Sexual conflict and the evolution of female preferences for indicators of male quality

American Naturalist

Volumn 168, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 742-757

  Van Doorn, G Sander ^a   Weissing, Franz J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Adaptive dynamics; Condition dependent handicap; Multiple ornaments; Nonequilibrium dynamics; Revealing handicap

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTIONARY THEORY; GOOD GENES HYPOTHESIS; MATE CHOICE; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL CONFLICT;

ADAPTATION; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONFLICT; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; MALE; PHYLOGENY; PHYSIOLOGY; SEX DIFFERENCE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

ADAPTATION, BIOLOGICAL; ANIMALS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; MALE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHYLOGENY; SELECTION (GENETICS); SEX FACTORS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

EID: 33845246107     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/508634     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Abrams, P. A., H. Matsuda, and Y. Harada. 1993. Evolutionarily unstable fitness maxima and stable fitness minima of continuous traits. Evolutionary Ecology 7:465-487.
2. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
3. Barton, N., and M. Turelli. 1991. Natural and sexual selection on many loci. Genetics 127:229-255.
4. Candolin, U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 78:575-595.
5. Caswell, H. 1989. Matrix population models. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
6. Clutton-Brock, T. H. 1982. The functions of antlers. Behaviour 70:108-125.
7. Crow, J. F., and M. Kimura. 1970. An introduction to population genetics theory. Harper & Row, New York.
8. Dieckmann, U., and R. Law. 1996. The dynamical theory of coevolution: a derivation from stochastic ecological processes. Journal of Mathematical Biology 34:579-612.
9. Doucet, S. M., and R. Montgomerie. 2003. Multiple sexual ornaments in satin bowerbirds: ultraviolet plumage and bowers signal different aspects of male quality. Behavioral Ecology 14:503-509.
10. Fisher, R. A. 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon, Oxford.
11. Gavrilets, S. 2000. Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation driven by sexual conflict. Nature 403:886-889.
12. Geritz, S. A. H., E. Kisdi, G. Meszena, and J. A. J. Metz. 1998. Evolutionarily singular strategies and the adaptive growth and branching of the evolutionary tree. Evolutionary Ecology 12:35-57.
13. Grafen, A. 1990. Biological signals as handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology 144:517-546.
14. Hamilton, W. D., and M. Zuk. 1982. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218:384-387.
15. Hill, G. E. 1994. Trait elaboration via adaptive mate choice: sexual conflict in the evolution of signals of male quality. Ethology Ecology and Evolution 6:351-370.
16. Hofbauer, J., and K. Sigmund. 1998. Evolutionary games and population dynamics. Chap. 9. Adaptive dynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
17. Houle, D., and A. S. Kondrashov. 2002. Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 269:97-104.
18. Huisman, J., and F. J. Weissing. 1999. Biodiversity of plankton by species oscillations and chaos. Nature 402:407-410.
19. Iwasa, Y., and A. Pomiankowski. 1994. The evolution of mate preferences for multiple sexual ornaments. Evolution 48:853-867.
20. _. 1995. Continual change in mate preferences. Nature 377:420-422.
21. _. 1999. Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology 200:97-109.
22. Iwasa, Y., A. Pomiankowski, and S. Nee. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The "handicap" principle. Evolution 45:1431-1442.
23. Johnstone, R. A. 1996. Multiple displays in animal communication: "backup signals" and "multiple messages." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 351:329-338.
24. Lande, R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic characters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 78:3721-3725.
25. Leimar, O. 2001. Evolutionary change and Darwinian demons. Selection 2:65-72.
26. Lorch, P. D., S. Proulx, L. Rowe, and T. Day. 2003. Condition-dependent sexual selection can accelerate adaptation. Evolutionary Ecology Research 5:867-881.
27. Matessi, C., and C. Di Pasquale. 1996. Long term evolution of multilocus traits. Journal of Mathematical Biology 34:613-653.
28. Maynard Smith, J. 1985. Sexual selection, handicaps and true fitness. Journal of Theoretical Biology 115:1-8.
29. _. 1991. Theories of sexual selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 6:146-151.
30. Maynard Smith, J., and G. R. Price. 1973. The logic of animal conflict. Nature 246:15-18.
31. Mead, L. S., and S. J. Arnold. 2004. Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19:264-271.
32. Metz, J. A. J., R. M. Nisbet, and S. A. H. Geritz. 1992. How should we define "fitness" for general ecological scenarios? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 7:198-202.
33. Møller, A. P. 1990. Fluctuating asymmetry in male sexual ornaments may reliably reveal male quality. Animal Behavior 40:1185-1187.
34. Pen, I. R., and F. J. Weissing. 2000. Sexual selection and the sex ratio: an ESS analysis. Selection 1:59-69.
35. Pomiankowski, A. 1987. Sexual selection: the handicap principle does work - sometimes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 231:123-145.
36. Pomiankowski, A., and Y. Iwasa. 1993. Evolution of multiple sexual preferences by Fisher's runaway process of sexual selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 253:173-181.
37. Rice, W. R. 1996. Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 361:232-234.
38. Schluter, D., and T. Price. 1993. Honesty, perception and population divergence in sexually selected traits. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 253:117-122.
39. Taylor, P. D. 1996. Inclusive fitness arguments in genetic models of behaviour. Journal of Mathematical Biology 34:654-674.
40. van Doorn, G. S., and F. J. Weissing. 2004. The evolution of female preferences for multiple indicators of quality. American Naturalist 164:173-186.
41. Weissing, F. J. 1996. Genetic versus phenotypic models of selection: can genetics be neglected in a long-term perspective? Journal of Mathematical Biology 34:533-555.
42. Wiens, J. J. 2001. Widespread loss of sexually-selected traits: how the peacock lost its spots. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16:517-523.
43. Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate choice: a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology 53:205-214.