Do polyandrous pygmy grasshopper females obtain fitness benefits for their offspring?

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 354-361

  Caesar, Sofia ^a   Forsman, Anders ^a  

^a LINNAEUS UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Genetic benefits; Mate resemblance; Polyandry; Split brood design; Tetrix subulata

Indexed keywords

ANTAGONISM; BROOD REARING; COLOR MORPH; FITNESS; GRASSHOPPER; LIGHT AVAILABILITY; POLYANDRY; POLYMORPHISM; REPRODUCTIVE PRODUCTIVITY; SIBLING;

HEXAPODA; TETRIGIDAE; TETRIX SUBULATA;

EID: 64949148133     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arn153     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Bradbury J. 1981. The evolution of leks. In: Alexander RD, Tinkle DW, editors. The evolution of social behavior. Concord (MA): Chiron Press. p. 138-169.
2. Bardeleben C, Moore RL, Nichols JA, Austin JJ, Robson TE. 2005. Isolation of polymorphic tetranucleotide microsatellite markers in the satin bowerbird, Ptilonorhynchus violaceus. Mol Ec Notes. 5:305-307.
3. Blouin MS, Parsons M, Lacaille V, Lotz S. 1996. Use of microsatellite loci to classify by relatedness. Mol Ecol. 5:393-401.
4. Borgia G. 1979. Sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. In: Blum M, Blum A, editors. Seuxal selection and reproductive competition. New York: Academic Press. p. 19-80.
5. Borgia G. 1985a. Bower destruction and sexual competition in the satin bowerbird (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 18:91-100.
6. Borgia G. 1985b. Bower quality, number of decorations and mating success of male satin bowerbirds (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus): an experimental analysis. Anim Behav. 33:266-271.
7. Borgia G. 1995. Why do bowerbirds build bowers? Am Sci. 83:542-547.
8. Borgia G, Gore MA. 1986. Feather stealing in the satin bowerbird (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus)-male competition and the quality of display. Anim Behav. 34:727-738.
9. Borgia G, Mueller U. 1992. Bower destruction, decoration stealing, and female choice in the spotted bowerbird Chlamydera maculata. Emu. 92:11-18.
10. Bouzat JL, Johnson K. 2004. Genetic structure among closely spaced leks in a peripheral population of lesser prairie-chickens. Mol Ecol. 13:499-505.
11. Bravery BD, Nicholls JA, Goldizen AW. 2006. Patterns of painting in satin bowerbirds Ptilonorhynchus violaceus and males' responses to changes in their paint. J Avian Biol. 37:77-83.
12. DuVal EH. 2007. Adaptive advantages of cooperative courtship for subordinate male lance-tailed manakins. Am Nat. 169:423-432.
13. Emlen ST, Wrege PH. 1988. The role of kinship in helping decisions among white-fronted bee-eaters. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 23:305-315.
14. Gibbons JD, Pratt JW. 1975. P-values: interpretation and methodology. Am Stat. 29:20-25.
15. Gibson RM, Pires D, Delaney KS, Wayne RK. 2005. Microsatellite DNA analysis shows that greater sage grouse leks are not kin groups. Mol Ecol. 14:4453-4459.
16. Gill FB. 1995. Ornithology. New York: W.H. Freeman and Co.
17. Gilliard ET. 1969. Birds of paradise and bowerbirds. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
18. Griffin AS, West SA. 2002. Kin selection: fact and fiction. Trends Ecol Evol. 17:15-21.
19. Hamilton WD. 1964. Genetical evolution of social behavior I and II. J Theor Biol. 7:1-52.
20. Hardy OJ, Vekemans X. 2002. SPAGe Di: a versatile computer program to analyze spatial genetic structure at the individual or population levels. Mol Ecol Notes. 2:618-620.
21. Höglund J, Alatalo RV. 1995. Leks. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
22. Höglund J, Alatalo RV, Lundberg A, Rintamäki PT, Lindell J. 1999. Microsatellite markers reveal the potential for kin selection on black grouse leks. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 266:813-816.
23. Hunter CP, Dwyer PD. 1997. The value of objects to satin bowerbirds Ptilonorhynchus violaceus. Emu. 97:200-206.
24. Kokko H, Lindstrom J. 1996. Kin selection and the evolution of leks: whose success do young males maximize? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 263:919-923.
25. Komdeur J. 1994. The effect of kinship on helping in the cooperative breeding Seychelles warbler (Acrocephalus sechellensis). Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 256:47-52.
26. Krakauer AH. 2005. Kin selection and cooperative courtships in wild turkeys. Nature. 434:69-72.
27. Loiselle BA, Ryder TB, Duraes R, Tori W, Blake JG, Parker PG. 2006. Kin selection does not explain male aggregation at leks of 4 manakin species. Behav Ecol. 18:287-291.
28. Madden JR, Lowe TJ, Fuller HV, Coe RL, Dasmahapatra KK, Amos W, Jury F. 2004. Neighboring male spotted bowerbirds are not related, but do maraud each other. Anim Behav. 68:751-758.
29. Manning CJ, Wakeland EK, Potts WK. 1992. Communal nesting patterns in mice implicate MHC genes in kin recognition. Nature. 360:581-583.
30. Marshall AJ. 1954. Bower-birds: their displays and breeding cycles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
31. Martin CA, Alonso JC, Alonso J, Pitra C, Lieckfeldt D. 2002. Great bustard population structure in central Spain: concordant results from genetic analysis and dispersal study. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 269:119-125.
32. McDonald DB, Potts WK. 1994. Cooperative display and relatedness among males in a lek-mating bird. Science. 266:1030-1032.
33. Petrie M, Krupa A, Burke T. 1999. Peacocks lek with relatives even in the absence of social and environmental cues. Nature. 401:155-157.
34. Pruett-Jones S, Pruett-Jones M. 1994. Sexual competition and courtship disruptions: why do male satin bowerbirds destroy each other's bowers? Anim Behav. 47:607-620.
35. Queller D, Goodnight KF. 1989. Estimating relatedness using genetic markers. Evolution. 43:258-275.
36. Raymond M, Rousset F. 1995. GENEPOP (version 1.2): population-genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered. 86:248-249.
37. Regnaut S, Christe P, Chapuisat M, Fumagalli L. 2006. Genotyping faeces reveals facultative kin association on capercaillie's leks. Conserv Gen. 7:665-674.
38. Reynolds SM, Dryer K, Bollback J, Uy JAC, Patricelli GL, Robson T, Borgia G, Braun M. 2007. Behavioral paternity predicts genetic paternity in satin bowerbirds (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus), a species with a non-resource-based mating system. Auk. 124:857-867.
39. Saether S. 2002. Kin selection, female preferences and the evolution of leks: direct benefits may explain kin structuring. Anim Behav. 63:1017-1019.
40. Sefc KM, Payne RB, Sorenson MD. 2001. Characterization of microsatellite loci in village indigobirds (Vidua chalybeata) and cross-species amplification in estrildid and ploceid finches. Mol Ecol Notes. 1:252-254.
41. Shorey L, Piertney S, Stone J, Höglund J. 2000. Fine-scale genetic structuring on Manacus manacus leks. Nature. 408:352-353.
42. Siegel S, Castellan NJ. 1988. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
43. Stacey PB, Bock CE. 1978. Social plasticity in the acorn woodpecker. Science. 202:1298-1300.
44. Uy JAC, Patricelli GL, Borgia G. 2001. Complex mate searching in the satin bowerbird Ptilonorhynchus violaceus. Am Nat. 158:530-542.
45. Vellenga R. 1970. Behavior of the male satin bower-bird at the bower. Aust Bird Bander. 1:3-11.
46. West SA, Pen I, Griffin AS. 2002. Cooperation and competition between relatives. Science. 296:72-75.
47. Westcott DA. 1997. Neighbours, strangers and male-male aggression as a determinant of lek size. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 40:235-242.
48. Ahnesjö J, Forsman A. 2003. Correlated evolution of colour pattern and body size in polymorphic pygmy grasshoppers, Tetrix undulata. J Evol Biol. 16:1308-1318.
49. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T. 2000. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav. 60:145-164.
50. Baer B, Schmid-Hempel P. 2001. Unexpected consequences of polyandry for parasitism and fitness in the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris. Evolution. 55:1639-1643.
51. Caesar S, Ahnesjo J, Forsman A. 2007. Testing the role of co-adapted genes versus bet hedging for mating strategies in colour polymorphic pygmy grasshoppers. Biol J Linn Soc. 90:491-499.
52. Chapman T, Liddle LF, Kalb JM, Wolfner MF, Partridge L. 1995. Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory-gland products. Nature. 373:241-244.
53. Collett D. 1991. Modelling binary data. London: Chapman and Hall.
54. Cornell SJ, Tregenza T. 2007. A new theory for the evolution of polyandry as a means of inbreeding avoidance. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 274:2873-2879.
55. Dobzhansky T 1970. Genetics of the evolutionary process. New York: Columbia University Press.
56. Dziminski MA, Roberts JD, Simmons LW. 2008. Fitness consequences of parental compatibility in the frog Crinia georgiana. Evolution. 62:879-886.
57. Fisher RA. 1939. Selective forces in wild populations of Paratettix tex-anus. Ann Eugen. 9:109-122.
58. Foerster K, Delhey K, Johnsen A, Lifjeld JT, Kempenaers B. 2003. Females increase offspring heterozygosity and fitness through extra-pair matings. Nature. 425:714-717.
59. Ford EB. 1964. Ecological genetics. London: Chapman & Hall.
60. Forsman A 2001. Clutch size versus clutch interval: life history strategies in the colour-polymorphic pygmy grasshopper Tetrix subulata. Oecologia. 129:357-366.
61. Forsman A, Ahnesjo J, Caesar S. 2007. Fitness benefits of diverse offspring in pygmy grasshoppers. Evol Ecol Res. 9:1305-1318.
62. Forsman A, Ahnesjo J, Caesar S, Karlsson M. 2008. A model of ecological and evolutionary consequences of color polymorphism. Ecology. 89:34-40.
63. Forsman A, Appelqvist S. 1999. Experimental manipulation reveals differential effects of colour pattern on survival in male and female pygmy grasshoppers. J Evol Biol. 12:391-401.
64. Forsman A, Hagman M. 2006. Calling is an honest indicator of paternal genetic quality in poison frogs. Evolution. 60:2148-2157.
65. Forsman A, Ringblom K, Civantos E, Ahnesjo J. 2002. Coevolution of color pattern and thermoregulatory behavior in polymorphic pygmy grasshoppers Tetrix undulata. Evolution. 56:349-360.
66. Fox CW, Rauter CM. 2003. Bet-hedging and the evolution of multiple mating. Evol Ecol Res. 5:273-286.
67. Garcia-Gonzalez F, Simmons LW. 2005. The evolution of polyandry: intrinsic sire effects contribute to embryo viability. J Evol Biol. 18: 1097-1103.
68. Getz WM, Smith KB. 1986. Honey-bee kin recognition - learning self and nestmate phenotypes. Anim Behav. 34:1617-1626.
69. Gillespie JH. 1974. Natural selection for within generation variance in offspring numbers. Genetics. 76:601-606.
70. Hardy ICW. 1994. Polyandrous parasitoids - multiple mating for vari-etys sake. Trends Ecol Evol. 9:202-203.
71. Holland B, Rice WR. 1999. Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:5083-5088.
72. Holst KT 1986. The Saltatoria of northern Europe. Fauna Entomol Scand. 16:1-127.
73. Hosken DJ, Garner TWJ, Tregenza T, Wedell N, Ward PI. 2003. Superior sperm competitors sire higher-quality young. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 270:1933-1938.
74. Jennions MD. 1997. Female promiscuity and genetic incompatibility. Trends Ecol Evol. 12:251-253.
75. Jennions MD, Petrie M. 2000. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev. 75:21-64.
76. Karlsson M, Caesar S, Ahnesjö J, Forsman A. 2008. Dynamics of colour polymorphism in a changing environment: fire melanism and then what? Oecologia. 154:715-724.
77. Liersch S, Schmid-Hempel P. 1998. Genetic variation within social insect colonies reduces parasite load. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 265:221-225.
78. Mays HL, Hill GE. 2004. Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol Evol. 19:554-559.
79. Møller AP, Alatalo RV. 1999. Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 266:85-91.
80. Moran NA. 1992. The evolutionary maintenance of alternative phenotypes. Am Nat. 139:971-989.
81. Nabours RK. 1929. The genetics of the Tettigidae (Grouse Locusts). Bibliogr Genet. 5:27-104.
82. Newcomer SD, Zeh JA, Zeh DW 1999. Genetic benefits enhance the reproductive success of polyandrous females. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 96:10236-10241.
83. Pai A, Yan G. 2001. Polyandry produces sexy sons at the cost of daughters in red flour beetles. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 269:361-368.
84. Qvarnström A. 2001. Context-dependent genetic benefits from mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol. 16:5-7.
85. Ridley M. 1988. Mating frequency and fecundity in insects. Biol Rev. 63:509-549.
86. Ridley M. 1993. Clutch size and mating frequency in parasitic Hyme-noptera. Am Nat. 142:893-910.
87. Rowell CHF. 1971. The variable coloration of the Acridoid grasshoppers. Adv Insect Phys. 8:145-198.
88. SAS II. 2004. SAS/STAT 91 User's Guide. Cary (NC): SAS Institute.
89. Seger J, Brockmann HJ. 1987. What is bet-hedging? Oxford Surv Evol Biol. 4:182-211.
90. Sheldon BC. 2000. Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends Ecol Evol. 15:397-402.
91. Simmons LW. 1989. Kin recognition and its influence on mating preferences of the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (Degeer). Anim Be-hav. 38:68-77.
92. Slatkin M. 1974. Hedging one's evolutionary bets. Nature. 250: 704-705.
93. Tregenza T, Wedell N. 2002. Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature. 415:71-73.
94. Van Valen L. 1965. Morphological variation and width of the ecological niche. Am Nat. 99:377-390.
95. Watson PJ. 1991. Multiple paternity as genetic bet-hedging in female sierra dome spiders, Linyphia litigiosa (Linyphiidae. Anim Behav. 41:343-360.
96. Wedell N, Tregenza T. 1999. Successful fathers sire successful sons. Evolution. 53:620-625.
97. Yasui Y 1997. A "good-sperm" model can explain the evolution of costly multiple mating by females. Am Nat. 149:573-584.
98. Yasui Y 1998. The 'genetic benefits' of female multiple mating reconsidered. Trends Ecol Evol. 13:246-250.
99. Zeh JA, Zeh DW 1997. The evolution of polyandry.2. Post-copulatory defences against genetic incompatibility. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 264:69-75.