Testing theories of sexual selection in decorated crickets (Gryllodes sigillatus)

Evolutionary Ecology Research

Volumn 9, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 869-885

  Ketola, Tarmo ^a   Kortet, Raine ^a,b   Kotiaho, Janne S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

Author keywords

Attraction; Direct benefits; Genetic compatibility; Indirect benefits; Pre mating sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA; GRYLLIDAE; GRYLLODES SIGILLATUS;

EID: 34547143649     PISSN: 15220613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Alatalo, R.V., Mappes, J. and Elgar, M.A. 1997. Heritabilities and paradigm shifts. Nature, 385: 402-403.
2. Alatalo, R.V., Kotiaho, J.S., Mappes, J. and Parri, S. 1998. Mate choice for offspring performance: major benefits or minor costs. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 265: 2297-2301.
3. Andersson, M. 1982. Sexual selection, natural selection and quality advertisement. Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 17: 375-393.
4. Andersson, M. 1986. Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution, 40: 804-816.
5. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6. Andersson, M. and Iwasa, Y. 1996. Sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol., 11: 53-58.
7. Andersson, M. and Simmons, L.W. 2006. Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol. Evol., 21: 296-302.
8. Bentsen, C.L., Hunt J., Jennions, M.D. and Brooks R. 2006. Complex multivariate sexual selection on male acoustic signaling in wild population of Teleogryllus commodus. Am. Nat., 167: E102-E116.
9. Blanckenhorn, W.U. and Hosken, D.J. 2003. Heritability of three condition surrogates in the yellow dung fly. Behav. Ecol., 14: 612-618.
10. Brooks, R., Hunt, J., Blows, M.W., Smith M.J., Bussière, L.F. and Jennions, M.D. 2005. Experimental evidence of multivariate stabilizing sexual selection. Evolution, 59: 871-880.
11. Colegrave, N., Kotiaho, J.S. and Tomkins, J.L. 2002. Mate choice or polyandry: reconciling genetic compatibility and good genes sexual selection. Evol. Ecol. Res., 4: 911-917.
12. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the Origin of Species, 3rd edn. New York: Columbia University Press.
13. Gilmour, A.R., Gogel, B.J., Cullis, B.R., Welham, S.J. and Thompson, R. 2002. ASReml User Guide, release 1.0. Hemel Hempstead, UK: VSN International Ltd.
14. Gray, D.A. and Cade, W.H. 1999. Quantitative genetics of sexual selection in the field cricket, Gryllus integer. Evolution, 53: 848-854.
15. Hack, M.A. 1998. The energetics of male mating strategies in field crickets (Orthoptera : Gryllinae : Gryllidae) J. Insect Behav., 11: 853-867.
16. Hedrick, A.V. 1986. Female preferences for male calling bout duration in a field cricket. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 19: 73-77.
17. Holland, B. and Rice, W.R. 1998. Perspective. Chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution, 52: 1-7.
18. Houle, D. 1992. Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics, 130: 195-204.
19. Hunt, J., Bussiére, L.F., Jennions, M.D. and Brooks, R. 2004. What is genetic quality? Trends Ecol. Evol., 19: 329-333.
20. Hurst, J.L., Thom, M.D., Nevison, C.M., Humphries, R.E. and Beynon, R.J. 2005. MHC odours are not required or sufficient for recognition of individual scent owners. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 272: 715-724.
21. Ivy, T.M. and Sakaluk, S.K. 2005. Polyandry promotes enhanced offspring survival in decorated crickets. Evolution, 59: 152-159.
22. Ivy, T.M., Johnson, J.C. and Sakaluk, S.K. 1999. Hydration benefits to courtship feeding in crickets. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 266: 1523-1527.
23. Ivy, T.M., Weddle, C.B. and Sakaluk, S.K. 2005 Females use self-referent cues to avoid mating with previous mates. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 272: 2475-2478.
24. Jacob, E.M., Marshall, S.D. and Utez, G.W. 1996. Estimating fitness: a comparison of body indices. Oikos, 77: 61-67.
25. Janzen, F.J. and Stern, H.S. 1998. Logistic regression for empirical studies of multivariate selection. Evolution, 52: 1564-1571.
26. Kirkpatrick, M. and Barton, N.H. 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating references. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 94: 1282-1286.
27. Kirkpatrick, M. and Ryan, M.J. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature, 350: 33-38.
28. Kokko, H. and Mappes, J. 2005. Sexual selection when fertilization is not guaranteed. Evolution, 59: 1876-1885.
29. Kokko, H. and Rankin, D.J. 2006. Lonely hearts or sex in the city? Density dependent effects in mating systems. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, 361: 319-334.
30. Kokko, H., Brooks, R., Jennions, M.D. and Morley, J. 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 270: 653-664.
31. Kortet, R. and Hedrick, A.V. 2005. The scent of dominance: female field crickets use odour to predict the outcome of male competition. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 73: 77-83.
32. Kotiaho, J.S. 1999. Estimating fitness: a comparison of body condition indices revisited. Oikos, 87: 399-400.
33. Kotiaho, J.S. and Tomkins, J.L. 2002. Meta-analysis, can it ever fail? Oikos, 96: 551-553.
34. Kotiaho, J.S., Simmons, L.W. and Tomkins, J.L. 2001. Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature, 410: 684-686.
35. Kruuk, L.E.B., Slate, J., Pemberton, J.M. and Clutton-Brock, T.H. 2003. Fluctuating asymmetry in a secondary sexual trait: no associations with individual fitness, environmental stress or inbreeding, and no heritability. J. Evol. Biol., 16: 101-113.
36. Lande, R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 78: 3721-3725.
37. Lessels, C.M. and Boag, P.T. 1987. Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. Auk, 104: 116-121.
38. Loher, W. and Dambach, M. 1989. Reproductive behaviour. In Cricket Behavior and Neurobiology (F. Huber, T.E. Moore and W. Loher, eds.), pp. 43-82. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
39. Lynch, M. and Walsh, B. 1998. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
40. Mays, H.L., Jr. and Hill, G.E. 2004. Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol. Evol., 19: 554-559.
41. Merilä, J. and Sheldon, B.C. 1999. Genetic architecture of fitness and nonfitness traits: empirical patterns and development of ideas. Heredity, 83: 103-109.
42. Møller, A.P. 1997. Developmental stability and fitness: a review. Am. Nat., 149: 916-932.
43. Møller, A.P. and Swaddle J.P. 1997. Asymmetry, Developmental Stability, and Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
44. Møller, A.P. and Alatalo, R.V. 1999. Good genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 266: 85-91.
45. Moore, P.J., Reagan-Wallin, N.L., Haynes, K.F. and Moore, A.J. 1997. Odour conveys status on cockroaches. Nature, 389: 25.
46. Neff, B.D. and Pitcher, T.E. 2005. Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Molec. Ecol., 14: 19-38.
47. Penn, D. and Potts, W. 1998. MHC-disassortative mating preferences reversed by cross fostering. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 265: 1299-1306.
48. Pomiankowski, A. and Møller, A.P. 1995. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 260: 21-29.
49. Price, T. and Schluter, D. 1991. On the low heritability of life-history traits. Evolution, 45: 853-861.
50. Puurtinen, M., Ketola, T. and Kotiaho, J.S. 2005. Genetic compatibility and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol., 20: 157-158.
51. Qvarnström, A., Brommer, J.E. and Gustafsson, L. 2006. Testing the genetics underlying the co-evolution of mate choice and ornament in the wild. Nature, 441: 84-86.
52. Rantala, M.J. and Kortet, R. 2003. Courtship song and immune function in the field cricket Gryllys bimaculatus. Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 79: 503-510.
53. Roberts, S.C. and Gossling, L.M. 2003. Genetic similarity and quality interact in mate choice decisions by female mice. Nature Genet., 35: 103-106.
54. Sætre, G.-P., Moum, T., Bures, S., Král, M., Adamjan, M. and Moreno, J. 1997. A sexually selected character displacement in flycatchers reinforces premating isolation. Nature, 387: 589-592.
55. Sakaluk, S.K. 1987. Reproductive behaviour of the decorated cricket, Gryllodes supplicans (Orthoptera: Gryllidae): calling schedules, spatial distribution, and mating. Behaviour, 100: 202-225.
56. Sakaluk, S.K. 1996. Cryptic female choice predicated on wing dimorphism in decorated crickets. Behav. Ecol., 8: 326-331.
57. Simmons, L.W. 1989. Kin recognition and its influence on mating preference of the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (de Geer). Anim. Behav., 39: 68-77.
58. Simmons, L.W. and Ritchie, M.G. 1996 Symmetry in the songs of crickets. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 263: 305-311.
59. Simmons, L.W., Tomkins, J.L., Kotiaho, J.S. and Hunt. J. 1999. Fluctuating paradigm. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 266: 593-595.
60. Tomkins, J.L. and Kotiaho, J.S. 2001. Fluctuating asymmetry. In Encyclopaedia of Life Sciences (http://www.els.net). London: Nature Publishing Group.
61. Tomkins, J.L. and Kotiaho, J.S. 2004. Publication bias in meta-analysis: seeing the wood for the trees. Oikos, 104: 194-196.
62. Tregenza, T. and Wedell, N. 1997. Definitive evidence for cuticular hydrocarbons in a cricket. Anim. Behav., 54: 979-984.
63. Tregenza, T. and Wedell, N. 2000. Invited review: Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage. Molec. Ecol., 9: 1013-1027.
64. Tynkkynen, K., Kotiaho, J.S., Luojumäki, M. and Suhonen, J. 2005. Interspecific aggression causes negative selection on sexual characters. Evolution, 59: 1838-1843.
65. Tynkkynen, K., Kotiaho, J.S., Luojumäki, M. and Suhonen, J. 2006. Interspecific territoriality between Calopteryx splendens and Calopteryx virgo damselflies: the role of secondary sexual characters. Anim. Behav., 71: 299-306.
66. Vahed, K. 1998. The function of nuptial feeding in insects: a review of empirical studies. Biol. Rev., 73: 43-78.
67. Wagner, W.E., Jr. and Basolo, A.L. 2007. The relative importance of different direct benefits in the mate choices of a field cricket. Evolution, 61: 617-622.
68. Wagner, W.E., Jr. and Reiser, M.G. 2000. The relative importance of calling song and courtship song in female mate choice in the variable field cricket. Anim. Behav., 59: 1219-1226.
69. Watson, P.J. and Thornhill, R. 1994. Fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol., 9: 21-25.
70. Widemo, F. and Saether, S.A. 1999. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: causes and consequences of variation in mating preferences. Trends Ecol. Evol., 14: 26-31.
71. Zeh, J.A. and Zeh, D.W. 1996. The evolution of polyandry I: intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 263: 1711-1717.