Good genes and sexual selection in dung beetles (Onthophagus taurus): Genetic variance in egg-to-adult and adult viability

PLoS ONE

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2011, Pages

  Garcia Gonzalez, Francisco ^a   Simmons, Leigh W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEETLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COPULATION; FEMALE; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENOTYPE; MALE; MATE CHOICE; NONHUMAN; PHENOTYPE; PROGENY; SEXUAL MATURITY; SEXUAL SELECTION; SURVIVAL RATE; AGING; ANIMAL; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; GENETICS; LIFE CYCLE; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

COLEOPTERA; ONTHOPHAGUS TAURUS;

AGING; ANIMALS; BEETLES; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; GENETIC VARIATION; LIFE CYCLE STAGES; MALE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

EID: 79251592010     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016233     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Andersson M (1994) Sexual Selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 599 p.
2. Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75: 21-64.
3. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A, Nee S (1991) The evolution of costly mate preferences II. The 'Handicap' principle. Evolution 45: 1431-1422.
4. Houle D, Kondrashov AS (2002) Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proc R Soc Lond B 269: 97-104.
5. Charlesworth B (1987) The heritability of fitness. In: Bradbury JW, Andersson MB, eds. Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives. New York: John Wiley & Sons Limited. pp 21-40.
6. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Essex: Longman.
7. Burt A (1995) Perspective: The Evolution of Fitness. Evolution 49: 1-8.
8. Houle D (1992) Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130: 195-204.
9. Møller AP, Alatalo RV (1999) Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc R Soc Lond B 266: 85-91.
10. Qvarnstrom A, Brommer JE, Gustafsson L (2006) Testing the genetics underlying the co-evolution of mate choice and ornament in the wild. Nature 441: 84-86.
11. Cameron E, Day T, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict and indirect benefits. J Evol Biol 16: 1055-1060.
12. Simmons LW, House CM, Hunt J, García-González F (2009) Evolutionary response to sexual selection in male genital morphology. Curr Biol 19: 1442-1446.
13. Kotiaho JS, Simmons LW, Tomkins JL (2001) Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410: 684-686.
14. Simmons LW, Kotiaho JS (2007) Quantitative genetic correlation between trait and preference supports a sexually selected sperm process. P Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 16604-16608.
15. Simmons L, Emlen D (2006) Evolutionary trade-off between weapons and testes. P Natl Acad Sci USA 103: 16346-16351.
16. García-González F, Simmons LW (2007) Shorter sperm confer higher competitive fertilization success. Evolution 61: 816-824.
17. Simmons LW (2011) Sexual selection after mating: the evolutionary consequences of sperm competition and cryptic female choice in onthophagines. In: Simmons LW, Ridsdill-Smith J, eds. Ecology and Evolution of Dung Beetles. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. pp 66-86.
18. Kotiaho JS, Simmons LW, Hunt J, Tomkins JL (2003) Males influence maternal effects that promote sexual selection: A quantitative genetic experiment with dung beetles Onthophagus taurus. Am Nat 161: 852-859.
19. Simmons LW, Kotiaho JS (2002) Evolution of ejaculates: patterns of phenotypic and genotypic variation and condition dependence in sperm competition traits. Evolution 56: 1622-1631.
20. Roff DA (1997) Evolutionary Quantitative Genetics. New York: Chapman and Hall.
21. Simmons LW, García-González F (2008) Evolutionary reduction in testes size and competitive fertilization success in response to the experimental removal of sexual selection in dung beetles. Evolution 62: 2580-2591.
22. Hanski I, Cambefort Y, eds (1991) Dung Beetle Ecology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
23. García-González F (2004) Infertile matings and sperm competition: The effect of "Nonsperm Representation" on intraspecific variation in sperm precedence patterns. Am Nat 164: 457-472.
24. Roff DA (2006) Introduction to Computer-Intensive Methods of Data Analysis in Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. StatSoft I (2007) STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 8.0. www.statsoft.com.
26. Lynch M, Walsh B (1998) Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
27. Roff DA (2007) Comparing sire and dam estimates of heritability: jackknife and likelihood approaches. Heredity 100: 32-38.
28. Hunt J, Simmons LW (2002) The genetics of maternal care: direct and indirect genetic effects on phenotype in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus. P Natl Acad Sci USA 99: 6828-6832.
29. Hunt J, Simmons LW (2000) Maternal and paternal effects on offspring phenotype in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus. Evolution 54: 936-941.
30. Hood GM (2009) PopTools version 3.1.1. Available on the internet. URL http://www.cse.csiro.au/poptools.
31. Tomkins JL, Radwan J, Kotiaho JS, Tregenza T (2004) Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol Evol 19: 323-328.
32. Yasui Y (1997) A "good sperm" model can explain the evolution of costly multiple mating by females. Am Nat 149: 573-584.
33. Hunt J, Bussiere LF, Jennions MD, Brooks R (2004) What is genetic quality? Trends Ecol Evol 19: 329-333.
34. Bilde T, Friberg U, Maklakov AA, Fry JD, Arnqvist G (2008) The genetic architecture of fitness in a seed beetle: assessing the potential for indirect genetic benefits of female choice. BMC Evol Biol 8: 295.
35. Chippindale AK, Gibson JR, Rice WR (2001) Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. P Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 1671-1675.
36. Pischedda A, Chippindale AK (2006) Intralocus sexual conflict diminishes the benefits of sexual selection. PLoS Biol 4: e356.
37. Innocenti P, Morrow EH (2010) The sexually antagonistic genes of Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Biol 8: e1000335.
38. Foerster K, Coulson T, Sheldon BC, Pemberton JM, Clutton-Brock TH, et al. (2007) Sexually antagonistic genetic variation for fitness in red deer. Nature 447: 1107-U1109.
39. Fedorka KM, Mousseau TA (2004) Female mating bias results in conflicting sexspecific offspring fitness. Nature 429: 65-67.
40. Bilde T, Foged A, Schilling N, Arnqvist G (2009) Postmating sexual selection favors males that sire offspring with low fitness. Science 324: 1705-1706.
41. Mousseau TA, Fox CW, eds (1998) Maternal effects as adaptations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.