Direct and indirect selection in moth pheromone evolution: Population genetical simulations of asymmetric sexual interactions

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Volumn 90, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 117-123

  Bengtsson, B O ^a   Lofstedt C ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Computer simulation; Evolutionary stability; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR; MATE ATTRACTION; MOTH; POPULATION GENETICS; POPULATION MODELING; SEX PHEROMONE; SEXUAL SELECTION;

LEPIDOPTERA;

EID: 33846139609     PISSN: 00244066     EISSN: 10958312     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2007.00715.x     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Bengtsson BO, Löfstedt C. 1990. No evidence for selection in a pheromonally polymorphic moth population. American Naturalist 136: 722-726.
2. Butlin RK, Ritchie MG. 1989. Genetic coupling in mate recognition systems: what is the evidence? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 37: 237-246.
3. Butlin RK, Trickett AJ. 1996. Can population genetics simulations help to interpret pheromone evolution?. In: Cardé RT, Minks AK, eds. Insect pheromone research: new directions. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall, 548-562.
4. Cardé RT, Haynes KF. 2004. Structure of the pheromone communication channel in moths. In: Cardé RT, Millar JG, eds. Advances in insect chemical ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 283-332.
5. De Jong MCM, Sabelis MW. 1991. Limits to runaway sexual selection: The wallflower paradox. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 4: 637-655.
6. Fisher RA. 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
7. Kirkpatrick M. 1985. Evolution of female choice and male parental investment in polygynous species: the demise of the 'sexy son'. American Naturalist 125: 788-810.
8. Klun JA, Huettel M. 1988. Genetic regulation of sex pheromone production and response: Interaction of sympatric pheromonal types of the European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis. Journal of Chemical Ecology 14: 2047-2061.
9. Lande R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 78: 372l-3725.
10. Löfstedt C. 1990. Population variation and genetic control of pheromone communication systems in moths. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 54: 199-218.
11. Löfstedt C. 1993. Moth pheromone genetics and evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 340: 167-177.
12. Löfstedt C, Hansson BS, Roelofs W, Bengtsson BO. 1989. No linkage between genes controlling female pheromone production and male pheromone response in the European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis Hübner (Lepidoptera; Pyralidae). Genetics 123: 553-556.
13. Löfstedt C, Herrebout WM, Menken SBJ. 1991. Sex pheromones and their potential role in the evolution of reproductive isolation in small ermine moths (Yponomeutidae). Chemoecology 2: 20-28.
14. Malausa T, Bethenod M-T, Bontemps A, Bourguet D, Cornuet J-M, Ponsard S. 2005. Assortative mating in sympatric host races of the European corn borer. Science 308: 258-260.
15. Phelan PL. 1992. Evolution of sex pheromones and the role of asymmetric tracking. In: Roitberg BD, Isman MB, eds. Insect chemical ecology. An evolutionary approach. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall, 265-314.
16. Roelofs W, Glover T, Tang XH, Sreng I, Robbins P, Eckenrode C, Löfstedt C, Hansson BS, Bengtsson BO. 1987. Sex pheromone production and perception in European corn borer moths is determined by both autosomal and sex-linked genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 84: 7585-7589.