No apparent indirect genetic benefits to female red flour beetles preferring males with intense copulatory courtship

Behavior Genetics

Volumn 36, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 775-782

  Edvardsson, Martin ^a,b   Arnqvist, Göran ^a  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Condition dependence; Copulatory courtship; Cryptic female choice; Heritability; Indirect genetic benefits; Tribolium castaneum

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; BEETLE; COPULATION; COURTSHIP; FEMALE; GENE; GENETIC CORRELATION; GENETIC TRAIT; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HERITABILITY; LEG; LEG RUBBING; MALE; MATE CHOICE; MEASUREMENT; NONHUMAN; PROGENY; REPEATABILITY; SURVIVAL RATE; TRIBOLIUM; TRIBOLIUM CASTANEUM;

ANIMALS; BEETLES; COPULATION; FEMALE; MALE; MODELS, GENETIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; REPRODUCTION; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

TRIBOLIUM CASTANEUM;

EID: 33746892619     PISSN: 00018244     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10519-005-9043-6     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual Selection. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
2. Arnqvist, G., and Thornhill, R. (1998). 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. 71:193-212.
3. Bakker, T. C. M. (1999). The study of intersexual selection using quantitative genetics. Behaviour 136:1237-1266.
4. Bernasconi, G., and Keller, L. (2001). Female polyandry affects their sons' reproductive success in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum. J. Evol. Biol. 14:186-193.
5. Bjorksten, T., David, P., Pomiankowski, A., and Fowler, K. (2000). Fluctuating asymmetry of sexual and nonsexual traits in stalk-eyed flies: a poor indicator of developmental stress and genetic quality. J. Evol. Biol. 13:89-97.
6. Bloch Qazi, M. C. (2003). A potential mechanism for cryptic female choice in a flour beetle. J. Evol. Biol. 16:170-176.
7. Borgia, G. (1979). Sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. In M. S. Blum and N. A. Blum (eds.), Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects. New York: Academic, pp. 19-80.
8. Córdoba-Aguilar, A. (1999). Male copulatory sensory stimulation induces female ejection of rival sperm in a damselfly. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266:779-784.
9. Eberhard, W. G. (1996). Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
10. Edvardsson, M., and Arnqvist, G. (2000). Copulatory courtship and cryptic female choice in red flour beetles Tribolium castaneum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267:559-563.
11. Falconer, D. S. (1973). Replicated selection for body weight in mice. Genet. Res. 22:291-321.
12. Falconer, D. S., and Mackay, T. F. C. (1996). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics (4th ed.). Harlow: Longman.
13. Grafen, A. (1990). Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J. Theor. Biol. 144:473-516.
14. Houle, D., and Kondrashov, A. S. (2002). Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:97-104.
15. Kirkpatrick, M., and Ryan, M. J. (1991). The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33-38.
16. Kotiaho, J. S., Simmons, L. W., and Tomkins, J. L. (2001). Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410:684-686.
17. Lessells, C. M., and Boag, P. T. (1987). Unrepeatable repeatabilities: A common mistake. Auk 104:116-121.
18. Lorch, P. D., Proulx, S., Rowe, L., and Day, T. (2003). Condition-dependent sexual selection can accelerate adaptation. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5:867-881.
19. Møller, A. P., and Alatalo, R. V. (1999). Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266:85-91.
20. Ottoni, E. B. (2000). EthoLog 2.2: a tool for the transcription and timing of behavior observation sessions. Behav. Res. Meth. Ins. C. 32:446-449.
21. Pai, A., and Yan, G. Y. (2002). Polyandry produces sexy sons at the cost of daughters in red flour beetles. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:361-368.
22. Pai, A., and Yan, G. (2003). Effects of tapeworm infection on male reproductive success and mating vigor in the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum. J. Parasitol. 89:516-521.
23. Rowe, L., and Houle, D. (1996). The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263:1415-1421.
24. Ryan, M. J. (1998). Sexual selection, receiver biases, and the evolution of sex differences. Science 281:1999-2003.
25. Sakaluk, S. K. (2000). Sensory exploitation as an evolutionary origin to nuptial food gifts in insects. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267:339-343.
26. Shaw, F. H., Shaw, R. G., Wilkinson, G. S., and Turelli, M. (1995). Changes in genetic variances and covariances:Gwhiz!. Evolution 49:1260-1267.
27. Shaw, R. G. (1987). Maximum-likelihood approaches applied to quantitative genetics of natural populations. Evolution 41:812-826.
28. Shuster, M., and Wade, M. J. (2003). Mating Systems and Strategies. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Univeristy Press.
29. Sokoloff, A. (1972). The Biology of Tribolium with Special Emphasis on Genetic Aspects, Vol. 1 Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30. Sokoloff, A. (1974). The Biology of Tribolium with Special Emphasis on Genetic Aspects, Vol. 2 Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31. Sokoloff, A., Slatis, H. M., and Stanley, J. (1960). The black mutation in Tribolium castaneum. J. Hered. 51:131-135.
32. Tallamy, D. W., Powell, B. E., and McClafferty, J. A. (2002). Male traits under cryptic female choice in the spotted cucumber beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Behav. Ecol. 13:511-518.
33. Tallamy, D. W., Burton Darlington, M., Pesek, J. D., and Powell, B. E. (2003). Copulatory courtship signals male genetic quality in cucumber beetles. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270:77-82.
34. Thornhill, R. (1983). Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps. Am. Nat. 122:765-788.
35. Tomkins, J. L., Radwan, J., Kotiaho, J. S., and Tregenza, T. (2004). Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:323-328.