On the evolution of heightened condition dependence of male sexual displays

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 685-692

  Gosden, T P ^a   Chenoweth, S F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Cuticular hydrocarbons; Drosophila serrata; Male mating success; Random coefficient

Indexed keywords

HYDROCARBON;

FITNESS; FLY; GENETIC VARIATION; MALE; MATING SUCCESS; SEXUAL SELECTION; YEAST;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; DROSOPHILA; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; INTEGUMENT; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; REPRODUCTION; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; DROSOPHILA; FEMALE; GENETIC VARIATION; HYDROCARBONS; INTEGUMENTARY SYSTEM; MALE; REPRODUCTION; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

DROSOPHILA SERRATA;

EID: 79951762492     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02205.x     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Aitchison, J. 1986. The Statistical Analysis of Compositional Data. Chapman & Hall, London.
2. Andersson, M. 1982. Sexual selection, natural selection and quality advertisement. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 17: 375-393.
3. Andersson, M. 1986. Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution 40: 804-816.
4. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ.
5. Begon, M. & Shorrocks, B. 1978. The feeding and breeding sites of Drosophila obscura Fallén and D. subobscura Collin. J. Nat. Hist. 12: 137-151.
6. 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.
7. 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: 329-340.
8. Bonduriansky, R. 2007. The evolution of condition-dependent sexual dimorphism. Am. Nat. 169: 9-19.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Chenoweth, S.F. & Blows, M.W. 2003. Signal trait sexual dimorphism and mutual sexual selection in Drosophila serrata. Evolution 57: 2326-2334.
12. Chenoweth, S.F. & Blows, M.W. 2005. Contrasting mutual sexual selection on homologous signal traits in Drosophila serrata. Am Nat. 165: 281-289.
13. 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.
14. Cotton, S., Fowler, K. & Pomiankowski, A. 2004a. Condition dependence of sexual ornament size and variation in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni (Diptera: Diopsidae). Evolution 58: 1038-1046.
15. Cotton, S., Fowler, K. & Pomiankowski, A. 2004b. Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 271: 771-783.
16. David, P., Bjorksten, T., Fowler, K. & Pomiankowski, A. 2000. Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyes flies. Nature 406: 186-188.
17. Delcourt, M., Blows, M.W. & Rundle, H.D. 2010. Quantitative genetics of female mate preferences in an ancestral and a novel environment. Evolution 64: 2758-2766.
18. Droney, D.C. 1996. Environmental influences on male courtship and implications for female choice in a lekking Hawaiian Drosophila. Anim. Behav. 51: 821-830.
19. 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.
20. Fricke, C., Bretman, A. & Chapman, T. 2008. Adult male nutrition and reproductive success in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 62: 3170-3177.
21. Hine, E., Lachish, S., Higgie, M. & Blows, M.W. 2002. Positive genetic correlation between female preference and offspring fitness. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 269: 2215-2219.
22. 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.
23. Iwasa, Y. & Pomiankowski, A. 1995. Continual change in mate preferences. Nature 377: 420-422.
24. Johnstone, R.A. 1995. Sexual selection, honest advertisment and the handicap principle - reviewing the evidence. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 70: 1-65.
25. Johnstone, R.A., Rands, S.A. & Evans, M.R. 2009. Sexual selection and condition-dependence. J. Evol. Biol. 22: 2387-2394.
26. Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M.J. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350: 33-38.
27. Kokko, H., Brooks, R., Jennions, M.D. & Morley, J. 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 270: 653-664.
28. Kotiaho, J.S., Simmons, L.W. & Tomkins, J.L. 2001. Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410: 684-686.
29. Lande, R. & Arnold, S.J. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37: 1210-1226.
30. Littell, R.C., Milliken, G.A., Stroup, W.W., Wolfinger, R.D. & Schabenberger, O. 2006. SAS for Mixed Models. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
31. Maklakov, A.A., Simpson, S.J., Zajitschek, F., Hall, M.D., Dessmann, J., Clissold, F. et al. 2008. Sex-specific fitness effects of nutrient intake on reproduction and lifespan. Curr. Biol. 18: 1062-1066.
32. McGuigan, K. 2009. Condition dependence varies with mating success in male Drosophila bunnanda. J. Evol. Biol. 22: 1813-1825.
33. Nelson, D.R. 1993. Methyl-branched lipids in insects. In: Insect Lipids: Chemistry, Biochemistry and Biology (D.W. Stanley-Samuelson & D.R. Nelson, eds), pp. 271-315. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE.
34. Nur, N. & Hasson, O. 1984. Phenotypic plasticity and the handicap principle. J. Theor. Biol. 110: 275-297.
35. Punzalan, D., Cooray, M., Rodd, F.H. & Rowe, L. 2008. Condition dependence of sexually dimorphic colouration and longevity in the ambush bug Phymata americana. J. Evol. Biol. 21: 1297-1306.
36. Rode, N.O. & Morrow, E.H. 2009. An examination of genetic variation and selection on condition in Drosophila melanogaster males. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 131: 167-177.
37. Rowe, L. & Houle, D. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 263: 1415-1421.
38. Sall, J., Creighton, L. & Lehman, A. 2005. A Guide to Statistics and Data Analysis Using JMP and JMP IN Software, 3rd edn. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
39. Strang, G. 1998. Introduction to Linear Algebra, 2nd edn. Wellesley-Cambridge Press, Wellesley, MA.
40. Taylor, P.D. & Williams, G.C. 1982. The lek paradox is not resolved. Theor. Popul. Biol. 22: 392-409.
41. Tibbetts, E.A. 2010. The condition dependence and heritability of signaling and nonsignaling color traits in paper wasps. Am. Nat. 175: 495-503.
42. Tomkins, J.L., Radwan, J., Kotiaho, J.S. & Tregenza, T. 2004. Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 323-328.
43. Wilkinson, G.S. & Taper, M. 1999. Evolution of genetic variation for condition-dependent traits in stalk-eyed flies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 266: 1685-1690.