Mate choice evolution, dominance effects, and the maintenance of genetic variation

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Volumn 244, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 282-295

  Lehmann, Laurent ^a   Keller, Lukas F ^b   Kokko, Hanna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Dominance; Female choice; Genetic variation; Heterozygosity; Inbreeding depression; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

DOMINANCE; EVOLUTION; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOTYPE; HETEROZYGOSITY; MATE CHOICE; MATING SUCCESS;

ARTICLE; DOMINANCE BEHAVIOR; EVOLUTION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HETEROZYGOTE; HOMOZYGOTE; LIFE CYCLE; MATE CHOICE; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MATING; POPULATION GENETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ANIMALS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENOTYPE; HETEROZYGOTE; HOMOZYGOTE; LIFE CYCLE STAGES; MALE; MODELS, GENETIC; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; SOCIAL DOMINANCE; VARIATION (GENETICS);

EID: 33751197897     PISSN: 00225193     EISSN: 10958541     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.07.033     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Ahtiainen J.J., Alatalo R.V., Mappes J., and Vertainen L. Decreased sexual signalling reveals reduced viability in small populations of the drumming wolf spider Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata. Proc. R. Soc. London B 271 1550 (2004) 1839-1845
2. Aspi J. Inbreeding and outbreeding depression in male courtship song characters in Drosophila montana. Proc. R. Soc. London B 271 1550 (2000) 1839-1845
3. Brown J.L. A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity. Behav. Ecol. 8 1 (1997) 60-65
4. Bürger R. The Mathematical Theory of Selection, Recombination and Mutation (2000), Wiley, New York
5. Caswell H. Matrix Population Model (2001), Sinauer, MA
6. Charlesworth D., Morgan M., and Charlesworth B. Inbreeding depression, genetic load, and the evolution of outcrossing rates in a multilocus system with no linkage. Evolution 44 (1990) 1469-1489
7. Colegrave N., Kotiaho J.S., and Tomkins J.L. Mate choice or polyandry: reconciling genetic disassortative mating and good genes sexual selection. Evol. Ecol. Res. 4 6 (2002) 911-917
8. Danielson-François A., Kelly J., and Greenfield M. Genotype x environment interaction for male attractiveness in an acoustic moth: evidence for plasticity and canalization. J. Evol. Biol. 19 (2006) 532-542
9. David P., Bjorksten T., Fowler K., and Pomiankowski A. Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyes flies. Nature 406 6792 (2000) 186-188
10. Eshel I., Sansone E., and Jacobs F. A long-term genetic model for the evolution of sexual preference: the theories of Fisher and Zahavi re-examined. J. Math. Biol. 45 1 (2002) 1-21
11. Gavrilets S. Fitness Landscapes and the Origin of Species (2004), Princeton University Press, Princeton
12. Getty T. Handicap signalling: when fecundity and viability do not add up. Anim. Behav. 56 (1998) 127-130
13. Gillespie J. Population Genetics: A Concise Guide (2004), Johns Hopkins, Baltimore & London
14. Glémin S. Are deleterious mutations purged? Drift versus nonrandom mating. Evolution 57 12 (2003) 2678-2687
15. Greenfield M.D., and Rodriguez R.L. Genotype-environment interaction and the reliability of mating signals. Anim. Behav. 68 (2004) 1461-1468
16. Griffith S.C., Owens I.P.F., and Burke T. Environmental determination of a sexually selected trait. Nature 400 6742 (1999) 358-360
17. Hartl D., and Clark A.G. Principles of Population Genetics (1997), Sinauer, MA
18. Hedrick P.W. Female choice and variation in the major histodisassortative mating complex. Genetics 132 2 (1992) 575-581
19. Höglund J., Piertney S.B., Alatalo R.V., Lindell J., Lundberg A., and Rintamäki P.T. Inbreeding depression and male fitness in black grouse. Proc. R. Soc. London B 269 1492 (2002) 711-715
20. Hunt J., Bussière L.F., Jennions M.D., and Brooks R. What is genetic quality?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 6 (2004) 329-333
21. Irwin A., and Taylor P. Heterozygote advantage and the evolution of female choice. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2 (2000) 119-128
22. Jennions M.D., and Petrie M. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 72 2 (1997) 283-327
23. Jennions M.D., and Petrie M. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. 75 1 (2000) 21-64
24. Jia F.Y., Greenfield M.D., and Collins R.D. Genetic variance of sexually selected traits in waxmoths: maintenance by genotype x environment interaction. Evolution 54 3 (2000) 953-967
25. Kirkpatrick M., and Ryan M.J. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350 6313 (1991) 33-38 (fA693 Nature)
26. Kokko H. Good genes, old age and life history trade-offs. Evol. Ecol. 12 6 (1998) 739-750
27. Kokko H., Brooks R., McNamara J.M., and Houston A.I. The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. London B 269 1498 (2002) 1331-1340
28. Kokko H., Jennions M.D., and Brooks R. Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Ann. Rev. Ecol., Evol. Syst. 37 (2006) 43-66
29. Kotiaho J.S., Simmons L.W., and Tomkins J.L. Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410 6829 (2001) 684-686
30. Lynch M., and Walsh B. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits (1998), Sinauer, MA
31. Marshall R.C., Buchanan K.L., and Catchpole C.K. Sexual selection and individual genetic diversity in a songbird. Proc. R. Soc. London B 270 (2003) S248-S250
32. Maynard Smith J. Fertility, mating behaviour and sexual selection in Drosophila subobscura. J. Genet. 54 (1956) 261-279
33. Mays H.L., and Hill G.E. Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 10 (2004) 554-559
34. Milinski M., Griffiths S., Wegner K.M., Reusch T.B.H., Haas-Assenbaum A., and Boehm T. Mate choice decisions of stickleback females predictably modified by MHC peptide ligands. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102 12 (2005) 4414-4418
35. Mitton J.B., Schuster W.S.F., Cothran E.G., and de Fries J.C. Correlation between the individual heterozygosity of parents and their offspring. Heredity 71 (1993) 59-63
36. Møller A.P., and Alatalo R.V. Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. London B 266 1414 (1999) 85-91
37. Nagylaki T. Introduction to Theoretical Population Genetics (1992), Springer, New York
38. Neff B.D., and Pitcher T.E. Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Mol. Ecol. 14 1 (2005) 19-38
39. Nur N., and Hasson O. Phenotypic plasticity and the handicap principle. J. Theor. Biol. 110 2 (1984) 275-297
40. Partridge L. In: Bateson P. (Ed). Mate Choice (1983), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 227-255
41. Proulx S.R. Female choice via indicator traits easily evolves in the face of recombination and migration. Evolution 55 12 (2001) 2401-2411
42. Qvarnström A., Pärt T., and Sheldon B.C. Adaptive plasticity in mate preference linked to differences in reproductive effort. Nature 405 6784 (2000) 344-347
43. Qvarnström A., Brommer J., and Gustafsson L. Testing the genetics underlying the co-evolution of mate choice and ornament in the wild. Nature 441 7089 (2006) 84-86
44. Reid J.M., Arcese P., and Keller L.F. Inbreeding depresses immune response in song sparrows (Melospiza melodia): direct and inter-generational effects. Proc. R. Soc. London B 270 1529 (2003) 2151-2157
45. Reid J.M., Arcese P., Cassidy A.L.E.V., Marr A.B., Smith J.N.M., and Keller L.F. Hamilton and Zuk meet heterozygosity? Song repertoire size signals inbreeding and immunity in song sparrows (Melospiza melodia). Proc. R. Soc. London B 272 (2005) 481-488
46. Reinhold K. Modelling the evolution of female choice strategies under inbreeding conditions. Genetica 116 2-3 (2002) 189-195
47. Rowe L., and Houle D. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. London B 263 1375 (1996) 1415-1421
48. Saccheri I.J., Lloyd H.D., Helyar S.J., and Brakefield P.M. Inbreeding uncovers fundamental differences in the genetic load affecting male and female fertility in a butterfly. Proc. R. Soc. London B 272 1558 (2005) 39-46
49. Seddon N., Amos W., Mulder R.A., and Tobias J.A. Male heterozygosity predicts territory size, song structure and reproductive success in a cooperatively breeding bird. Proc. R. Soc. London B 271 1550 (2004) 1823-1829
50. Tomkins J.L., Radwan J., Kotiaho J.S., and Tregenza T. Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 6 (2004) 323-328
51. Tregenza T., and Wedell N. Genetic disassortative mating, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol. Ecol. 9 8 (2000) 1013-1027
52. Welch A.M. Genetic benefits of a female mating preference in gray tree frogs are context-dependent. Evolution 57 4 (2003) 883-893
53. Zeh J.A., and Zeh D.W. Toward a new sexual selection paradigm: polyandry, conflict and indisassortative mating (Invited article). Ethology 109 12 (2003) 929-950