodnight KF (1989) Estimating relatedness using genetic markers. Evolution 43:258-275
37. Raberg L, Stjernman M, Hasselquist D (2003) Immune responsiveness in adult blue tits: heritability and effects of nutritional status during ontogeny. Oecologia 136:360-364
38. Ritland K, Ritland C (1996) Inferences about quantitative inheritance based on natural population structure in the yellow monkeyflower, Mimulus guttanus. Evolution 50:1074-1082
39. Ryan MJ (1980) Female mate choice in a neotropical frog. Science 209:523-525
40. Ryan MJ (1983) Sexual selection and communication in a neotropical frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Evolution 39:261-272
41. Ryan MJ (1985) The túngara frog: a study in sexual selection and communication. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
42. Ryan MJ (1990) Sensory systems, sexual selection, and sensory exploitation. Oxf Surv Evol Biol 7:157-195
43. Ryan MJ (1997) Sexual selection and mate choice. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Sexual selection and mate choice. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 179-202
44. Ryan MJ (1998) Receiver biases, sexual selection and the evolution of sex differences. Science 281:1999-2003
45. Ryan MJ, Rand AS (2003) Sexual selection in female perceptual space: how female túngara frogs perceive and respond to complex populations variation in acoustic mating signals. Evolution 57:2608-2618
46. Shaw K (1995) Phylogenetic tests of the sensory exploitation model of sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 10:117-120
47. Waldman B, Adler K (1979) Toad tadpoles associate preferentially with siblings. Nature 282:611-613
48. Waldman B, Bishop PJ (2004) Chemical communication in an archaic anuran amphibian. Behav Ecol 15:88-93
49. Waldman B, Tocher M (1998) Behavioral ecology, genetic diversity, and declining amphibian populations. In: Caro T (ed) Behavioral ecology and conservation biology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 394-443
50. Waldman B, Rice JE, Honeycutt RL (1992) Kin recognition and incest avoidance in toads. Am Zool 32:18-30
51. Wedekind C, Furi S (1997) Body odour preferences in men and women: do they aim for specific MHC combinations or simply heterozygosity? Proc Biol Sci 264:1471-1479
52. Wedekind C, Seebeck T, Bettens F, Paepke AJ (1995) MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proc Biol Sci 260:245-249
53. Welch AM, Semlitsch RD, Gerhardt HC (1998) Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280:1928-1930
54. Wells KD (1977) The social behavior of anuran amphibians. Anim Behav 25:666-693
55. Yamazaki K, Boyse EA, Mike V, Thaler HT, Mathieson BJ, Abbott J, Boyse J, Zayas ZA, Thomas L (1976) Control of mating preferences in mice by genes in the major histocompatibility complex. J Exp Med 144:1324-1335
56. Yamazaki K, Beauchamp GK, Shen F, Bard J, Boyse JA (1991) A distinctive change in odor type determined by H-2D/L mutation. Immunogenetics 34:120-131
57. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection: a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53 205-214
58. Zahavi A, Zahavi A (1997) The handicap principle: a missing piece of Darwin's puzzle. Oxford University Press, Oxford
59. Zelano B, Edwards SV (2002) An MHC component to kin recognition and mate choice in birds: predictions, progress, and prospects. Am Nat 160:S225-S237