Condition dependence of a multicomponent sexual display trait in drosophila serrata

American Naturalist

Volumn 177, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 812-823

  Delcourt, Matthieu ^a   Rundle, Howard D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Condition dependence; Cuticular hydrocarbons; Drosophila serrata; Genic capture; Sexual display; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

HYDROCARBON; PHEROMONE;

BODY CONDITION; CUTICLE; DISPLAY BEHAVIOR; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; FITNESS; FLY; HYDROCARBON; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; MATE CHOICE; PHEROMONE; REPRODUCTIVE COST; SEX ALLOCATION; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; DROSOPHILA; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETICS; HISTOLOGY; MALE; METABOLISM; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALS; DROSOPHILA; FEMALE; HYDROCARBONS; MALE; PHEROMONES; SELECTION, GENETIC; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

DROSOPHILA SERRATA;

EID: 79957576100     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/659949     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Agrawal, A. F. 2001. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature 411:692-695.
2. Andersson, M. 1982. Sexual selection, natural selection and quality advertisement. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 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. Atchison, J. 1986. The statistical analysis of compositional data. Chapman & Hall, London.
6. Blows, M. W. 2007. A tale of two matrices: multivariate approaches in evolutionary biology. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 20:1-8.
7. Blows, M. W., and R. A. Allan. 1998. Levels of mate recognition within and between two Drosophila species and their hybrids. American Naturalist 152:826-837.
8. Blows, M., and B. Walsh. 2009. Spherical cows grazing in flatland: constraints to selection and adaptation. Pages 83-101 in J. van der Werf, H.-U. Graser, R. Frankham, and C. Gondro, eds. Adaptation and fitness in animal populations: evolutionary and breeding perspectives on genetic resource management. Springer, Berlin.
9. Blows, M. W., S. F. Chenoweth, and E. Hine. 2004. Orientation of the genetic variance-covariance matrix and the fitness surface for multiple male sexually selected traits. American Naturalist 163: 329-340.
10. Bonduriansky, R. 2007a. The evolution of condition-dependent sexual dimorphism. American Naturalist 169:9-19.
11. Bonduriansky, R. 2007b. The genetic architecture of sexual dimorphism: the potential roles of genomic imprinting and condition dependence. Pages 176-184 in D. J. Fairbairn, W. U. Blanckenhorn, and T. Szekely, eds. Sex, size and gender roles: evolutionary studies of sexual size dimorphism. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
12. Bonduriansky, R., and L. Rowe. 2005. Sexual selection, genetic architecture, and the condition dependence of body shape in the sexually dimorphic fly Prochyliza xanthostoma (Piophilidae). Evolution 59:138-151.
13. Brooks, R., and J. A. Endler. 2001. Direct and indirect sexual selection and quantitative genetics of male traits in guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Evolution 55:1002-1015.
14. Candolin, U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biological Reviews 78:575-595.
15. Chenoweth, S. F., and M. W. Blows. 2003. Signal trait sexual dimorphism and mutual sexual selection in Drosophila serrata. Evolution 57:2326-2334.
16. Chenoweth, S. F., and M. W. Blows. 2005. Contrasting mutual sexual selection on homologous signal traits in Drosophila serrata. American Naturalist 165:281-289.
17. Chenoweth, S. F., and M. W. Blows. 2006. Dissecting the complex genetic basis of mate choice. Nature Reviews Genetics 7:681-692.
18. Cotton, S., K. Fowler, and A. Pomiankowski. 2004. Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 271:771-783.
19. Cox, R. M., and R. Calsbeek. 2010. Sex-specific selection and intraspecific variation in sexual size dimorphism. Evolution 64:798-809.
20. David, P., T. Bjorksten, K. Fowler, and A. Pomiankowski. 2000. Condition- dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyed flies. Nature 406:186-188.
21. Delcourt, M., M. W. Blows, and H. D. Rundle. 2009. Sexually antagonistic genetic variance for fitness in an ancestral and a novel environment. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276:2009-2014.
22. Delcourt, M., M. W. Blows, and H. D. Rundle. 2010. Quantitative genetics of female mate preferences in an ancestral and a novel environment. Evolution 64:2758-2766.
23. Getty, T. 1998. Handicap signalling: when fecundity and viability do not add up. Animal Behaviour 56:127-130.
24. Getty, T. 2006. Sexually selected signals are not similar to sports handicaps. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21:83-88.
25. Gosden, T. P., and S. F. Chenoweth. 2011. On the evolution of heightened condition dependence of male sexual displays. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 24:685-692.
26. Grafen, A. 1990a. Biological signals as handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology 144:517-546.
27. Grafen, A. 1990b. Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. Journal of Theoretical Biology 144:473-516.
28. Hall, M., A. K. Lindholm, and R. Brooks. 2004. Direct selection on male attractiveness and female preference fails to produce a response. BMC Evolutionary Biology 4:1, doi:10.1186/1471-2148-4-1.
29. Higgie, M., and M. W. Blows. 2007. Are traits that experience reinforcement also under sexual selection? American Naturalist 170: 409-420.
30. Higgie, M., and M. W. Blows. 2008. The evolution of reproductive character displacement conflicts with how sexual selection operates within a species. Evolution 62:1192-1203.
31. Higgie, M., S. Chenoweth, and M. W. Blows. 2000. Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science 290:519-521.
32. Hine, E., and M. W. Blows. 2006. Determining the effective dimensionality of the genetic variance-covariance matrix. Genetics 173: 1135-1144.
33. Hine, E., S. F. Chenoweth, and M. W. Blows. 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. Houle, D. 1998. How should we explain variation in the genetic variance of traits? Genetica 103:241-253.
35. Houle, D., and A. S. Kondrashov. 2002. Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 269:97-104.
36. Howard, R. W., L. L. Jackson, H. Banse, and M. W. Blows. 2003. Cuticular hydrocarbons of Drosophila birchii and D. serrata: identification and role in mate choice in D. serrata. Journal of Chemical Ecology 29:961-976.
37. Hunt, J., M. W. Blows, F. Zajitschek, M. D. Jennions, and R. Brooks. 2007. Reconciling strong stabilizing selection with the maintenance of genetic variation in a natural population of black field crickets (Teleogryllus commodus). Genetics 177:875-880.
38. Iwasa, Y., and A. Pomiankowski. 1994. The evolution of mate preferences for multiple sexual ornaments. Evolution 48:853-867.
39. Johnstone, R. A., S. A. Rands, and M. R. Evans. 2009. Sexual selection and condition-dependence. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 22: 2387-2394.
40. Kemp, D. J. 2008. Resource-mediated condition dependence in sexually dichromatic butterfly wing coloration. Evolution 62:2346-2358.
41. Kemp, D. J., and R. L. Rutowski. 2007. Condition dependence, quantitative genetics, and the potential signal content of iridescent ultraviolet butterfly coloration. Evolution 61:168-183.
42. Kirkpatrick, M., and N. H. Barton. 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 94:1282-1286.
43. Kirkpatrick, M., and K. Meyer. 2004. Direct estimation of genetic principal components: simplified analysis of complex phenotypes. Genetics 168:2295-2306.
44. Kirkpatrick, M., and M. J. Ryan. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33-38.
45. Kotiaho, J. S., L. W. Simmons, and J. L. Tomkins. 2001. Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410:684-686.
46. Kruuk, L. E. B., J. Slate, and A. J. Wilson. 2008. New answers for old questions: the evolutionary quantitative genetics of wild animal populations. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39:525-548.
47. Lande, R., and S. J. Arnold. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37:1210-1226.
48. Lorch, P. D., S. Proulx, L. Rowe, and T. Day. 2003. Conditiondependent sexual selection can accelerate adaptation. Evolutionary Ecology Research 5:867-881.
49. Lynch, M., and B. Walsh. 1998. Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
50. Maklakov, A. A., S. J. Simpson, F. Zajitschek, M. D. Hall, J. Dessmann, F. Clissold, D. Raubenheimer, R. Bonduriansky, and R. C. Brooks. 2008. Sex-specific fitness effects of nutrient intake on reproduction and lifespan. Current Biology 18:1062-1066.
51. McGuigan, K. 2009. Condition dependence varies with mating success in male Drosophila bunnanda. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 22:1813-1825.
52. McGuigan, K., and M. W. Blows. 2007. The phenotypic and genetic covariance structure of drosphilid wings. Evolution 61:902-911.
53. McGuigan, K., and M. W. Blows. 2009. Asymmetry of genetic variation in fitness-related traits: apparent stabilizing selection on gmax. Evolution 63:2838-2847.
54. McGuigan, K., A. Van Homrigh, and M. W. Blows. 2008. An evolutionary limit to male mating success. Evolution 62:1528-1537.
55. Meyer, K., and M. Kirkpatrick. 2008. Perils of parsimony: properties of reduced-rank estimates of genetic covariance matrices. Genetics 180:1153-1166.
56. Nur, N., and O. Hasson. 1984. Phenotypic plasticity and the handicap principle. Journal of Theoretical Biology 110:275-297.
57. Peters, A., K. Delhey, S. Andersson, H. van Noordwijk, and M. I. Forschler. 2008. Condition-dependence of multiple carotenoidbased plumage traits: an experimental study. Functional Ecology 22:831-839.
58. Poissant, J., A. J. Wilson, and D. W. Coltman. 2010. Sex-specific genetic variance and the evolution of sexual dimorphism: a systematic review of cross-sex genetic correlations. Evolution 64:97-107.
59. Pomiankowski, A. 1987. Sexual selection: the handicap principle does work-sometimes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 231:123-145.
60. Pomiankowski, A., and A. P. Møller. 1995. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 260:21-29.
61. Proulx, S. R. 1999. Matings systems and the evolution of niche breadth. American Naturalist 154:89-98.
62. Proulx, S. R. 2001. Female choice via indicator traits easily evolves in the face of recombination and migration. Evolution 55:2401-2411.
63. Proulx, S. R. 2002. Niche shifts and expansion due to sexual selection. Evolutionary Ecology Research 4:351-369.
64. Proulx, S. R., T. Day, and L. Rowe. 2002. Older males signal more reliably. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 269:2291-2299.
65. Punzalan, D., M. Cooray, F. H. Rodd, and L. Rowe. 2008. Condition dependence of sexually dimorphic colouration and longevity in the ambush bug Phymata americana. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 21:1297-1306.
66. Radwan, J. 2004. Effectiveness of sexual selection in removing mutations induced with ionizing radiation. Ecology Letters 7:1149-1154.
67. Rowe, L., and D. Houle. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 263:1415-1421.
68. Rundle, H. D., S. F. Chenoweth, P. Doughty, and M. W. Blows. 2005. Divergent selection and the evolution of signal traits and mating preferences. Public Library of Science 3:1988-1995.
69. Rundle, H. D., S. F. Chenoweth, and M. W. Blows. 2006. The roles of natural and sexual selection during adaptation to a novel environment. Evolution 60:2218-2225.
70. Rundle, H. D., S. F. Chenoweth, and M. W. Blows. 2009. The diversification of mate preferences by natural and sexual selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 22:1608-1615.
71. Savarit, F., and J. F. Ferveur. 2002. Genetic study of the production of sexually dimorphic cuticular hydrocarbons in relation with the sex-determination gene transformer in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetical Research 79:23-40.
72. Sheridan, L., and A. Pomiankowski. 1997. Fluctuating asymmetry, spot asymmetry and inbreeding depression in the sexual coloration of male guppy fish. Heredity 79:515-523.
73. Siitari, H., R. V. Alatalo, P. Halme, K. L. Buchanan, and J. Kilpimaa. 2007. Color signals in the black grouse (Tetrao tetrix): signal properties and their condition dependency. American Naturalist 169(suppl.):S81-S92.
74. Siller, S. 2001. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex. Nature 411:689-692.
75. Smith, C., and D. Greig. 2010. The cost of sexual signaling in yeast. Evolution 64:3114-3122.
76. Tibbetts, E. A. 2010. The condition dependence and heritability of signaling and nonsignaling color traits in paper wasps. American Naturalist 175:495-503.
77. Tomkins, J. L., J. Radwan, J. S. Kotiaho, and T. Tregenza. 2004. Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19:323-328.
78. Van Homrigh, A., M. Higgie, K. McGuigan, and M. W. Blows. 2007. The depletion of genetic variance by sexual selection. Current Biology 17:528-532.
79. van Oosterhout, C., R. E. Trigg, G. R. Carvalho, A. E. Magurran, L. Hauser, and P. W. Shaw. 2003. Inbreeding depression and genetic load of sexually selected traits: how the guppy lost its spots. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 16:273-281.
80. Walsh, B., and M.W. Blows. 2009. Abundant genetic variation+strong selection p multivariate genetic constraints: a geometric view of adaptation. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 40:41-59.
81. Whitlock, M. C. 2000. Fixation of new alleles and the extinction of small populations: drift load, beneficial alleles, and sexual selection. Evolution 54:1855-1861.
82. Whitlock, M. C., and A. F. Agrawal. 2009. Purging the genome with sexual selection: reducing mutation load through selection on males. Evolution 63:569-582.
83. Wyman, M. J., A. F. Agrawal, and L. Rowe. 2010. Condition-dependence of the sexually dimorphic transcriptome in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 64:1836-1848.
84. Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection-selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology 53:205-214.