Both male and female sexual ornaments reflect offspring performance in a fish

Evolution

Volumn 64, Issue 11, 2010, Pages 3149-3157

  Kekäläinen, Jukka ^a,b   Huuskonen, Hannu ^b   Tuomaala, Maria ^c   Kortet, Raine ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

Author keywords

Breeding tubercles; Compatible genes; Genetic quality; Offspring fitness; Performance; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE RADIATION; AVOIDANCE REACTION; BODY SIZE; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT; FEMALE; FITNESS; FUNCTIONAL MORPHOLOGY; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MALE; ORNAMENTAL SPECIES; ORNAMENTATION; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; SALMONID; SEX-RELATED DIFFERENCE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNALING; SWIMMING;

ANIMAL; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ANIMAL COMMUNICATION; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; ENVIRONMENT; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; FISH; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PREDATION; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL; SWIMMING;

ANIMAL COMMUNICATION; ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; FISHES; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MALE; MODELS, GENETIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PREDATORY BEHAVIOR; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; SWIMMING;

COREGONUS LAVARETUS;

EID: 77958581861     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01084.x     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Alatalo, R. V., J. Kotiaho, J. Mappes, and S. Parri 1998. Mate choice for offspring performance: major benefits or minor costs? Proc. R. Soc. B 265:2297-2301.
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 colourful females. Proc. R. Soc. B 264:1579-1586.
5. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ
6. Andersson, S., J. Örnborg, and M. Andersson 1998. Ultraviolet sexual dimorphism and assortative mating in blue tits. Proc. R. Soc. B 265:445-450.
7. Baldauf, S. A., H. Kullmann, S. H. Schroth, T. Thünken, and T. C. M. Bakker 2009. You can't always get what you want: size assortative mating by mutual mate choice as a resolution of sexual conflict. BMC Evol. Biol. 9:129.
8. Bang, A., P. Grønkjær, C. Clemmesen, and H. Høie 2006. Parental effects on early life history traits of Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus L.) larvae. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 334:51-63.
9. Berglund, A., G. Rosenqvist, and P. Bernet 1997. Ornamentation predicts reproductive success in female pipefish. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 40:145-150.
10. Blaxter, J. H. S., and G. Hempel 1963. The influence of egg size on herring larvae (Clupea harengus L.). J. Cons. Perm. Int. Explor. Mer. 28:211-240.
11. Bonduriansky, R. 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol. Rev. 76:305-339.
12. Candolin, U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol. Rev. 78:575-595.
13. Chenoweth, S. F., P. Doughty, and H. Kokko 2006. Can non-directional male mating preferences facilitate honest female ornamentation? Ecol. Lett. 9:179-184.
14. Clutton-Brock, T. 2007. Sexual selection in males and females. Science 318:1882-1885.
15. Clutton-Brock, T. 2009. Sexual selection in females. Anim. Behav. 77:3-11.
16. Clutton-Brock, T. H., and A. C. J. Vincent 1991. Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females. Nature 351:58-60.
17. Colegrave, N., J. S. Kotiaho, and J. L. Tomkins 2002. Mate choice or polyandry: reconciling genetic compatibility and good genes sexual selection. Evol. Ecol. Res. 4:911-917.
18. Cornwallis, C. K., and E. A. O'Connor 2009. Sperm: seminal fluid interactions and the adjustment of sperm quality in relation to female attractiveness. Proc. R. Soc. B 276:3467-3475.
19. Domb, L. G., and M. Pagel 2001. Sexual swellings advertise female quality in wild baboons. Nature 410:204-206.
20. Doutrelant, C., A. Grégoire, N. Grnac, D. Gomez, M. M. Lambrechts, and P. Perret 2008. Female coloration indicates female reproductive capacity in blue tits. J. Evol. Biol. 21:226-233.
21. Eilertsen, E. M., B.-J. Bårdsen, S. Liljedal, G. Rudolfsen, and I. Folstad 2009. Experimental evidence for paternal effects on offspring growth rate in Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus). Proc. R. Soc. B 276:129-136.
22. Einum, S., and I. A. Fleming 1999. Maternal effects of egg size in brown trout (Salmo trutta): norms of reaction to environmental quality. Proc. R. Soc. B 266:2095-2100.
23. Elliot, J. M. 1989. Mechanisms responsible for population regulation in young migratory trout, Salmo trutta. I. The critical time for survival. J. Anim. Ecol. 58:987-1001.
24. Fitzpatrick, S., A. Berglund, and G. Rosenqvist 1995. Ornaments or offspring: costs to reproductive success restrict sexual selection processes. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 55:251-260.
25. Fuiman, L. A., and A. E. Magurran 1994. Development of predator defences in fishes. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 4:145-183.
26. Fuiman, L. A., and J. H. Cowan, Jr. 2003. Behavior and recruitment success in fish larvae: repeatability and covariation of survival skills. Ecology 84:53-67.
27. Funk, D. H., and D. W. Tallamy 2000. Courtship role reversal and deceptive signals in the long-tailed dance fly, Rhamphomyia longicauda. Anim. Behav. 59:411-421.
28. Hill, G. E. 1993. Male mate choice and the evolution of female plumage coloration in the house finch. Evolution 47:1515-1525.
29. Huuskonen, H., H. Haakana, and J. Kekäläinen 2009. Offspring performance is linked to parental identity and male breeding ornamentation in whitefish. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 98:532-539.
30. Jacob A., G. Evanno, E. Renai, R. Sermier, and C. Wedekind 2009. Male body size and breeding tubercles are both linked to intrasexual dominance and reproductive success in the minnow. Anim. Behav. 77:823-829.
31. Jawor, J. M., S. U. Linville, S. M. Beall, and R. Breitwisch 2003. Assortative mating by multiple ornaments in northern cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis). Behav. Ecol. 14:515-520.
32. Johnsen, A., V. Andersen, C. Sunding, and J. T. Lifjeld 2000. Female bluethroats enhance offspring immunocompetence through extra-pair copulations. Nature 406:296-299.
33. Johnstone, R. A., J. D. Reynolds, and J. C. Deutsch 1996. Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 50:1382-1391.
34. Johnstone, R. A. 1997. The tactics of mutual mate choice and competitive search. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 40:51-59.
35. Jones, I. L., and F. M. Hunter 1993. Mutual sexual selection in a monogamous seabird. Nature 362:238-239.
36. Jones, I. L., and F. M. Hunter 1999. Experimental evidence for mutual inter- and intrasexual selection favouring a crested auklet ornament. Anim. Behav. 57:521-528.
37. Kamler, E. 2008. Resource allocation in yolk-feeding fish. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 18:143-200.
38. Kekäläinen, J., G. Rudolfsen, M. Janhunen, L. Figenschou, N. Peuhkuri, N. Tamper, and R. Kortet 2010. Genetic and potential non-genetic benefits increase offspring fitness of polyandrous females in non-resource based mating system. BMC Evol. Biol. 10:20.
39. Komdeur, J, M. Oorebeek, T. Van Overveld, and I. C. Cuthill 2005. Mutual ornamentation, age, and reproductive performance in the European starling. Behav. Ecol. 16:805-817.
40. Kortet, R., A. Vainikka, M. J. Rantala, I. Jokinen, and J. Taskinen 2003. Sexual ornamentation, androgens and papillomatosis in male roach (Rutilus rutilus). Evol. Ecol. Res. 5:411-419.
41. Kortet, R., J. Taskinen, A. Vainikka, and H. Ylönen 2004a. Breeding tubercles, papillomatosis and dominance behaviour of male roach (Rutilus rutilus) during the spawning period. Ethology 110:591-601.
42. Kortet, R., A. Vainikka, M. J. Rantala, J. Myntti, and J. Taskinen 2004b. In vitro embryo survival and early viability of larvae in relation to male sexual ornaments and parasite resistance in roach, Rutilus rutilus L. J. Evol. Biol. 17:1337-1344.
43. Kraaijeveld, K., F. J. L. Kraaijeveld-Smit, and J. Komdeur 2007. The evolution of mutual ornamentation. Anim. Behav. 74:657-677.
44. Kraak, S. B. M., and T. C. M. Bakker 1998. Mutual mate choice in sticklebacks: attractive males choose big females, which lay big eggs. Anim. Behav. 56:859-866.
45. Lande, R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34:292-305.
46. LeBas, N. R., L. R. Hockham, and M. G. Ritchie 2003. Nonlinear and correlational sexual selection on 'honest' female ornamentation. Proc. R. Soc. B 270:2159-2165.
47. Lihoreau, M., C. Zimmer, and C. Rivault 2008. Mutual mate choice: when it pays both sexes to avoid inbreeding. PLoS ONE 3:e3365.
48. Lynch, M., and B. Walsh 1998. Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, MA
49. MacDougall, A. K., and R. Montgomerie 2003. Assortative mating by carotenoid-based plumage colour: a quality indicator in American goldfinches, Carduelis tristis. Naturwissenschaften 90:464-467.
50. Maynard Smith, J., and D. Harper 2003. Animal signals. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K
51. Mays, H. L., Jr., and G. E. Hill 2004. Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:554-559.
52. McLain, D. K., and R. D. Boromisa 1987. Male choice, fighting ability, assortative mating and the intensity of sexual selection in the milkweed longhorn beetle, Tetraopes tetraophthalmus (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 20:239-246.
53. Moran, M. D. 2003. Arguments for rejecting the sequential Bonferroni in ecological studies. Oikos 100:403-405.
54. Møller, A. P., and R. V. Alatalo 1999. Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. B 266:85-91.
55. Neff, B. D., and T. E. Pitcher 2005. Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Mol. Ecol. 14:19-38.
56. Quinn, G. P., and M. J. Keough 2002. Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York
57. Rice, W. R., and S. D. Gaines 1994. 'Heads I win, tails you lose': testing directional alternative hypotheses in ecological and evolutionary research. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9:235-237.
58. Roberts, S. C., and L. M. Gosling 2003. Genetic similarity and quality interact in mate choice decisions by female mice. Nat. Genet. 35:103-106.
59. Roulin, A., T. W. Jungi, H. Pfister, and C. Dijkstra 2000. Female barn owls (Tyto alba) advertise good genes. Proc. R. Soc. B 267:937-941.
60. Roulin, A., C. Riols, C. Dijkstra, and A.-L. Ducrest 2001. Female plumage spottiness signals parasite resistance in the barn owl (Tyto alba). Behav. Ecol. 12:103-110.
61. Rowland, W. J. 1982. Mate choice by male sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Anim. Behav. 30:1093-1098.
62. Rudolfsen, G., R. Müller, D. Urbach, and C. Wedekind 2008. Predicting the mating system from phenotypic correlations between life-history and sperm quality traits in the Alpine whitefish Coregonus zugensis. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62:561-567.
63. Rudolfsen, G., L. Figenschou, I. Folstad, J. T. Nordeide, and E. Søreng 2005. Potential fitness benefits from mate selection in the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). J. Evol. Biol. 18:172-179.
64. Shaw, R. G., and D. L. Byers 1998. Genetics of maternal and paternal effects. Pp. 97-111 in T.A. Mousseau, and C. W. Fox, eds. Maternal effects as adaptations. Oxford Univ. Press, New York
65. Sheldon, B. C., H. Arponen, A. Laurila, P.-A. Crochet, and J. Merilä 2003. Sire coloration influences offspring survival under predation risk in the moorfrog. J. Evol. Biol. 16:1288-1295.
66. Sheldon, B. C., J. Merilä, A. Qvarnström, L. Gustafsson, and H. Ellegren 1997. Paternal genetic contribution to offspring condition predicted by size of male secondary sexual character. Proc. R. Soc. B 264:297-302.
67. Siefferman, L., and G. E. Hill 2005. Evidence for sexual selection on structural plumage coloration in female eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis). Evolution 59:1819-1828.
68. Simmons, L. W. 2005. The evolution of polyandry: sperm competition, sperm selection, and offspring viability. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36:125-146.
69. Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf 1995. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. W. H. Freeman, New York
70. Tregenza, T., and N. Wedell 2000. Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol. Ecol. 9:1013-1027.
71. Tregenza, T., L. W. Simmons, N. Wedell, and M. Zuk 2006. Female preference for male courtship song and its role as a signal of immune function and condition. Anim. Behav. 72:809-818.
72. 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. Aldine, Chicago
73. Watson, N. L., and Simmons, L. W. 2010a. Mate choice in the dung beetle Onthophagus Sagittarius: are female horns ornaments? Behav. Ecol. 21:424-430.
74. Watson, N. L., and Simmons, L. W. 2010b. Reproductive competition promotes the evolution of female weaponry. Proc. R. Soc B 277:2035-2040.
75. Wedekind, C. 1992. Detailed information about parasites revealed by sexual ornamentation. Proc. R. Soc. B 247:169-174.
76. Wedekind, C., R. Müller, and H. Spicher 2001. Potential genetic benefits of mate selection in whitefish. J. Evol. Biol. 14:980-986.
77. Wedekind, C., G. Evanno, D. Urbach, A. Jacob, and R. Müller 2008. 'Good-genes' and 'compatible-genes' effects in an Alpine whitefish and the information content of breeding tubercles over the course of the spawning season. Genetica 132:199-208.
78. Weiss, S. L., E. A. Kennedy, and J. A. Bernhard 2009. Female-specific ornamentation predicts offspring quality in the striped plateau lizard, Sceloporus virgatus. Behav. Ecol. 20:1063-1071.
79. 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.
80. Wiley, M. L., and B. B. Collette 1970. Breeding tubercles and contact organs in fishes: their occurrence, structure, and significance. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 143:143-216.
81. Wong, B. B. M., M. D. Jennions, and J. S. Keogh 2004. Sequential male mate choice in a fish, the Pacific blue-eye Pseudomugil signifer. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 56:253-256.
82. Zuk, M., R. Thornhill, J. D. Ligon, K. Johnson, S. Austad, S. H. Ligon, N. W. Thornhill, and C. Costin 1990. The role of male ornaments and courtship behavior in female mate choice of red jungle fowl. Am. Nat. 136:459-473.
83. Zeh, J. A., and D. W. Zeh 1996. The evolution of polyandry I: intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Proc. R. Soc. B 263:1711-1717.