Unifying and testing models of sexual selection

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics

Volumn 37, Issue , 2006, Pages 43-66

  Kokko, Hanna ^a   Jennions, Michael D ^b   Brooks, Robert ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Anisogamy; Female choice; Mate choice; Sex roles; Sexual conflict

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; COEVOLUTION; MATE CHOICE; NUMERICAL MODEL; PARENTAL CARE; REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL REPRODUCTION; SEXUAL SELECTION; TESTING METHOD;

EID: 33751165434     PISSN: 1543592X     EISSN: 15452069     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110259     Document Type: Review

References (130)

1. Agrawal AF. 2001. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature 411:692-95
2. Alatalo RV, Kotiaho J, Mappes J, Parri S. 1998. Mate choice for offspring performance: major benefits or minor costs? Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 265:2297-301
3. Alonzo SH, Warner RR. 2000. Female choice, conflict between the sexes and the evolution of male alternative reproductive behaviours. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2:149-70
4. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
5. Arnqvist G, Kirkpatrick M. 2005. The evolution of infidelity in socially monogamous passerines: the strength of direct and indirect selection on extrapair copulation behaviour in females. Am. Nat. 165:526-37
6. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T. 2000. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim. Behav. 60:145-64
7. Ajnqvist G, Rowe L. 2005. Sexual Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
8. Backwell PRY, Passmore NI. 1996. Time constraints and multiple choice criteria in the sampling behaviour and mate choice of the fiddler crab, Uca annulipes. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 38:407-16
9. Badyaev AV, Qvarnström A. 2002. Putting sexual traits into the context of an organism: a life-history perspective in studies of sexual selection. Auk 119:301-10
10. Barlow GW. 2005. How do we decide that a species is sex-role reversed? Q. Rev. Biol. 80:28-35
11. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 2003. Sex role reversal in pipefish. Adv. Study Behav. 32:131-67
12. Blows MW. 1999. Evolution of the genetic covariance between male and female components of mate recognition: an experimental test. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 266:2169-74
13. Blows MW, Hoffmann AA. 2005. A reassessment of genetic limits to evolutionary change. Ecology 86:1371-84
14. Bonduriansky R, Rowe L. 2005. Sexual selection, genetic architecture, and the condition dependence of body shape in the sexually dimorphic fly Prochyliza xanthostoma (Piophilidae). Evolution 59:138-51
15. Brommer JE, Gustafsson L, Pietiäinen H, Merilä J. 2004. Single-generation estimates of individual fitness as proxies for long-term genetic contribution. Am. Nat. 163:505-17
16. Brooks R. 2000. Negative genetic correlation between male sexual attractiveness and survival. Nature 406:67-70
17. Brooks R, Couldridge V. 1999. Multiple sexual ornaments coevolve with multiple mating preferences. Am. Nat. 154:37-45
18. Bulmer MG, Parker GA. 2002. The evolution of anisogamy: a game-theoretic approach. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 269:2381-88
19. Byers JA, Wiseman PA, Jones L, Roffe TJ. 2005. A large cost of female mate sampling in pronghorn. Am. Nat. 166:661-68
20. Byrne PG, Simmons LW, Roberts JD. 2003. Sperm competition and the evolution of gamete morphology in frogs. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 270:2079-86
21. Cameron E, Day T, Rowe R. 2003. Sexual conflict and indirect benefits. J. Evol. Biol. 16:1055-60
22. Candolin U. 2000. Changes in expression and honesty of sexual signalling over the reproductive lifetime of sticklebacks. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 267:2425-30
23. Chippindale AK, Gibson JR, Rice WR. 2001. Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98:1671-75
24. Clutton-Brock TH, Parker GA. 1992. Potential reproductive rates and the operation of sexual selection. Q. Rev. Biol. 67:437-56
25. Cotton S, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A. 2004. Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis? Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 271:771-83
26. Day T. 2000. Sexual selection and the evolution of costly female preferences: spatial effects. Evolution 54:715-30
27. Eberhard WG. 2005. Evolutionary conflicts of interest: Are female sexual decisions different? Am. Nat. 165:519-25
28. Emlen ST, Oring LW. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215-23
29. Endler JA, Basolo A. 1998. Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:415-20
30. Endler JA, Basolo A, Glowacki S, Zerr J. 2001. Variation in response to artifical selection for light sensitivity in guppies, Poecilia reticulata. Am. Nat. 158:36-48
31. Eshel I, Sansone E, Jacobs F. 2002. A long-term genetic model for the evolution of sexual preference: the theories of Fisher and Zahavi re-examined. J. Math. Biol. 45:1-21
32. Eshel I, Volovik I, Sansone E. 2000. On Fisher-Zahavi's handicapped sexy son. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2:509-23
33. Fedorka KM, Mousseau TA. 2004. Female mating bias results in conflicting sex-specific offspring fitness. Nature 429:65-67
34. Fisher RA. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
35. Forsgren E, Amundsen T, Borg AA, Bjelvenmark J. 2004. Unusually dynamic sex roles in a fish. Nature 429:551-54
36. Friberg U, Arnqvist G. 2003. Fitness effects of female mate choice: Preferred males are detrimental for Drosophila melanogaster females. J. Evol. Biol. 16:797-811
37. Fuller RC, Houle D, TravisJ. 2005. Sensory bias as an explanation for the evolution of mate preferences. Am. Nat. 166:437-46
38. Garcia CM, Ramirez E. 2005. Evidence that sensory traps can evolve into honest signals. Nature 434:501-5
39. Gavrilets S, Arnqvist G, Friberg U. 2001. The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 268:531-39
40. Getty T. 2006. Sexually selected signals are not similar to sports handicaps. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21:83-88
41. Grafen A. 1990a. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol. 144:517-46
42. Grafen A. 1990b. Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J. Theor. Biol. 144:473-516
43. Gray DA, Cade WH. 1999. Correlated-response-to-selection experiments designed to test for a genetic correlation between female preferences and male traits yield biased results. Anim. Behav. 58:1325-27
44. Greenfield MD, Rodriguez RL. 2004. Genotype-environment interactions and the reliability of mating signals. Anim. Behav. 68:1461-68
45. Gustafsson L, Qvarnström A. 2006. A test of the "sexy son" hypothesis: sons of polygynous collared flycatchers do not inherit their father's mating status. Am. Nat. 167:297-302
46. Hammerstein P. 1996. Darwinian adaptation, population genetics and the streetcar theory of evolution. J. Math. Biol. 34:511-32
47. Härdling R, Kokko H, Arnold KE. 2003. Dynamics of the caring family. Am. Nat. 161:395-412
48. Head ML, Hunt J, Jennions MD, Brooks RC. 2005. The indirect benefits of mating with attractive males outweigh the direct costs. PLoS Biol. 3:289-94
49. Heisler L, Andersson M, Arnold SJ, Boake CR, Borgia G, et al. 1987. Evolution of mating preferences and sexually selected traits. In Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives, ed. JW Bradbury, M Andersson, pp. 97-118. Chichester, UK: Wiley
50. Hoelzer GA. 1989. The good parent process of sexual selection. Anim. Behav. 38:1067-78
51. Holland B, Rice WR. 1998. Perspective: chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52:1-7
52. Hosken DJ, Tregenza T. 2005. Evolution: Do bad husbands make good fathers? Curr. Biol. 15:836-38
53. Houle D, Kondrashov AS. 2002. Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 269:97-104
54. Houle D, Morikawa B, Lynch M. 1996. Comparing mutational variabilities. Genetics 143:1467-83
55. Houston AI, McNamara JM. 2002. A self-consistent approach to paternity and parental effort. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B 357:351-62
56. Houston AI, McNamara JM. 2005. John Maynard Smith and the importance of consistency in evolutionary game theory. Biol. Philos. 20:933-50
57. Houston AI, Szekely T, McNamara JM. 2005. Conflict between parents over care. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20:33-38
58. Hunt J, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Smith MJ, Bentsen CL, Bussière LF. 2004a. High-quality male field crickets invest heavily in sexual display but die young. Nature 432:1024-27
59. Hunt J, Bussière LF, Jennions MD, Brooks R. 2004b. What is genetic quality? Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:329-33
60. Ihara Y, Aoki K, Feldman MW. 2003. Runaway sexual selection with paternal transmission of the male trait and gene-culture determination of the female preference. Theor. Popul. Biol. 63:53-62
61. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A. 1995. Continual change in mate preferences. Nature 377:420-22
62. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A. 1999. Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. J. Theor. Biol. 200:97-109
63. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A, Nee S. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The "handicap" principle. Evolution 45:1431-42
64. Jennions MD, Petrie M. 2000. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. 75:21-64
65. Johnstone RA, Reynolds JD, Deutsch JC. 1996. Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 50:1382-91
66. Kirkpatrick M. 1985. Evolution of female choice and male parental investment in polygynous species: the demise of the sexy son. Am. Nat. 125:788-810
67. Kirkpatrick M. 1986. The handicap mechanism of sexual selection does not work. Am. Nat. 127:222-40
68. Kirkpatrick M, Barton NH. 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94:1282-86
69. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33-38
70. Kokko H. 1998a. Good genes, old age and life history trade-offs. Evol. Ecol. 12:739-50
71. Kokko H. 1998b. Should advertising parental care be honest? Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 265:1871-78
72. Kokko H. 2001. Fisherian and 'good genes' benefits of mate choice: how (not) to distinguish between them. Ecol. Lett. 4:322-26
73. Kokko H. 2005. Treat 'em mean, keep 'em (sometimes) keen: evolution of female preferences for dominant and coercive males. Evol. Ecol. 19:123-35
74. Kokko H, Brooks R, McNamara JM, Houston AI. 2002. The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 269:1331-40
75. Kokko H, Jennions M. 2003. It takes two to tango. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18:103-4
76. Kokko H, Johnstone RA. 2002. Why is mutual mate choice not the norm? Operational sex ratios, sex roles, and the evolution of sexually dimorphic and monomorphic signalling. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B 357:319-30
77. Kokko H, Monaghan P. 2001. Predicting the direction of sexual selection. Ecol. Lett. 4:159-65
78. Lande R. 1979. Quantitative genetical analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain:body size allometry. Evolution 33:402-16
79. Lande R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78:3721-25
80. Lande R, Arnold SJ. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37:1210-26
81. Levitan DR. 2004. Density-dependent sexual selection in external fertilizers: variances in male and female fertilization success along the continuum from sperm limitation to sexual conflict in the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus franciscanus. Am. Nat. 164:298-309
82. Maynard Smith J. 1977. Parental investment: a prospective analysis. Anim. Behav. 25:1-9
83. McNamara JM, Gasson CE, Houston AI. 1999. Incorporating rules for responding into evolutionary games. Nature 401:368-71
84. McNamara JM, Houston AI, Marques dos Santos M, Kokko H, Brooks R. 2003. Quantifying male attractiveness. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 270:1925-32
85. Mead LS, Arnold SJ. 2004. Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:264-71
86. Møller AP, Jennions MD. 2001. How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection? Naturwissenschaften 88:401-15
87. Owens IPF, Thompson DBA. 1994. Sex-differences, sex-ratios and sex-roles. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 258:93-99
88. Page KM, Nowak MA. 2002. Unifying evolutionary dynamics. J. Theor. Biol. 219:93-98
89. Parker GA. 2006. Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B 361:235-59
90. Parker GA, Simmons LW. 1996. Parental investment and the control of sexual selection: predicting the direction of sexual competition. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 263:315-21
91. Parker GA, Smith VGF, Baker RR. 1972. The origin and evolution of gamete dimorphism and the male-female phenomenon. J. Theor. Biol. 36:181-98
92. Payne RJH, Pagel M. 2000. Inferring the origins of state-dependent courtship traits. Am. Nat. 157:42-50
93. Pigliucci M, Schlichting CD. 1997. On the limits of quantitative genetics for the study of phenotypic evolution. Acta Biotheor. 45:143-60
94. Pitnick S, García-González F. 2002. Harm to females increases with male body size in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 269:1821-28
95. Pomiankowski A. 1987a. The costs of choice in sexual selection. J. Theor. Biol. 128:195-218
96. Pomiankowski A. 1987b. The 'handicap principle' does work-sometimes. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 127:123-45
97. Pomiankowski A. 1988. The evolution of female mate preferences for mate genetic quality. Oxford Surv. Evol. Biol. 5:136-84
98. Pomiankowski A, Iwasa Y. 2001. How does mate choice contribute to exaggeration and diversity in sexual characters? In Economics in Nature: Social Dilemmas, Mate Choice and Biological Markets, ed. R Noë, J van Hooff, P Hammerstein, pp. 203-20. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
99. Pomiankowski A, Iwasa Y, Nee S. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences. 1. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution 45:1422-30
100. Price T, Schluter D, Heckman NE. 1993. Sexual selection when the female directly benefits. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. London 48:187-211
101. Proulx SR, Day T, Rowe L. 2002. Older males signal more reliably. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 269:2291-99
102. Puurtinen M, Kaitala V. 2002. Mate-search efficiency can determine the evolution of separate sexes and the stability of hermaphroditism in animals. Am. Nat. 160:645-60
103. Queller DC. 1997. Why do females care more than males? Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 264:1555-57
104. Qvarnström A, Brommer JE, Gustafsson L. 2006. Testing the genetics underlying the co-evolution of mate choice and ornament in the wild. Nature 441:84-86
105. Randerson JP, Hurst LD. 2001. The uncertain evolution of the sexes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16:571-79
106. Reynolds JD, Gross MR. 1990. Costs and benefits of female mate choice: Is there a lek paradox? Am. Nat. 136:230-43
107. Rifkin SA, Houle D, Kim J, White KP. 2005. A mutation accumulation assay reveals a broad capacity for rapid evolution of gene expression. Nature 438:220-23
108. Ritchie MG, Saarikettu M, Hoikkala A. 2005. Variation, but no covariance, in female preference functions and male song in a natural population of Drosophila montana. Anim. Behav. 70:849-54
109. Rowe L, Cameron E, Day T. 2005. Escalation, retreat, and female indifference as alternative outcomes of sexually antagonistic coevolution. Am. Nat. 165:55-18
110. Rowe L, Houle D. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 263:1415-21
111. Sheldon BC. 2002. Relating paternity to parental care. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B 357:341-50
112. Shuster SM, Wade MJ. 2003. Mating Systems and Strategies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
113. Siller S. 2001. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex. Nature 411:689-92
114. Simmons LW. 2001. Sperm Competition and Its Evolutionary Consequences in the Insects. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
115. Simmons LW, Kvarnemo C. 2006. Costs of breeding and their effects on the direction of sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B. 273:465-70
116. Steppan SJ, Phillips PC, Houle D. 2002. Comparative quantitative genetics: evolution of the G matrix. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17:320-27
117. Takahasi K. 1997. Models of selective mating and the initiation of the Fisherian process. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 264:839-44
118. Tallamy DW. 2005. Egg dumping in insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 50:347-70
119. Tomkins J, Radwan J, Kotiaho JS, Tregenza T. 2004. Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:323-28
120. Trivers R. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, ed. B Campbell, pp. 136-79. Chicago: Aldine
121. van Doorn GS, Dieckmann U, Weissing FJ. 2004. Sympatric speciation by sexual selection: a critical reevaluation. Am. Nat. 163:709-25
122. Wade MJ, Shuster SM. 2002. The evolution of parental care in the context of sexual selection: a critical reassessment of parental investment theory. Am. Nat. 160:285-92
123. Waxman D, Gavrilets S. 2005. 20 questions on adaptive dynamics. J. Evol. Biol. 18:1139-54
124. Weatherhead PJ, Robertson RJ. 1979. Offspring quality and the polygyny threshold: "the sexy son hypothesis." Am. Nat. 113:201-8
125. Webb JN, Houston AI, McNamara JM, Székely T. 1999. Multiple patterns of parental care. Anim. Behav. 58:983-93
126. Wiley RH, Poston J. 1996. Indirect mate choice, competition for mates, and coevolution of the sexes. Evolution 50:1371-81
127. Wilkinson GS, Reillo PR. 1994. Female choice response to artificial selection on an exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 255:1-6
128. Williams GC. 1966. Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
129. Zahavi A. 1975. Mate selection-a selection for the handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53:205-14
130. Zahavi A. 1977. The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). J. Theor. Biol. 67:603-5