Male versus female mate choice: Sexual selection and the evolution of species recognition via reinforcement

Evolution

Volumn 61, Issue 12, 2007, Pages 2772-2789

  Servedio, Maria R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Direct selection; Mathematical model; Mating preference; Reinforcement; Speciation; Species recognition

Indexed keywords

MATE CHOICE; MATING SUCCESS; NUMERICAL MODEL; POLYGYNY; RECOGNITION; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; SEX RATIO; SEXUAL SELECTION; SPECIATION (BIOLOGY);

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; MALE; MATE CHOICE; SEX DIFFERENCE;

ANIMALS; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; SEX FACTORS;

EID: 36549029208     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00247.x     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Albert, A. Y. K., and D. Schluter. 2004. Reproductive character displacement of male stickleback mate preference: reinforcement or direct selection? Evolution 58 : 1099 1107.
2. Amundsen, T. 2000. Why are female birds ornamented? Trends Ecol. Evol. 15 : 149 155.
3. Amundsen, T., and E. Forsgren. 2001. Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98 : 13155 13160.
4. Amundsen, T., E. Forsgren, and L. T. T. Hansen. 1997. On the function of female ornaments: male bluethroats prefer colorful females. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264 : 1579 1586.
5. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
6. Barton, N. H., and M. Turelli. 1991. Natural and sexual selection on many loci. Genetics 127 : 229 255.
7. Bateman, P. W., J. W. H. Ferguson, and C. A. Yetman. 2006. Courtship and copulation, but not ejaculates, reduce longevity of female field crickets (Gryllus bimaculatus). J. Zool. 268 : 341 346.
8. Bonduriansky, R. 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol. Rev. 76 : 305 339.
9. Burley, N., and C. B. Coopersmith. 1987. Bill color preferences of zebra finches. Ethology 76 : 133 151.
10. Byers, J. A., P. A., Wiseman, L. Jones, and T. J. Roff. 2005. A large cost of female mate sampling in pronghorn. Am. Nat. 166 : 661 668.
11. Carvajal A. R., M. R. Gandarela, and H. F. Naveira. 1996. A three-locus system of interspecific incompatibility underlies male inviability in hybrids between Drosophila buzzatii and D- koepferae. Genetica 98 : 1 19.
12. Chenoweth, S. F., P. Doughty, and H. Kokko. 2006. Can non-directional male mating preferences facilitate honest female ornaments? Ecol. Lett. 9 : 179 184.
13. Clutton-Brock, T. H., and G. A. Parker. 1995. Sexual coercion in animal societies. Anim. Behav. 49 : 135 165.
14. Darwin, C. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. Murray, London.
15. Day, T. 2000. Sexual selection and the evolution of costly female preferences: spatial effects. Evolution 54 : 715 730.
16. Deering, M. D., and J. M. Scriber. 2002. Field bioassays show heterospecific mating preference asymmetry between hybridizing North American Papilio butterfly species (Lepidoptera: Papillionidae). J. Ethol. 20 : 25 33.
17. Deutsch, J. C., and J. D. Reynolds. 1995. Design and sexual selection: the evolution of sex differences in mate choice. Perspect. Ethol. 11 : 297 323.
18. Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia Univ. Press, New York. 364 p.
19. Fawcett, T. W., and R. A. Johnstone. 2003. Mate choice in the face of costly competition. Behav. Ecol. 14 : 771 779.
20. Forsberg, J. 1987. A model for male mate discrimination in butterflies. Oikos 49 : 46 54.
21. Gabor, C. R., and M. J. Ryan. 2001. Geographical variation in reproductive character displacement in mate choice by male sailfin mollies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268 : 1063 1070.
22. Härdling, R., and H. Kokko. 2005. The evolution of prudent choice. Evol. Ecol. Res. 7 : 697 715.
23. Hauber, M. E., and P. W. Sherman. 2001. Self-referent phenotype matching: theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Trends Neurosci. 24 : 609 616.
24. Head, M. L., and R. Brooks. 2006. Sexual coercion and the opportunity for sexual selection in guppies. Anim. Behav. 71 : 515 522.
25. Herdman, E. J. E., C. D. Kelly, and J. G. J. Godin. 2004. Male mate choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): do males prefer larger females as mates? Ethology 110 : 97 111.
26. Higashi, M., G. Takimoto and N. Yamamura. 1999. Sympatric speciation by sexual selection. Nature 402 : 523 526.
27. Hill, G. E. 1993. Male mate choice and the evolution of female plumage coloration in the house finch. Evolution 47 : 1515 1525.
28. Hunt, S., I. C. Cuthill, A. T. D. Bennett, and R. Griffiths. 1999. Preferences for ultraviolet partners in the blue tit. Anim. Behav. 58 : 809 815.
29. Ihara, Y., and K. Aoki. 1999. Sexual selection by male choice in monogamous and polygynous human populations. Theor. Popul. Biol. 55 : 77 93.
30. Johnstone, R. A. 1997. The tactics of mutual mate choice and competitive search. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 40 : 51 59.
31. Johnstone, R. A., J. D. Reynolds, and J. C. Deutsch. 1996. Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 50 : 1382 1391.
32. Jones, K. M., P. Monaghan, and R. G. Nager. 2001. Male mate choice and female fecundity in zebra finches. Anim. Behav. 62 : 1021 1026.
33. Kelly, J. K., and M. Noor. 1996. Speciation by reinforcement: a model derived from studies of Drosophila. Genetics 143 : 1485 1497.
34. Kirkpatrick, M. 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36 : 1 12.
35. Kirkpatrick, M. 1986. The handicap mechanism of sexual selection does not work. Am. Nat. 127 : 222 240.
36. Kirkpatrick, M. 2000. Reinforcement and divergence under assortative mating. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267 : 1649 1655.
37. Kirkpatrick, M., and N. H. Barton. 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94 : 1282 1286.
38. Kirkpatrick, M., and M. R. Servedio. 1999. The reinforcement of mating preferences on an island. Genetics 151 : 865 884.
39. Kokko, H., M. D. Jennions, and R. Brooks. 2006. Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37 : 43 66.
40. Kondrashov, A. S., and F. A. Kondrashov. 1999. Interactions among quantitative traits in the course of sympatric speciation. Nature 400 : 351 354.
41. Lande, R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78 : 3721 3725.
42. Lande, R. 1982. Rapid origin of sexual isolation and character divergence in a cline. Evolution 36 : 213 223.
43. Lande, R., O. Seehausen, and J. J. M. van Alphen. 2001. Mechanisms of rapid sympatric speciation by sex reversal and sexual selection in cichild fish. Genetica 112 : 435 443.
44. Liou, L. W., and T. D. Price. 1994. Speciation by reinforcement of premating isolation. Evolution 48 : 1451 1459.
45. Magurran, A. E., and B. H. Seghers. 1994. A cost of sexual harassment in the guppy, Peocilia reticulata. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 258 : 89 92.
46. Mead, L. S., and S. J. Arnold. 2004. Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 : 264 271.
47. Monaghan, P., N. B. Metcalfe, and D. C. Houston. 1996. Male finches selectively pair with fecund females. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263 : 1183 1186.
48. Noor, M. A. F., K. L. Grams, L. A. Bertucci, Y. Almendarez, J. Reiland, and K. P. Smith. 2001. The genetics of reproductive isolation and the potential for gene exchange between Drosophila pseudoobscura and D. persimilis via backcross hybrid males. Evolution 55 : 512 521.
49. O'Donald, P. 1967. A general model of sexual and natural selection. Heredity 17 : 541 552.
50. Olsson, M. 1993. Male-preference for large females and assortative mating for body size in the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 32 : 337 341.
51. Orr, H. A., and S. Irving. 2001. Complex epistasis and the genetic basis of hybrid sterility in the Drosophila pseudoobscura Bogota-USA hybridization. Genetics 158 : 1089 1100.
52. Owens, I. P. F., and D. B. A. Thompson. 1994. Sex differences, sex ratios, and sex roles. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 258 : 93 99.
53. Palopoli, M. F., and C-I. Wu. 1994. Genetics of hybrid male sterility between Drosophila sibling species: a complex web of epistasis is revealed in interspecific studies. Genetics 138 : 329 341.
54. Parker, G. A. 1970. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol. Rev. 45 : 525 567.
55. Pomiankowski, A. 1988. The evolution of female mate preferences for male genetic quality. Oxf. Surv. Evol. Biol. 5 : 136 184.
56. Reynolds J. D., and M. R. Gross. 1990. Costs and benefits of female mate choice: is there a lek paradox? Am. Nat. 136 : 230 243.
57. Sakei, Y., K. C. Kruse, and P. V. Switzer. 2005. Male preference for large females and female reproductive condition in the Japanese beetle, Popillia japonica Newman (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 78 : 13 19.
58. Schlupp, I., R. McKnab, and M. J. Ryan. 2001. Sexual harassment as a cost for molly females: bigger males cost less. Behaviour 138 : 277 286.
59. Seehausen, O., J. J. M. van Alphen, and R. Lande. 1999. Color polymorphism and sex-ratio distortion in a cichlid fish as a transient stage in sympatric speciation by sexual selection. Ecol. Lett. 2 : 367 378.
60. Servedio, M. R. 2000. Reinforcement and the genetics of nonrandom mating. Evolution 54 : 21 29.
61. Servedio, M. R. 2004. The evolution of premating isolation: local adaptation and natural and sexual selection against hybrids. Evolution 58 : 913 924.
62. Servedio, M. R., and M. Kirkpatick. 1997. The effects of gene flow on reinforcement. Evolution 51 : 1764 1772.
63. Servedio, M. R., and R. Lande. 2006. Population genetic models of male and mutual mate choice. Evolution 60 : 674 685.
64. Servedio, M. R., and G-P. Sætre. 2003. Speciation as a positive feedback loop between post- and prezygotic barriers to gene flow. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270 : 1473 1479.
65. Shine, R., B. Phillips, H. Waye, M. Lemaster, and R. T. Mason. 2004. Species-isolating mechanisms in a mating system with male mate choice. Can. J. Zool. 82 : 1091 1098.
66. Szykman, M., A. L. Engh, R. C. Van Horn, S. M. Funk, K. T. Scribner, and K. E. Holekamp. 2001. Association patterns among male and female spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) reflect male mate choice. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50 : 231 238.
67. Thornhill, R., and J. Alcock. 1983. The evolution of insect mating systems. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA.
68. Tomlinson, I. P. M. 1988. Diploid models of the handicap principle. Heredity 60 : 283 293.
69. Trivers, R. L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. Pp. 136 179. in B. Campbell, ed. Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971. Heinemann, London.
70. Vahed, K. 1998. The function of nuptial feeding in insects: review of empirical studies. Biol. Rev. 73 : 43 78.
71. Vahed, K. 2007. All that glisters is not gold: sensory bias, sexual conflict and nuptial feeding in insects and spiders. Ethology 113 : 105 127.
72. van Doorn, G. S., A. J. Noest, and P. Hogeweg. 1998. Sympatric speciation and extinction driven by environment dependent sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265 : 1915 1919.
73. Verrell, P. A. 1995. Males chose larger female in the salamander Desmognathus santeelah. Ethology 99 : 162 171.
74. Watson, P. J., G. Arnqvist, and R. R. Stallman. 1998. Sexual conflict and the energetic costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. Am. Nat. 151 : 46 58.
75. Werner, N. Y., and A. Lotem. 2003. Choosy males in a haplochromine cichlid: first experimental evidence for male mate choice in a lekking species. Anim. Behav. 66 : 293 298.
76. Wiernasz, D. C. 1995. Male choice on the basis of female melanin pattern in pieris butterflies. Anim. Behav. 49 : 45 51.
77. Wong, B. B. M., and U. Candolin. 2005. How is female mate choice affected by male competition? Biol. Rev. 80 : 559 571.