Sexual selection and mate choice

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 296-302

  Andersson, Malte ^a   Simmons, Leigh W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COPULATION; GENETIC ANALYSIS; MATE CHOICE; SEXUAL CONFLICT; SEXUAL SELECTION; SPERM COMPETITION;

ADAPTATION; ANIMAL; ANIMAL MODEL; DECISION MAKING; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; MALE; REVIEW; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ANIMALS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; MALE; MODELS, ANIMAL; SELECTION (GENETICS); SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

EID: 33744945003     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2006.03.015     Document Type: Review

References (98)

1. Majerus M.E.N. The genetics and evolution of female choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1 (1986) 1-7
2. Lande R. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 78 (1981) 3721-3725
3. Kirkpatrick M. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36 (1982) 1-12
4. Andersson M. Sexual Selection (1994), Princeton University Press
5. Mead L.S., and Arnold S.J. Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 (2004) 264-271
6. Parker G.A. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Blum M.S., and Blum N.A. (Eds). Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects (1979), Academic Press 123-166
7. Arnqvist G., and Rowe L. Sexual Conflict (2005), Princeton University Press
8. Kokko H., et al. The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. B 269 (2002) 1331-1340
9. Cameron E., et al. Sexual conflict and indirect benefits. J. Evol. Biol. 16 (2003) 1055-1060
10. Kirkpatrick M., and Hall D.W. Sexual selection and sex linkage. Evolution 58 (2004) 683-691
11. Andersson M. Condition-dependent indicators in sexual selection: development of theory and tests. In: Lucas J.R., and Simmons L.W. (Eds). Essays in Animal Behaviour: Celebrating 50 Years of Animal Behaviour (2006), Elsevier 253-267
12. Fuller R.C., et al. Sensory bias as an explanation for the evolution of mate preferences. Am. Nat. 166 (2005) 437-446
13. Kokko H., et al. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. R. Soc. B 270 (2003) 653-664
14. Jones T.M., et al. Fisherian flies: benefits of female choice in a lekking sandfly. Proc. R. Soc. B 265 (1998) 1651-1657
15. Head M.L., et al. The indirect benefits of mating with attractive males outweigh the direct costs. PLoS Biol. 3 (2005) 289-294
16. Tomkins J.L., et al. Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 (2004) 323-332
17. Pomiankowski A., and Iwasa Y. Runaway ornament diversity caused by Fisherian sexual selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95 (1998) 5106-5111
18. Coyne J.A., and Orr H.A. Speciation (2004), Sinauer
19. Erickson D.L., et al. Quantitative trait locus analyses and the study of the evolutionary process. Mol. Ecol. 13 (2004) 2505-2522
20. Fitzpatrick M.J., et al. Candidate genes for behavioural ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20 (2005) 96-104
21. Thomas M.A., and Klaper R. Genomics for the ecological toolbox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 (2004) 439-445
22. Ryan M.J. Sexual selection, receiver biases, and the evolution of sex differences. Science 281 (1998) 1999-2003
23. Rodd F.H., et al. A possible non-sexual origin of mate preference: are male guppies mimicking fruit?. Proc. R. Soc. B 269 (2002) 475-481
24. Smith C., et al. A receiver bias in the origin of three-spined stickleback mate choice. Proc. R. Soc. B 271 (2004) 949-955
25. Slate J. Quantitative trait locus mapping in natural populations: progress, caveats and future directions. Mol. Ecol. 14 (2005) 363-379
26. Wayne M.L., and McIntyre L.M. Combining mapping and arraying: an approach to candidate gene identification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99 (2002) 14903-14906
27. Barber I., and Arnott S.A. Split-clutch IVF: a technique to examine indirect fitness consequences of mate preference in sticklebacks. Behaviour 137 (2000) 1129-1140
28. Owens I.P.F. Where is behavioural ecology going?. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 21 (2006) 10.1016/j.tree.2006.03.014
29. Gleason J.M., et al. Quantitative trait loci affecting a courtship signal in Drosophila melanogaster. Heredity 89 (2002) 1-6
30. Civetta A., and Cantor E.J.F. The genetics of mating recognition between Drosophila simulans and D. sechellia. Genet. Res. 82 (2003) 117-126
31. Brooks R., and Endler J.A. Direct and indirect sexual selection and quantitative genetics of male traits in guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Evolution 55 (2001) 1002-1015
32. Evans J.P., et al. Directional postcopulatory sexual selection revealed by artificial insemination. Nature 421 (2003) 360-363
33. Pilastro A., et al. Cryptic female preference for colorful males in guppies. Evolution 58 (2004) 665-669
34. Houde A.E. Sex, Color, and Mate Choice in Guppies (1997), Princeton University Press
35. Magurran A. Evolutionary Ecology: The Trinidadian Guppy (2005), Oxford University Press
36. Williams G.C. Adaptation and Natural Selection (1966), Princeton University Press
37. Trivers R.L. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B. (Ed). Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871-1971 (1972), Heinemann 136-179
38. Holland B., and Rice W.R. Chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52 (1998) 1-7
39. Gavrilets S., et al. The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc. R. Soc. B 268 (2001) 531-539
40. Rice W.J., et al. Inter-locus antagonistic coevolution as an engine of speciation: assessment with hemiclonal analysis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 102 (2005) 6527-6534
41. Cordero C., and Eberhard W.G. Female choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptations: a critical review of some current research. J. Evol. Biol. 16 (2003) 1-6
42. Parker G.A. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol. Rev. 45 (1970) 525-567
43. Simmons L.W. Sperm Competition and its Evolutionary Consequences in the Insects (2001), Princeton University Press
44. Birkhead T., and Møller A.P. Female control of paternity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 8 (1993) 100-104
45. Eberhard W.G. Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice (1996), Princeton University Press
46. Bateman A.J. Intrasexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2 (1948) 349-368
47. Simmons L.W. The evolution of polyandry: sperm competition, sperm selection, and sperm viability. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36 (2005) 125-146
48. Keller L., and Reeve H.K. Why do females mate with multiple males? The sexually selected sperm hypothesis. Adv. Stud. Behav. 24 (1995) 291-315
49. Pizzari T., and Birkhead T.R. The sexually-selected sperm hypothesis: sex-biased inheritance and sexual antagonism. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 77 (2002) 183-209
50. Eberhard W.G. Sexual Selection and Animal Genitalia (1985), Harvard University Press
51. Hosken D.J., and Stockley P. Sexual selection and genital evolution. Trend. Ecol. Evol. 19 (2004) 87-93
52. House C.M., and Simmons L.W. Genital morphology and fertilization success in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus: an example of sexually selected male genitalia. Proc. R. Soc. B 270 (2003) 447-455
53. Yasui Y. A 'good-sperm' model can explain the evolution of costly multiple mating by females. Am. Nat. 149 (1997) 573-584
54. Kozielska M., et al. Good genes and the maternal effects of polyandry on offspring reproductive success in the bulb mite. Proc. R. Soc. B 271 (2004) 165-176
55. Hosken D.J., et al. Superior sperm competitors sire higher-quality young. Proc. R. Soc. B 270 (2003) 1933-1938
56. Simmons L.W., and Kotiaho J.S. Evolution of ejaculates: patterns of phenotypic and genotypic variation and condition dependence in sperm competition traits. Evolution 56 (2002) 1622-1631
57. Møller A.P. Sperm competition and sexual selection. In: Birkhead T.R., and Møller A.P. (Eds). Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection (1998), Academic Press 55-90
58. McLain D.K. Components of variance in male lifetime copulatory and reproductive success in a seed bug. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 29 (1991) 121-126
59. Westneat D.F., and Stewart I.R.K. Extra-pair paternity in birds: causes, correlates, and conflict. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34 (2003) 365-396
60. Safran R.J., et al. Dynamic paternity allocation as a function of male plumage color in barn swallows. Science 309 (2005) 2210-2212
61. Bennett P.M., and Owens I.P.F. Evolutionary Ecology of Birds: Life Histories, Mating Systems and Extinction (2002), Oxford University Press
62. Warner R.R., et al. Sexual conflict: males with highest mating success convey the lowest fertilization benefits to females. Proc. R. Soc. B 262 (1995) 135-139
63. Danielsson I. Antagonistic pre- and post-copulatory sexual selection on male body size in a water strider (Gerris lacustris). Proc. R. Soc. B 268 (2000) 77-81
64. Preston B.T., et al. Dominant rams lose out by sperm depletion. Nature 409 (2001) 681-682
65. Zeh J.A., and Zeh D.W. The evolution of polyandry I: intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Proc. R. Soc. B 263 (1996) 1711-1717
66. Tregenza T., and Wedell N. Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage. Mol. Ecol. 9 (2000) 1013-1027
67. Colegrave N., et al. Mate choice or polyandry: reconciling genetic compatibility and good genes sexual selection. Evol. Ecol. Res. 4 (2002) 911-917
68. Mays H.L., and Hill G.E. Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 (2004) 554-559
69. Stockley P. Sexual conflict resulting from adaptations to sperm competition. Trends Ecol. Evol. 12 (1997) 154-159
70. Chapman T., and Davies S.J. Functions and analysis of the seminal fluid proteins of male Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies. Peptides 25 (2004) 1477-1490
71. Swanson W.J., and Vacquier V.D. The rapid evolution of reproductive proteins. Nat. Rev. Genet. 3 (2002) 137-144
72. Good J.M., and Nachman M.W. Rates of protein evolution are positively correlated with developmental timing of expression during mouse spermatogenesis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22 (2005) 1044-1052
73. Orteiza N., et al. Sexy sons from re-mating do not recoup the direct costs of harmful male interactions in the Drosophila melanogaster laboratory model system. J. Evol. Biol. 18 (2005) 1315-1323
74. Friberg U., et al. Assessing the potential for an ongoing arms race within and between the sexes: selection and heritable variation. Evolution 59 (2005) 1540-1551
75. Byrne P.G., and Rice W.R. Remating in Drosophila melanogaster: an examination of the trading-up and intrinsic male-quality hypotheses. J. Evol. Biol. 18 (2005) 1324-1331
76. Møller A.P., and Jennions M.D. How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection?. Naturwissenschaften 88 (2001) 401-415
77. Endler J.A., and Basolo A.L. Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13 (1998) 415-420
78. Boughman J.W. How sensory drive can promote speciation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17 (2002) 571-577
79. Folstad I., and Karter A.J. Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. Am. Nat. 139 (1992) 603-622
80. Hamilton W.D., and Zuk M. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites?. Science 218 (1982) 384-387
81. Iwasa Y., et al. The evolution of costly mate preferences II. The 'handicap' principle. Evolution 45 (1991) 1431-1442
82. Rowe L., and Houle D. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. B 263 (1996) 1415-1421
83. Houle D., and Kondrashov A.S. Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proc. R. Soc. B 269 (2002) 97-104
84. Neff B., and Pitcher T.E. Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Mol. Ecol. 14 (2005) 19-38
85. Bonduriansky R., and Rowe L. Sexual selection, genetic architecture, and the condition dependence of body shape in the sexually dimorphic fly Prochyliza xanthostoma (Piophilidae). Evolution 59 (2005) 138-151
86. Pizzari T., and Birkhead T.R. Female feral fowl eject sperm of subordinate males. Nature 405 (2000) 787-789
87. Wedell N., et al. Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17 (2002) 313-320
88. Birkhead T.R. Defining and demonstrating postcopulatory female choice - again. Evolution 54 (2000) 1057-1060
89. Calsbeek R., and Sinervo B. Within-clutch variation in offspring sex determined by differences in sire body size: cryptic mate choice in the wild. J. Evol. Biol. 17 (2004) 464-470
90. Olsson M., et al. Sperm selection by females. Nature 383 (1996) 585
91. Marshall R.C., et al. Sexual selection and individual genetic diversity in a songbird. Proc. R. Soc. B 270 (2003) S248-S250
92. Folstad I., and Skarstein F. Is male germ line control creating avenues for female choice?. Behav. Ecol. 8 (1997) 109-112
93. Rolff J. Bateman's principle and immunity. Proc. R. Soc. B 269 (2002) 867-872
94. Skau P.A., and Folstad I. Does immunity regulate ejaculate quality and fertility in humans?. Behav. Ecol. 16 (2005) 410-416
95. Jacot A., et al. Costs of an induced immune response on sexual display and longevity in field crickets. Evolution 58 (2004) 2280-2286
96. Faivre B., et al. Immune activation rapidly mirrored in a secondary sexual trait. Science 300 (2003) 103
97. Blount J.D., et al. Carotenoid modulation of immune function and sexual attractiveness in zebra finches. Science 300 (2003) 125-127
98. Simmons L.W., and Roberts B. Bacterial immunity traded for sperm viability in male crickets. Science 309 (2005) 2031