Testing the fisherian mechanism: Examining the genetic correlation between male song and female response in waxmoths

Evolutionary Ecology

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 307-329

  Zhou, Yihong ^a,b   Kelly, John K ^a   Greenfield, Michael D ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE TOURS   (France)

Author keywords

Acoustic communication; Mate choice; Runaway selection; Sexual selection; Signal evolution

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGICAL MODELING; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS; FEMALE; GENE EXPRESSION; GENETIC ANALYSIS; HERITABILITY; MALE; MATE ATTRACTION; MATE CHOICE; MOTH; PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL SELECTION; SONG; THRESHOLD;

ACHROIA GRISELLA; LEPIDOPTERA; PYRALIDAE;

EID: 79951948498     PISSN: 02697653     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10682-010-9421-2     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Allison JD, Roff DA, Cardé RT (2008) Genetic independence of female signal form and male receiver design in the almond moth, Cadra cautella. J Evol Biol 21: 1666-1672.
2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
3. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
4. Bakker TCM (1993) Positive genetic correlation between female preference and preferred male ornament in sticklebacks. Nature 363: 255-257.
5. Bakker TCM (1999) The study of intersexual selection using quantitative genetics. Behaviour 136: 1237-1266.
6. Bakker TCM, Pomiankowski A (1995) The genetic basis of female mate preferences. J Evol Biol 8: 129-171.
7. Blows MW (1999) Evolution of the genetic covariance between male and female components of mate recognition: an experimental test. Proc R Soc Lond B 266: 2169-2174.
8. Brandt LSE, Greenfield MD (2004) Condition-dependent traits and the capture of genetic variance in male advertisement song. J Evol Biol 17: 821-828.
9. Brandt LSE, Ludvar BC, Greenfield MD (2005) Co-occurrence of acceptance thresholds and preference functions in female choice: mate discrimination in the lesser wax moth. Ethology 111: 609-625.
10. Breden F, Hornaday K (1994) Test of indirect models of selection in the Trinidad guppy. Heredity 73: 291-297.
11. Collins RD, Jang Y, Reinhold K, Greenfield MD (1999) Quantitative genetics of ultrasonic advertisement signaling in the lesser waxmoth Achroia grisella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Heredity 83: 644-651.
12. Danielson-François A, Kelly JK, Greenfield MD (2006) Genotype x environment interaction for male attractiveness in an acoustic moth: evidence for plasticity and canalization. J Evol Biol 19: 532-542.
13. Danielson-François A, Zhou Y, Greenfield MD (2009) Indirect genetic effects and the lek paradox: inter-genotypic competition may strengthen genotype × environment interactions and conserve genetic variance. Genetica 136: 27-36.
14. Fisher RA (1958) The genetical theory of natural selection, 2nd edn. Dover, New York.
15. Fry JD (1992) The mixed-model analysis of variance applied to quantitative genetics: biological meaning of the parameters. Evolution 46: 540-550.
16. Greenfield MD (2002) Signalers and receivers: mechanisms and evolution of arthropod communication. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
17. Greenfield MD, Baker M (2003) Bat avoidance in non-aerial insects: the silence response of signaling males in an acoustic moth. Ethology 109: 427-442.
18. Greenfield MD, Coffelt JA (1983) Reproductive behaviour of the lesser wax moth, Achroia grisella (Pyralidae: Galleriinae): signalling, pair formation, male interactions, and mate guarding. Behaviour 84: 287-315.
19. Greenfield MD, Medlock C (2007) Temperature coupling as an emergent property: parallel thermal effects on male song and female response do not contribute to species recognition in an acoustic moth. Evolution 61: 1590-1599.
20. Greenfield MD, Rodriguez RL (2004) Genotype × environment interaction and the reliability of mating signals. Anim Behav 68: 1461-1468.
21. Greenfield MD, Weber T (2000) Evolution of ultrasonic signalling in wax moths: discrimination of ultrasonic mating calls from bat echolocation signals and the exploitation of an anti-predator receiver bias by sexual advertisement. Ethol Ecol Evol 12: 259-279.
22. Greig EI, Greenfield MD (2004) Sexual selection and predator avoidance in an acoustic moth: discriminating females take fewer risks. Behaviour 141: 799-815.
23. Hawthorne DJ, Via S (2001) Genetic linkage of ecological specialization and reproductive isolation in pea aphids. Nature 412: 904-907.
24. Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially-rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6: 65-70.
25. Houde AE (1994) Effect of artificial selection on male color patterns on mating preference of female guppies. Proc R Soc Lond B 256: 125-130.
26. Jang Y, Greenfield MD (1996) Ultrasonic communication and sexual selection in wax moths: female choice based on energy and asynchrony of male signals. Anim Behav 51: 1095-1106.
27. Jang Y, Greenfield MD (1998) Absolute versus relative measurements of sexual selection: assessing the contributions of ultrasonic signal characters to mate attraction in lesser wax moths, Achroia grisella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Evolution 52: 1383-1393.
28. Jang Y, Greenfield MD (2000) Quantitative genetics of female choice in an ultrasonic pyralid moth, Achroia grisella: variation and evolvability of preference along multiple dimensions of the male advertisement signal. Heredity 84: 73-80.
29. Jang Y, Collins RD, Greenfield MD (1997) Variation and repeatability of ultrasonic sexual advertisement signals in Achroia grisella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J Insect Behav 10: 87-98.
30. Kelly JK (2003) Deleterious mutations and the genetic variance of male fitness components in Mimulus guttatus. Genetics 164: 1071-1085.
31. Kelly JK, Arathi HS (2003) Inbreeding and the genetic variance in floral traits of Mimulus guttatus. Heredity 90: 77-83.
32. Kirkpatrick M (1982) Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36: 1-12.
33. Kirkpatrick M, Hall DW (2004) Sexual selection and sex linkage. Evolution 58: 683-691.
34. Künike G (1930) Zur biologie der kleinen wachsmotte, Achroia grisella Fabr. Z Angew Entomol 16: 304-356.
35. Lande R (1981) Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic characters. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78: 3721-3725.
36. Löfstedt C, Hansson BS, Roelofs W, Bengtsson BO (1989) No linkage between genes controlling female pheromone production and male pheromone response in the European cornborer, Ostrinia nubilalis Hubner (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Genetics 123: 553-556.
37. Lynch M, Walsh B (1998) Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.
38. Milum VG (1940) Moth pests of honey bee combs. Glean Bee Cult 68: 424-428.
39. Morris MR, Wagner WE, Ryan MJ (1996) A negative correlation between trait and mate preference in Xiphophorus pygmaeus. Anim Behav 52: 1193-1203.
40. Muhlhauser C, Blanckenhorn WU (2004) The quantitative genetics of sexual selection in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Behaviour 141: 327-341.
41. Qvarnström 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.
42. Reeve HK, Pfennig DW (2003) Genetic biases for showy males: are some genetic systems especially conducive to sexual selection? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 1089-1094.
43. Ritchie MG, Saarikettu M, Hoikkala A (2005) Variation, but no covariance, in female preference functions and male song in a natural population of Drosophila montana. Anim Behav 70: 849-854.
44. Rodriguez RL, Greenfield MD (2003) Genetic variance and phenotypic plasticity in a component of female mate choice in an ultrasonic moth. Evolution 57: 1304-1313.
45. Rodriguez RL, Greenfield MD (2004) Behavioral context regulates dual function of hearing in ultrasonic moths: bat avoidance and pair formation. Physiol Entomol 29: 159-168.
46. Roff DA (1997) Evolutionary quantitative genetics. Chapman & Hall, New York.
47. Sæther SA, Sætre GP, Borge T, Wiley C, Svedin N, Andersson G, Veen T, Haavie J, Servedio MR, Bureš S, Král M, Hjernquist MB, Gustafsson L, Träff J, Qvarnström A (2007) Sex chromosome-linked species recognition and evolution of reproductive isolation in flycatchers. Science 318: 95-97.
48. Schnitzler HU, Kalko EKV (2001) Echolocation by insect-eating bats. Bioscience 51: 557-569.
49. Searle SR, Case A, McCulloch CE (1992) Variance components. Wiley-Interscience, New York.
50. Sgrò CM, Hoffmann AA (2004) Genetic correlations, tradeoffs and environmental variation. Heredity 93: 241-248.
51. Shaw RG (1987) Maximum likelihood approaches applied to quantitative genetics of natural populations. Evolution 41: 812-826.
52. Simmons LW, Kotiaho JS (2007) Quantitative genetic correlation between trait and preference supports a sexually selected sperm process. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 16604-16608.
53. Spangler HG, Greenfield MD, Takessian A (1984) Ultrasonic mate calling in the lesser wax moth. Physiol Entomol 9: 87-95.
54. Via S (1984) The quantitative genetics of polyphagy in an insect herbivore. I. Genotype-environment interaction in larval performance on different host plant species. Evolution 38: 881-895.
55. Wilkinson GS, Reillo PR (1994) Female choice response to artificial selection on an exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proc R Soc Lond B 253: 1-6.
56. Zhou Y, Kuster HK, Pettis JS, Danka RG, Gleason JM, Greenfield MD (2008) Reaction norm variants for male calling song in populations of Achroia grisella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Evolution 62: 1317-1334.