Condition dependence varies with mating success in male Drosophila bunnanda

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 22, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 1813-1825

  McGuigan, K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Function valued traits; Genetic benefits; Mate choice; Sexual selection; Wing shape

Indexed keywords

CONDITION FACTOR; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; FLY; GENETIC ANALYSIS; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATE CHOICE; MATING SUCCESS; RESOURCE AVAILABILITY; SEXUAL SELECTION; WING MORPHOLOGY;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; DROSOPHILA; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; FORELIMB; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETICS; HISTOLOGY; MALE; MATE CHOICE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

ANIMALS; DROSOPHILA; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SELECTION, GENETIC; WING;

DROSOPHILA CF. SERRATA MS-2004;

EID: 69249184410     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01791.x     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Alpatov, W.W. 1930. Phenotypic variation in body and cell size of Drosophila melanogaster. Biol. Bull. 58 : 85 103.
2. Andersson, M. 1986. Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution 40 : 804 816.
3. Andersson, M.B. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
4. Atchison, J. 1986. The Statistical Analysis of Compositional Data. Chapman & Hall, London.
5. Badyaev, A.V. Qvarnstrom, A. 2002. Putting sexual traits into the context of an organism: a life-history perspective in studies of sexual selection. Auk 119 : 301 310.
6. Baldal, E.A., van der Linde, K., van Alphen, J.J.M., Brakefield, P.M. Zwaan, B.J. 2005. The effects of larval density on adult life-history traits in three species of Drosophila. Mech. Ageing Dev. 126 : 407 416.
7. Bitner-Mathe, B.C. Klaczko, L.B. 1999. Plasticity of Drosophila melanogaster wing morphology: effects of sex, temperature and density. Genetica 105 : 203 210.
8. Blanckenhorn, W.U. Hosken, D.J. 2003. Heritability of three condition surrogates in the yellow dung fly. Behav. Ecol. 14 : 612 618.
9. Blows, M.W. Allan, R.A. 1998. Levels of mate recognition within and between two Drosophila species and their hybrids. Am. Nat. 152 : 826 837.
10. Blows, M.W., Chenoweth, S.F. Hine, E. 2004. Orientation of the genetic variance-covariance matrix and the fitness surface for multiple male sexually selected traits. Am. Nat. 163 : E329 E340.
11. Bonduriansky, R. Rowe, L. 2005. Sexual selection, genetic architecture, and the condition dependence of body shape in the sexually dimorphic fly Prochyliza xanthostoma (Piophilidae). Evolution 59 : 138 151. (Pubitemid 40181306)
12. Bussiere, L.F., Hunt, J., Stolting, K.N., Jennions, M.D. Brooks, R. 2008. Mate choice for genetic quality when environments vary: suggestions for empirical progress. Genetica 134 : 69 78.
13. Candolin, U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol. Rev. 78 : 575 595.
14. Candolin, M. Heuschele, J. 2008. Is sexual selection beneficial during adaptation to environmental change? Trends Ecol. Evol. 23 : 446 452.
15. Chakir, M., Moreteau, B., Capy, P. David, J.R. 2007. Phenotypic variability of wild living and laboratory grown Drosophila: consequences of nutritional and thermal heterogeneity in growth conditions. J. Therm. Biol. 32 : 1 11.
16. Chenoweth, S.F. Blows, M.W. 2005. Contrasting mutual sexual selection on homologous signal traits in Drosophila serrata. Am. Nat. 165 : 281 289.
17. Chenoweth, S.F., Petfield, D., Doughty, P. Blows, M.W. 2007. Male choice generates stabilizing sexual selection on a female fecundity correlate. J. Evol. Biol. 20 : 1745 1750.
18. Cockburn, A., Osmond, H.L. Double, M.C. 2008. Swingin' in the rain: condition dependence and sexual selection in a capricious world. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 275 : 605 612.
19. Cotton, S., Fowler, K. Pomiankowski, A. 2004a. Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 271 : 771 783.
20. Cotton, S., Fowler, K. Pomiankowski, A. 2004b. Condition dependence of sexual ornament size and variation in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni (Diptera: Diopsidae). Evolution 58 : 1038 1046.
21. Cotton, S., Small, J. Pomiankowski, A. 2006. Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr. Biol. 16 : R755 R765.
22. David, P., Bjorksten, T., Fowler, K. Pomiankowski, A. 2000. Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyed flies. Nature 406 : 186 188.
23. Draper, N. Smith, H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis, 2nd edn. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
24. Dreiss, A.N., Navarro, C., de Lope, F. Moller, A.P. 2008. Effects of an immune challenge on multiple components of song display in barn swallows Hirundo rustica: implications for sexual selection. Ethology 114 : 955 964.
25. Droney, D.C. 1998. The influence of the nutritional content of the adult male diet on testis mass, body condition and courtship vigour in a Hawaiian Drosophila. Funct. Ecol. 12 : 920 928.
26. Etges, W.J., Veenstra, C.L. Jackson, L.L. 2006. Premating isolation is determined by larval rearing substrates in cactophilic Drosophila mojavensis. VII. Effects of larval dietary fatty acids on adult epicuticular hydrocarbons. J. Chem. Ecol. 32 : 2629 2646.
27. Getty, T. 1998. Handicap signalling: when fecundity and viability do not add up. Anim. Behav. 56 : 127 130.
28. Gilchrist, A.S., Azevedo, R.B.R., Partridge, L. O'Higgins, P. 2000. Adaptation and constraint in the evolution of Drosophila melanogaster wing shape. Evol. Dev. 2 : 114 124.
29. Grafen, A. 1990. Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J. Theor. Biol. 144 : 473 516.
30. Greenfield, M.D. Rodriguez, R.L. 2004. Genotype-environment interaction and the reliability of mating signals. Anim. Behav. 68 : 1461 1468.
31. Hine, E. Blows, M.W. 2006. Determining the effective dimensionality of the genetic variance-covariance matrix. Genetics 173 : 1135 1144.
32. Hine, E., Lachish, S., Higgie, M. Blows, M.W. 2002. Positive genetic correlation between female preference and offspring fitness. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 269 : 2215 2219.
33. Hine, E., Chenoweth, S.F. Blows, M.W. 2004. Multivariate quantitative genetics and the lek paradox: genetic variance in male sexually selected traits of Drosophila serrata under field conditions. Evolution 58 : 2754 2762.
34. Hocking, R.R. 1976. The analysis and selection of variables in linear regression. Biometrics 32 : 1 49.
35. Hoelzer, G.A. 1989. The good parent process of sexual selection. Anim. Behav. 38 : 1067 1078.
36. Hoffmann, A.A. Loeschcke, V. 2006. Are fitness effects of density mediated by body size? Evidence from Drosophila field releases. Evol. Ecol. Res. 8 : 813 828.
37. Hoikkala, A., Crossley, S. Castillo-Melendez, C. 2000. Copulatory courtship in Drosophila birchii and D. serrata, species recognition and sexual selection. J. Insect Behav. 13 : 361 373. (Pubitemid 30608830)
38. Hotzy, C. Arnqvist, G. 2009. Sperm competition favors harmful males in seed beetles. Curr. Biol. 19 : 404 407.
39. Howard, R.W., Jackson, L.L., Banse, H. Blows, M.W. 2003. Cuticular hydrocarbons of Drosophila birchii and D. serrata: identification and role in mate choice in D. serrata. J. Chem. Ecol. 29 : 961 976.
40. Hunt, J., Bussiere, L.F., Jennions, M.D. Brooks, R. 2004. What is genetic quality? Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 : 329 333.
41. Iwasa, Y. Pomiankowski, A. 1999. Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. J. Theor. Biol. 200 : 97 109.
42. Iwasa, Y., Pomiankowski, A. Nee, S. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The handicap principle. Evolution 45 : 1431 1442.
43. Johnson, S.A. Milner, M.J. 1987. The final stages of wing development in Drosophila melanogaster. Tissue Cell 19 : 505 513.
44. Johnstone, R.A. 1995. Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence. Biol. Rev. 70 : 1 65.
45. Kelemen, L. Moritz, C. 1999. Comparative phylogeography of a sibling pair of rainforest Drosophila species (Drosophila serrata and D. birchii). Evolution 53 : 1306 1311.
46. Kemp, D.J. 2008. Resource-mediated condition dependence in sexually dichromatic butterfly wing coloration. Evolution 62 : 2346 2358.
47. Kemp, D.J. Rutowski, R.L. 2007. Condition dependence, quantitative genetics, and the potential signal content of iridescent ultraviolet butterfly coloration. Evolution 61 : 168 183.
48. Kimura, K.I., Kodama, A., Hayasaka, Y. Ohta, T. 2004. Activation of the cAMP/PKA signaling pathway is required for post-ecdysial cell death in wing epidermal cells of Drosophila melanogaster. Development 131 : 1597 1606.
49. Kingsolver, J.G., Gomulkiewicz, R. Carter, P.A. 2001. Variation, selection and evolution of function-valued traits. Genetica 112 : 87 104.
50. Kingsolver, J.G., Shlichta, J.G., Ragland, G.J. Massie, K.R. 2006. Thermal reaction norms for caterpillar growth depend on diet. Evol. Ecol. Res. 8 : 703 715.
51. Kirkpatrick, M. Heckman, N. 1989. A quantitative genetic model for growth, shape, reaction norms, and other infinite-dimensional characters. J. Math. Biol. 27 : 429 450.
52. Kirkpatrick, M. Meyer, K. 2004. Direct estimation of genetic principal components: simplified analysis of complex phenotypes. Genetics 168 : 2295 2306.
53. Kokko, H. Heubel, K. 2008. Condition-dependence, genotype-by-environment interactions and the lek paradox. Genetica 132 : 209 216.
54. Lande, R. Arnold, S.J. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37 : 110 126.
55. Littell, R.C., Milliken, G.A., Stroup, W.W. Wolfinger, R.D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
56. Loyau, A., Saint Jalme, M., Cagniant, C. Sorci, G. 2005. Multiple sexual advertisements honestly reflect health status in peacocks (Pavo cristatus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 58 : 552 557.
57. Magiafoglou, A., Carew, M.E. Hoffmann, A.A. 2002. Shifting clinal patterns and microsatellite variation in Drosophila serrata populations: a comparison of populations near the southern border of the species range. J. Evol. Biol. 15 : 763 774.
58. Markow, T.A., Bustoz, D. Pitnick, S. 1996. Sexual selection and a secondary sexual character in two Drosophila species. Anim. Behav. 52 : 759 766.
59. McGuigan, K. Blows, M.W. 2007. The phenotypic and genetic covariance structure of Drosophilid wings. Evolution 61 : 902 911.
60. McGuigan, K., Van Homrigh, A. Blows, M.W. 2008a. Genetic analysis of female preference functions as function-valued traits. Am. Nat. 172 : 194 202.
61. McGuigan, K., Van Homrigh, A. Blows, M.W. 2008b. An evolutionary limit to male mating success. Evolution 62 : 1528 1537.
62. Meyer, K. Kirkpatrick, M. 2005. Up hill, down dale: quantitative genetics of curvaceous traits. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 360 : 1443 1455.
63. Mezey, J.G. Houle, D. 2005. The dimensionality of genetic variation for wing shape in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 59 : 1027 1038. (Pubitemid 40728433)
64. Mitchell-Olds, T. Shaw, R.G. 1987. Regression analysis of natural selection: statistical inference and biological interpretation. Evolution 41 : 1149 1161.
65. Panakova, D., Sprong, H., Marois, E., Thiele, C. Eaton, S. 2005. Lipoprotein particles are required for Hedgehog and Wingless signalling. Nature 435 : 58 65.
66. Parsons, P.A. 2007. Energetic efficiency under stress underlies positive genetic correlations between longevity and other fitness traits in natural populations. Biogerontology 8 : 55 61.
67. Partridge, L., Hoffmann, A. Jones, J.S. 1987. Male size and mating success in Drosophila melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura under field conditions. Anim. Behav. 35 : 468 476.
68. Peters, A., Delhey, K., Andersson, S., van Noordwijk, H. Forschler, M.I. 2008. Condition-dependence of multiple carotenoid-based plumage traits: an experimental study. Funct. Ecol. 22 : 831 839.
69. Petfield, D., Chenoweth, S.F., Rundle, H.D. Blows, M.W. 2005. Genetic variance in female condition predicts indirect genetic variance in male sexual display traits. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102 : 6045 6050.
70. Price, T., Schluter, D. Heckman, N.E. 1993. Sexual selection when the female directly benefits. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 48 : 187 211.
71. Punzalan, D., Rodd, F.H. Rowe, L. 2008. Sexual selection mediated by the thermoregulatory effects of male colour pattern in the ambush bug Phymata americana. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 275 : 483 492.
72. Robertson, F.W. 1987. Variation of body size within and between wild populations of Drosophila buzzatii. Genetica 72 : 111 125.
73. Rohlf, F.J. 1999. Shape statistics: Procrustes superimpositions and tangent spaces. J. Classif. 16 : 197 223.
74. Rohlf, F.J. 2005. tps Morphometric Software [www document]. URL http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph/. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York.
75. Rowe, L. Houle, D. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 263 : 1415 1421.
76. Rundle, H.D., Chenoweth, S.F., Doughty, P. Blows, M.W. 2005. Divergent selection and the evolution of signal traits and mating preferences. PLoS Biol. 3 : 1988 1995.
77. Santos, M., Eisses, K.T. Fontdevila, A. 1999. Competition and genotype-by-environment interaction in natural breeding substrates of Drosophila. Evolution 53 : 175 186.
78. Scheuber, H., Jacot, A. Brinkhof, M.W.G. 2003a. Condition dependence of a multicomponent sexual signal in the field cricket Gryllus campestris. Anim. Behav. 65 : 721 727.
79. Scheuber, H., Jacot, A. Brinkhof, M.W.G. 2003b. The effect of past condition on a multicomponent sexual signal. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 270 : 1779 1784.
80. Schiffer, M., Carew, M.E. Hoffmann, A.A. 2004. Molecular, morphological and behavioural data reveal the presence of a cryptic species in the widely studied Drosophila serrata species complex. J. Evol. Biol. 17 : 430 442.
81. Siitari, H., Alatalo, R.V., Halme, P., Buchanan, K.L. Kilpimaa, J. 2007. Color signals in the black grouse (Tetrao tetrix): signal properties and their condition dependency. Am. Nat. 169 : S81 S92.
82. Tomkins, J.L., Radwan, J., Kotiaho, J.S. Tregenza, T. 2004. Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 : 323 328.
83. Van Homrigh, A., Higgie, M., McGuigan, K. Blows, M.W. 2007. The depletion of genetic variance by sexual selection. Curr. Biol. 17 : 528 532.
84. Vermeulen, C.J., Van De Zande, L. Bijlsma, R. 2006. Developmental and age-specific effects of selection on divergent virgin life span on fat content and starvation resistance in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Insect Physiol. 52 : 910 919.
85. Wagner, W.E. 1998. Measuring female mating preferences. Anim. Behav. 55 : 1029 1042.
86. Warren, M., McGeoch, M.A., Nicolson, S.W. Chown, S.L. 2006. Body size patterns in Drosophila inhabiting a mesocosm: interactive effects of spatial variation in temperature and abundance. Oecologia 149 : 245 255.
87. Weber, K.E. 1992. How small are the smallest selectable domains of form. Genetics 130 : 345 353.
88. Wilson, A.J., Pemberton, J.M., Pilkington, J.G., Coltman, D.W., Mifsud, D.V., Clutton-Brock, T.H. Kruuk, L.E.B. 2006. Environmental coupling of selection and heritability limits evolution. PLoS Biol. 4 : 1270 1275.
89. Yassin, A., Abou-Youssef, A.Y., Bitner-Mathe, B., Capy, P. David, J.R. 2007. Developmental stress in wild-living Drosophilids inferred from biometry: metric and meristic traits react differently to heterogeneous environmental conditions. Ecol. Entomol. 32 : 698 706.
90. Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection: selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53 : 205 214.
91. Zahavi, A. 1977. Cost of honesty: further remarks on handicap principle. J. Theor. Biol. 67 : 603 605.