Dissecting selection on female mating preferences during secondary contact

Evolution

Volumn 63, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 2031-2046

  Proulx, Stephen R ^a   Servedio, Maria R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Female preferences; Good genes; Mathematical model; Reinforcement; Sexual selection; Speciation

Indexed keywords

BIOMARKER; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; GENETIC ANALYSIS; HYBRID; MATING BEHAVIOR; NUMERICAL MODEL; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SPECIATION (BIOLOGY);

ALLELE; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; FEMALE; GENOTYPE; MALE; MATE CHOICE; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; REPRODUCTION;

ALLELES; ANIMALS; FEMALE; GENOTYPE; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; POPULATION DYNAMICS; REPRODUCTION;

EID: 68149126535     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00710.x     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Albert, A. Y. K. 2005. Mate choice, sexual imprinting, and speciation: a test of a one-allele isolating mechanism in sympatric sticklebacks. Evolution 59 : 927 931.
2. Alberts, S. C. 1999. Paternal kin discrimination in wild baboons. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 266 : 1501 1506.
3. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ.Press, Princeton, NJ.
4. Barton, N. H., and M. Shpak. 2000. Stability of symmetrical solutions to polygenic models. Theor. Popul. Biol. 57 : 249 263.
5. Burger, R. 2000. The mathematical theory of selection, recombination and mutation. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England.
6. 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.
7. Candolin, U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol. Rev. 78 : 575 595.
8. Cotton, S., K. Fowler, and A. Pomiankowski. 2004. Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271 : 771 783.
9. Coyne, J. A., and H. A. Orr. 2004. Speciation. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA, 545 p.
10. Crow, J. F., and M. Kimura. 1970. An introduction to population genetics theory. Harper and Row, New York.
11. DeVisser, J. A. G. M., J. Hermisson, G. P. Wagner, L. A. Meyers, H. Bagheri-Chaichian, J. L. Blanchard, L. Chao, J. M. Cheverud, S. F. Elena, W. Fontana, et al. 2003. Perspective: evolution and detection of genetic robustness. Evolution 57 : 1959 1972.
12. Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 364 p.
13. Felsenstein, J. 1981. Skepticism towards Santa Rosalia, or why are there so few kinds of animals Evolution 35 : 124 138.
14. Funk, D. J., P. Nosil, and W. J. Etges. 2006. Ecological divergence exhibits consistently positive associations with reproductive isolation across disparate taxa. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103 : 3209 3213.
15. Grant, P. R. 1986. Ecology and evolution of Darwin's finches. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
16. Hatfield, T., and D. Schluter. 1999. Ecological speciation in sticklebacks: environment-dependent hybrid fitness. Evolution 53 : 866 873.
17. Hauber, M. E., and P. W. Sherman. 2001. Self-referent phenotype matching: theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Trends Neurosci. 24 : 609 616.
18. Jiggins, C. D. 2008. Ecological speciation in mimetic butterflies. BioScience 58 : 541 548.
19. Jiggins, C. D., R. E. Naisbit, R. L. Coe, and J. Mallet. 2001. Reproductive isolation caused by colour pattern mimicry. Nature 411 : 302 305.
20. Kirkpatrick, M. 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36 : 1 12.
21. Kokko, H., R. Brooks, J. M. McNamara, and A. I. Houston. 2002. The sexual selection continuum. Proc. Biol. Sci. 269 : 1331 1340.
22. Lorch, P. D., S. Proulx, L. Rowe, and T. Day. 2003. Condition-dependent sexual selection can accelerate adaptation. Evolutionary Ecology Research 5 : 867 881.
23. Mallet, J. 1999. Causes and consequences of lack of coevolution in Mullerian mimicry. Evol. Ecol. 13 : 777 806.
24. Mallet, J., W. O. McMillan, and C. D. Jiggins. 1998. Mimicry and warning color at the boundary between races and species. Pp. 390 403 in D. J. Howard and S. H. Berlocher, eds. Endless forms, species and speciation. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
25. Mateo, J. M., and R. E. Johnston. 2000. Kin recognition and the "armpit effect:" evidence of self-referent phenotype matching. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267 : 695 700.
26. Maynard Smith, J. 1966. Sympatric speciation. Am. Nat. 100 : 637 650.
27. Møller, A. P., and A. Pomiankowski. 1993. Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 32 : 167 176.
28. Nagel, L., and D. Schluter. 1998. Body size, natural selection, and speciation in sticklebacks. Evolution 52 : 209 218.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. Phillips, P. C., S. P. Otto, and M. C. Whitlock. 2000. Beyond the average. Pp. 20 38 in J. B. Wolf, E. D. Brodie III., and M. J. Wade, eds. Epistasis and the Evolutionary Process. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
33. Pfennig, K. S. 1998. The evolution of mate choice and the potential for conflict between species and mate-quality recognition. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265 : 1743 1748.
34. Pfennig, K. S. 2000. Female spadefoot toads compromise on mate quality to ensure conspecific matings. Behav. Ecol. 11 : 220 227.
35. Pomiankowski, A., Y. Iwasa, and S. Nee. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences. I. Fisher and biaste mutation. Evolution 45 : 1422 1430.
36. Proulx, S. R. 2001. Female choice via indicator traits easily evolves in the face of recombination and migration. Evolution 55 : 2401 2411.
37. Proulx, S. R., and P. C. Phillips. 2005. The opportunity for canalization and the evolution of genetic networks. Am. Nat. 165 : 147 162.
38. Robertson, J. G. M. 1990. Female choice increases fertilization success in the Australian Frog, Uperoleia-Laevigata. Anim. Behav. 39 : 639 645.
39. Rowe, L., and D. Houle. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. Biol. Sci. 263 : 1415 1421.
40. Schliewen, U. K., D. Tautz, and S. Paabo. 1994. Sympatric speciation suggested by monophyly of Crater Lake cichlids. Nature 368 : 629 632.
41. Schliewen, U., K. Rassmann, M. Markmann, J. Markert, T. Kocher, and D. Tautz. 2001. Genetic and ecological divergence of a monophyletic cichlid species pair under fully sympatric conditions in Lake Ejagham, Cameroon. Mol. Ecol. 10 : 1471 1488.
42. Servedio, M. R. 2000. Reinforcement and the genetics of nonrandom mating. Evolution 54 : 21 29.
43. Servedio, M. R. 2004. The evolution of premating isolation: local adaptation and natural and sexual selection against hybrids. Evolution 58 : 913 924.
44. Servedio, M. R., and M. A. F. Noor. 2003. The role of reinforcement in speciation: theory and data. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34 : 339 364.
45. 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.
46. Servedio, M. R., S. A. Sæther, and G.-P. Sætre. 2009. Reinforcement and learning. Evol. Ecol. 23 : 109 123.
47. Verzijden, M. N., R. F. Lachlan, and M. R. Servedio. 2005. Female mate-choice behavior and sympatric speciation. Evolution 59 : 2097 2108.