Do male moor frogs (Rana arvalis) lek with kin?

Molecular Ecology

Volumn 17, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 2522-2530

  Knopp, T ^a   Heimovirta, M ^a   Kokko, H ^a   Merila J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Amphibia; Kin selection; Lek; Rana arvalis; Relatedness

Indexed keywords

MICROSATELLITE DNA;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; FROG; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SWEDEN;

ANIMALS; MALE; MICROSATELLITE REPEATS; RANIDAE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; SWEDEN; VARIATION (GENETICS);

AMPHIBIA; ANURA; RANA ARVALIS;

EID: 43049149791     PISSN: 09621083     EISSN: 1365294X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03748.x     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Alatalo RV, Höglund J, Lundberg A, Sutherland WJ (1992) Evolution of black grouse leks: females preferences benefit males in larger leks. Behavioral Ecology, 3, 53 59.
2. Alatalo RV, Kotiaho J, Mappes J, Parri S (1998) Mate choice for offspring performance: major benefits or minor costs? Proceedings of the Royal Society B; Biological Sciences, 265, 2297 2301.
3. Arnold EN (2002) A Field Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of Britain and Europe, 2nd edn. Harper Collins Publishers, London.
4. Belkhir K, Castric V, Bonhomme F (2002) identix, a software to test for relatedness in a population using permutation methods. Molecular Ecology Notes, 2, 611 614.
5. Bishop PJ, Jennions MD, Passmore NI (1995) Chorus size and call intensity-female choice in the painted reed frog, Hyperlolius marmoratus Behaviour, 132, 721 731.
6. Blouin MS (2003) DNA-based methods for pedigree reconstruction and kinship analysis in natural populations. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18, 503 511.
7. Blundell GM, Ben-David M, Groves P, Bowyer RT, Geffen E (2004) Kinship and sociality in coastal river otters: are they related? Behavioral Ecology, 15, 705 714.
8. Bradbury JW, Gibson RM (1983) Leks and mate choice. In : Mate Choice (ed. Bateson P pp. 109 138. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
9. Carlsson L, Carlsson JEL (2002) Micro-scale distribution of brown trout: an opportunity for kin selection? Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 11, 234 239.
10. Clutton-Brock TH, Deutsch JC, Nefdt RJC (1993) The evolution of ungulate leks. Animal Behaviour, 46, 1121 1138.
11. Corander J, Marttinen P, Waldmann P, Sillanpää MJ (2003) Bayesian analysis of genetic differentiation between populations. Genetics, 163, 367 374.
12. Csilléry K, Johnson T, Beraldi D et al 2006) Performance of marker-based relatedness estimators in natural populations of outbred vertebrates. Genetics, 173, 2091 2101.
13. Downes JA (1969) The swarming and mating flight of Diptera. Annual Review of Entomology, 14, 271 298.
14. DuVal EH (2007) Adaptive advantages of cooperative courtship for subordinate male lance-tailed manakins. American Naturalist, 169, 423 432.
15. Ehret G, Gerhardt HC (1980) Auditory masking and effects of noise on responses of the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea) to synthetic mating calls. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 141, 13 18.
16. Elphinstone MS, Hinten GN, Anderson MJ, Nock CJ (2003) An inexpensive and high-throughput procedure to extract and purify total genomic DNA for population studies. Molecular Ecology Notes, 3, 317 320.
17. Figenschou L, Folstad I, Liljedal S (2004) Lek fidelity in Arctic charr. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 82, 1278 1284.
18. Fiske P, Rintamäki PT, Karvonen E (1998) Mating success in lekking males: a meta-analysis. Behavioral Ecology, 9, 328 338.
19. Fog K, Schmedens A, Rosenørn-de Lasson D (1997) Nordens Padder og Krybdyr. G.E.C. Gads Forlag, Copenhagen.
20. Friedl TWP, Klump GM (2005) Sexual selection in the lek-breeding European treefrog: body size, chorus attendance, random mating and good genes. Animal Behaviour, 70, 1141 1154.
21. Garner TWJ, Tomio G (2001) Microsatellites for use in studies of the Italian agile frog, Rana latastei (Boulanger). Conservation Genetics, 2, 77 80.
22. Gerhardt HC (1994) The evolution of vocalization in frogs and toads. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 25, 293 324.
23. Gerlach G, Schardt U, Eckmann R, Meyer A (2001) Kin-structured subpopulations in Eurasian perch (Perca fluviatilis L.). Heredity, 86, 213 221.
24. Gibson RM (1996) A re-evaluation of hotspot settlement in lekking sage grouse. Animal Behaviour, 52, 993 1005.
25. Gibson RM, Pires D, Delaney KS, Wayne RK (2005) Microsatellite DNA analysis shows that greater sage grouse leks are not kin groups. Molecular Ecology, 14, 4453 4459.
26. Goodnight KF, Queller DC (1999) Computer software for performing likelihood tests of pedigree relationship using genetic markers. Molecular Ecology, 8, 1231 1234.
27. Goudet J (1995) fstat (version 1.2): a computer program to calculate F-statistics. Journal of Heredity, 86, 485 486.
28. Haapanen A (1970) Site tenacity of the common frog (Rana temporaria L.) and the moor frog (Rana arvalis Nilss). Annales Zoologici Fennici, 7, 61 66.
29. Hitchings SP, Beebee TJC (1997) Genetic substructuring as a result of barriers to gene flow in urban Rana temporaria (common frog) populations: implications for biodiversity conservation. Heredity, 79, 117 127.
30. Höglund J, Alatalo RV (1995) Leks. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
31. Höglund J, Lundberg A (1987) Sexual selection in a monomorphic lek breeding bird-correlates of male mating success in the great snipe Gallinago media. Behavioral Ecology Sociobiology, 21, 211 216.
32. Höglund J, Shorey L (2003) Local genetic structure in a white-bearded manakin population. Molecular Ecology, 12, 2457 2463.
33. Höglund J, Alatalo RV, Lundberg A, Rintamäki PT, Lindell J (1999) Microsatellite markers reveal the potential for kin selection on black grouse leks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 266, 813 816.
34. Hovi M, Alatalo RV, Höglund J, Lundberg A, Rintamäki PT (1994) Lek center attracts black grouse females. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 258, 303 305.
35. Humfeld SC (2008) Intersexual dynamics mediate the expression of satellite mating tactics: unattractive males and parallel preferences. Animal Behaviour, 75, 205 215.
36. Hutchinson JMC (2005) Is more choice always desirable? Evidence and arguments from leks, food selection, and environmental enrichment. Biology Reviews, 80, 73 92.
37. Isvaran K, St Mary CM (2003) When should males lek? Insights from a dynamic state variable model. Behavioral Ecology, 14, 876 886.
38. Knopp T, Cano JM, Crochet P-A, Merilä J (2007) Contrasting levels of variation in neutral and quantitative genetic loci on island populations of Moor frogs (Rana arvalis). Conservation Genetics, 8, 45 56.
39. Kokko H (1997) The lekking game: can female choice explain aggregated male displays? Journal of Theoretical Biology, 187, 57 64.
40. Kokko H, Lindström J (1996) Kin selection and the evolution of leks: whose success do young males maximize? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 263, 919 923.
41. Kokko H, Rankin DJ (2006) Lonely hearts or sex in the city? Density-dependent effects in mating systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 361, 319 334.
42. Kokko H, Sutherland WJ, Lindstöm J, Reynolds JD, Mackenzie A (1998) Individual mating success, lek stability, and the neglected limitations of statistical power. Animal Behaviour, 56, 755 762.
43. Kokko H, Rintamäki PT, Alatalo RV, Höglund J, Karvonen E, Lundberg A (1999) Female choice selects for lifetime lekking performance in black grouse males. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 266, 2109 2115.
44. Kokko H, Jennions MD, Brooks R (2006) Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 37, 43 66.
45. Kotiaho JS, Puurtinen M (2007) Mate choice for indirect genetic benefits: scrutiny of the current paradigm. Functional Ecology, 21, 638 644.
46. Krakauer AH (2005) Kin selection and cooperative courtship in wild turkeys. Nature, 434, 69 72.
47. Krebs JR, Davies NB (1991) Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, 3rd edn. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.
48. Lloyd L (1867) Game birds and wild fowl of Sweden and Norway. Frederick Warne, London. As cited in: Höglund J and Alatalo R (1995) Leks. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
49. Loman J (2002) Temperature, genetic and hydroperiod effects on metamorphosis of brown frogs Rana arvalis and R. temporaria in the field. Journal of Zoology, 258, 115 129.
50. Mackenzie A, Reyolds JD, Brown VJ, Sutherland WJ (1995) Variation in male mating success on leks. American Naturalist, 145, 633 652.
51. McDonald DB, Potts WK (1994) Cooperative display and relatedness among males in a lek mating bird. Science, 266, 1030 1032.
52. Murphy CG (2003) The cause of correlations between nightly numbers of male and female barking treefrogs (Hyla gratiosa) attending choruses. Behavioral Ecology, 14, 274 281.
53. Newman RA, Squire T (2001) Microsatellite variation and fine-scale population structure in the wood frog (Rana sylvatica). Molecular Ecology, 10, 1087 1100.
54. Nordeide JT, Folstad I (2000) Is cod lekking or a promiscuous group spawner? Fish and Fisheries, 1, 90 93.
55. Park SDE (2001) Trypanotolerance in West African cattle and the population genetic effects of selection. PhD Thesis, University of Dublin.
56. Parker GA (1983) Mate quality and mating decisions. In : Mate Choice (ed. Bateson P pp. 141 166. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
57. Petrie M, Krupa A, Burke T (1999) Peacocks lek with relatives even in the absence of social and environmental cues. Nature, 401, 15 157.
58. Peuhkuri N, Seppä P (1998) Do three-spined sticklebacks group with kin? Annales Zoologici Fennici, 35, 21 27.
59. Pfennig KS, Rapa K, McNatt R (2000) Evolution of male mating behaviour: male spadefoot toads preferentially associate with conspecific males. Behavioral Ecology Sociobiology, 48, 69 74.
60. Räsänen K, Laurila A, Merilä J (2003a) Geographic variation in acid stress tolerance of the moor frog, Rana arvalis. I. Local adaptation. Evolution, 57, 352 362.
61. Räsänen K, Laurila A, Merilä J (2003b) Geographic variation in acid stress tolerance of the moor frog, Rana arvalis. II. Adaptive maternal effects. Evolution, 57, 363 371.
62. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) genepop (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. Journal of Heredity, 86, 248 249.
63. Regnaut S, Christe P, Chapuisat M, Fumagalli L (2006) Genotyping faeces reveals facultative kin association on capercaillie's leks. Conservation Genetics, 7, 665 674.
64. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution, 43, 223 225.
65. Russell ST, Kelley JL, Graves JA, Magurran AE (2004) Kin structure and shoal composition dynamics in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Oikos, 106, 520 526.
66. Savage RM (1961) The Ecology and Life History of the Common Frog. Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, London.
67. Segura D, Petit-Marty N, Sciurano R, Vera T, Calcagno G (2007) Lekking behavior of Anastrepha fraterculus (Diptera: Tephritidae). Florida Entomologist, 90, 154 162.
68. Seppä P, Laurila A (1999) Genetic structure of island populations of the anurans Rana temporaria and Bufo bufo. Heredity, 82, 309 317.
69. Sheldon BC, Arponen H, Laurila A, Crochet P-A, Merilä J (2003) Sire colouration influences offspring survival under predation risk in the moorfrog. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 16, 1288 1295.
70. Shelly TE, Greenfield MD (1991) Dominions and desert clickers (Orthoptera: Arididae) influences of resources and male signaling on female settlement patterns. Behavioral Ecology Sociobiology, 28, 133 140.
71. Sherman PW (1999) Birds of a feather lek together. Nature, 401, 119 120.
72. Shorey L, Piertney S, Stone J, Höglund J (2000) Fine-scale genetic structuring on Manacus manacus leks. Nature, 408, 352 353.
73. Sinsch U (1988) Temporal spacing of breeding activity in the natterjack toad, Bufo calamita. Oecologia, 76, 399 407.
74. Smith BR, Herbinger CM, Merry HR (2001) Accurate partition of individuals into full-sib families from genetic data without parental information. Genetics, 158, 1329 1338.
75. Stebbins RC, Cohen NW (1995) A Natural History of Amphibians. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
76. Sullivan BK, Kwiatkowski MA (2007) Courtship displays in anurans and lizards: theoretical and empirical contributions to our understanding of costs and selection on males due to female choice. Functional Ecology, 21, 666 675.
77. Svensson BG, Petersson E (1992) Why insects swarm: testing the models for lek mating systems on swarming Empis borealis females. Behavioral Ecology Sociobiology, 31, 253 261.
78. Telford SR, Van Sickle J (1989) Sexual selection in an African toad (Bufo gutteralis): the roles of morphology, amplexus displacement and chorus participation. Behaviour, 110, 62 75.
79. Trail PW (1985) Courtship disruption modifies mate choice in a lek breeding bird. Science, 227, 778 780.
80. Trontti K, Aron S, Sundström L (2005) Inbreeding and kinship in the ant Plagiolepis pygmaea. Molecular Ecology, 14, 2007 2015.
81. Vos CC, Antonisse-De Jong AG, Goedhart PW, Smulders MJM (2001) Genetic similarity as a measure for connectivity between fragmented populations of the moor frog (Rana arvalis). Heredity, 86, 598 608.
82. Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution, 38, 1358 1370.
83. Wells KD (1977) The social behaviour of anuran amphibians. Animal Behaviour, 25, 666 693.
84. Widemo F, Owens IPF (1995) Lek size, male mating skew and the evolution of lekking. Nature, 373, 148 151.
85. Wright S (1969) Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, Vol. 2. The Theory of Gene Frequencies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.