Evolution of frequency-dependent mate choice: Keeping up with fashion trends

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 274, Issue 1615, 2007, Pages 1317-1324

  Kokko, Hanna ^a   Jennions, Michael D ^b   Houde, Anne ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c LAKE FOREST COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Ecogenetic feedback; Female preference; Fisher process; Mate choice; Polymorphism

Indexed keywords

GENOTYPE; MATE CHOICE; MORTALITY RISK; MUTATION; PHENOTYPE; POLYMORPHISM; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SON PREFERENCE; SPECIES DIVERSITY;

ARTICLE; EVOLUTION; GENETIC TRAIT; MATE CHOICE; PHENOTYPE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEXUAL SELECTION; ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT;

ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; SELECTION (GENETICS); SEX CHARACTERISTICS;

EID: 34250634863     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2007.0043     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Amos, W., Worthington Wilmer, J., Fullard, K., Burg, T. M., Croxall, J. P., Bloch, D. & Coulson, T. 2001 The influence of parental relatedness on reproductive success. Proc. R. Soc. B 268, 2021-2027. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2001.1751)
2. Björklund, M. 2006 Mate choice for indirect benefits displayed by a large ornament: simulations using a neural network. Anim. Behav. 71, 549-553. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.05.018)
3. Blows, M. W. & Hoffmann, A. A. 2005 A reassessment of genetic limits to evolutionary change. Ecology 86, 1371-1384.
4. Blows, M. W., Chenoweth, S. F. & Hine, E. 2004 Orientation of the genetic variance-covariance matrix and the fitness surface for multiple male sexually selected traits. Am. Nat. 163, 329-340. (doi:10.1086/381941)
5. Boyd, R. 2006 Reciprocity: you have to think different. J. Evol. Biol. 19, 1380-1382. (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01159.x)
6. Brooks, R. & Endler, J. A. 2001 Direct and indirect sexual selection and quantitative genetics of male traits in guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Evolution 55, 1002-1015. (doi:10.1554/0014-3820(2001)055[1002:DAISSA] 2.0.CO;2)
7. Cameron, E., Day, T. & Rowe, R. 2003 Sexual conflict and indirect benefits. J. Evol. Biol. 16, 1055-1060. (doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101. 2003.00584.x)
8. Colegrave, N. & Ruxton, G. D. 2003 Confidence intervals are a more useful complement to nonsignificant tests than are power calculations. Behav. Ecol. 14, 446-447. (doi:10.1093/beheco/14.3.446)
9. Dieckmann, U. & Metz, J. A. J. 2006 Surprising evolutionary predictions from enhanced ecological realism. Theor. Popul. Biol. 69, 263-281. (doi:10.1016/j.tpb.2005.12.001)
10. Eakley, A. L. & Houde, A. E. 2004 Possible role of female discrimination against 'redundant' males in the evolution of colour pattern polymorphism in guppies. Proc. R. Soc. B 271(Suppl.), S299-S301. (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2004.0165)
11. Falconer, D. S. & Mackay, T. F. C. 1996 Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edn. Harlow, UK: Longman.
12. Farr, J. A. 1977 Male rarity or novelty, female choice behavior, and sexual selection in guppy, Poecilia reticulata Peters (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Evolution 31, 162-168. (doi:10.2307/2407554)
13. Fedorka, K. M. & Mousseau, T. A. 2004 Female mating bias results in conflicting sex-specific offspring fitness. Nature 429, 65-67. (doi:10.1038/nature02492)
14. Greenfield, M. D. & Rodriguez, R. L. 2004 Genotype-environment interaction and the reliability of mating signals. Anim. Behav. 68, 1461-1468. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.01.014)
15. Horth, L. & Travis, J. 2002 Frequency-dependent numerical dynamics in mosquitofish. Proc. R. Soc. B 269, 2239-2247. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2143)
16. Hughes, K. A., Du, L., Rodd, F. H. & Reznick, D. N. 1999 Familiarity leads to female mate preference for novel males in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Anim. Behav. 58, 907-916. (doi:10.1006/anbe.1999.1225)
17. Ihara, Y., Aoki, K. & Feldman, M. W. 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. (doi:10.1016/S0040-5809(02)00012-6)
18. Jennions, M. D. & Petrie, M. 1997 Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. 72, 283-327. (doi:10.1017/S0006323196005014)
19. Kelley, J. L., Graves, J. A. & Magurran, A. E. 1999 Familiarity breeds contempt in guppies. Nature 401, 661-662. (doi:10.1038/44314)
20. Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M. J. 1991 The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350, 33-38. (doi:10.1038/350033a0)
21. Kokko, H. 2007 Modelling for field biologists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22. Kokko, H. & Brooks, R. 2003 Sexy to die for? Sexual selection and the risk of extinction. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 40, 207-219.
23. Kokko, H., Brooks, R., McNamara, J. M. & Houston, A. I. 2002 The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. B 269, 1331-1340. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2020)
24. Kokko, H., Jennions, M. D. & Brooks, R. 2006 Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 43-66. (doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110259)
25. Lande, R. 1981 Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 78, 3721-3725. (doi:10.1073/pnas.78.6.3721)
26. Lehmann, L., Keller, L. F. & Kokko, H. 2007 Mate choice evolution, dominance effects, and the maintenance of genetic variation. J. Theor. Biol. 244, 282-295. (doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.07.033)
27. Lively, C. M. & Dybdahl, M. F. 2000 Parasite adaptation to locally common host genotypes. Nature 405, 679-681. (doi:10.1038/35015069)
28. McLain, D. K. 2005 Female soldier beetles display a flexible preference for selectively favored male phenotypes. Evolution 59, 1085-1095. (doi:10.1554/04-648)
29. McNamara, J. M., Houston, A. I., Marques dos Santos, M., Kokko, H. & Brooks, R. 2003 Quantifying male attractiveness. Proc. R. Soc. B 270, 1925-1932. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2396)
30. Merilaita, S. 2006 Frequency-dependent predation and maintenance of prey polymorphism. J. Evol. Biol. 19, 2022-2030. (doi:10.1111/j.1420- 9101.2006.01137.x)
31. Neff, B. D. & Pitcher, T. E. 2005 Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Mol. Ecol. 14, 19-38. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02395.x)
32. Nosil, P. 2006 Frequency-dependent selection: when being different makes you not stand out. Curr. Biol. 16, R806-R808. (doi:10.1016/j.cub. 2006.08.038)
33. Olendorf, R., Rodd, F. H., Punzalan, D., Houde, A. E., Hurt, C., Reznick, D. N. & Hughes, K. A. 2006 Frequency-dependent survival in natural guppy population. Nature 441, 633-636. (doi:10.1038/nature04646)
34. Parker, G. 2006 Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 361, 235-259. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1785)
35. Partridge, L. & Halliday, T. R. 1984 Mating patterns and mate choice. In Behavioral ecology (eds J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies), pp. 242-250, 2nd edn. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
36. Perm, D. J. & Potts, W. K. 1999 The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility complex genes. Am. Nat. 153, 145-164. (doi:10.1086/303166)
37. Pocklington, R. & Dill, L. M. 1995 Predation on females or males - who pays for bright male traits? Anim. Behav. 49, 1122-1124. (doi:10.1006/anbe.1995.0141)
38. Pomiankowski, A., Iwasa, Y. & Nee, S. 1991 Evolution of costly mate preferences. 1. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution 45, 1422-1430. (doi:10.2307/2409889)
39. Rankin, D. J. & López-Sepulcre, A. 2005 Can adaptation lead to extinction? Oikos 111, 616-619. (doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2005. 14541.x)
40. Rankin, D. J., López-Sepulcre, A., Foster, K. R. & Kokko, H. In Press. Species-level selection reduces selfishness through competitive exclusion. J. Evol. Biol.
41. Reusch, T. B. H., Haberli, M. A., Aeschlimann, P. B. & Milinski, M. 2001 Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism. Nature 414, 300-302. (doi:10.1038/35104547)
42. Ripa, J. & Lundberg, P. 1996 Noise colour and the risk of population extinctions. Proc. R. Soc. B 263, 1751-1753. (doi:10.1098/rspb. 1996.0256)
43. Shuster, S. M. & Wade, M. J. 1991 Equal mating success among male reproductive strategies in a marine isopod. Nature 350, 606-661. (doi:10.1038/350608a0)
44. Sinervo, B. & Calsbeek, R. 2006 The developmental, physiological, neural and genetical causes and consequences of frequency-dependent selection in the wild. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 581-610. (doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110128)
45. Sinervo, B. & Lively, C. 1996 The rock-paper-scissors game and the evolution of alternative male strategies. Nature 380, 240-243. (doi:10.1038/380240a0)
46. Singh, B. N. & Sisodia, S. 2000 Frequency-dependent selection: minority male mating advantage in Drosophila. Curr. Sci. 78, 141-150.
47. Tomkins, J. L., Radwan, J., Kotiaho, J. S. & Tregenza, T. 2004 Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 323-328. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.029)
48. Tregenza, T. & Wedell, N. 2002 Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature 415, 71-73. (doi:10.1038/415071a)
49. van Oosterhout, C., Trigg, R. E., Carvalho, G. R., Magurran, A. E., Hausler, L. & Shaw, P. W. 2003 Inbreeding depression and genetic load of sexually selected traits: how the guppy lost its spots. J. Evol. Biol. 16, 273-281. (doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00511.x)
50. Zeh, J. A. & Zeh, D. W. 2003 Toward a new sexual selection paradigm: polyandry, conflict and incompatibility. Ethology 109, 929-950. (doi:10.1046/j.1439-0310.2003.00945.x)