Female choice for heterozygous mates changes along successive matings in a lizard

Behavioural Processes

Volumn 88, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 149-154

  Laloi, David ^a,b,c,d   Eizaguirre, Christophe ^e,f   Fédérici, Pierre ^a,b,c,d   Massot, Manuel ^a,b,c,d  

^a SORBONNE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

^b ECOLE NORMALE SUPÉRIEURE   (France)

^c UPMC University Paris 06   (France)

^d CNRS   (France)

^e MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY   (Germany)

^f GEOMAR HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR OCEAN RESEARCH KIEL   (Germany)

Author keywords

Heterozygosity; Mate choice; Multiple mating; Trade up hypothesis; Zootoca vivipara

Indexed keywords

FEMALE; HETEROZYGOSITY; LIZARD; MATE CHOICE; MATING BEHAVIOR; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; BODY CONSTITUTION; BODY SIZE; FEMALE; HETEROZYGOSITY; LIZARD; MALE; MATE CHOICE; NONHUMAN; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL SELECTION; SOCIAL INTERACTION; ZOOTOCA VIVIPARA;

ANIMALS; FEMALE; HETEROZYGOTE; LIZARDS; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL;

SQUAMATA; ZOOTOCA VIVIPARA;

EID: 80055049491     PISSN: 03766357     EISSN: 18728308     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2011.08.011     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Acevedo-Whitehouse K., Gulland F., Grieg D., Amos W. Inbreeding: disease susceptibility in California sea lions. Nature 2003, 422:35.
2. Aeschlimann P.B., Haberli M.A., Reusch T.B.H., Boehm T., Milinski M. Female sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus use self-reference to optimize MHC allele number during mate selection. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2003, 54:19-126.
3. Amos W., Worthington Wilmer J., Fullard K., Burg T.M., Croxall J.P., Bloch D., Coulson T. The influence of parental relatedness on reproductive success. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2001, 268:2021-2027.
4. Andersson M. Sexual Selection 1994, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
5. Bakker T.C.M., Milinski M. Sequential female choice and the previous male effect in sticklebacks. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1991, 29:205-210.
6. Bateman P.W., Gilson L.N., Ferguson J.W.H. Male size and sequential mate preference in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Anim. Behav. 2001, 61:631-637.
7. Bauwens D., Verheyen R.F. The timing of reproduction in the lizard Lacerta vivipara: differences between individual females. J. Herpetol. 1985, 19:353-364.
8. Bauwens D., Nuijten K., van Wezel H., Verheyen R.F. Sex recognition by males of the lizard Lacerta vivipara: an introductory study. Amphibi.-Reptil. 1987, 8:49-57.
9. Birkhead T.R., Møller A.P., Sutherland W.J. Why do females make it so difficult for males to fertilize their eggs?. J. Theor. Biol. 1993, 161:51-60.
10. Blomqvist D., Andersson M., Küpper C., Cuthill I.C., Kis J., Lanctot R.B., Sandercock B.K., Székely T., Wallander J., Kempenaers B. Genetic similarity between mates and extra-pair parentage in three species of shorebirds. Nature 2002, 419:613-615.
11. Boudjemadi K., Martin O., Simon J.C., Estoup A. Development and cross-species comparison of microsatellite markers in two lizard species, Lacerta vivipara and Podarcis muralis. Mol. Ecol. 1999, 8:518-520.
12. Brown J.L. A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity. Behav. Ecol. 1997, 8:60-65.
13. Brown J.L. The new heterozygosity theory of mate choice and the MHC. Genetica 1999, 104:215-221.
14. Cohas A., Yoccoz N.G., Da Silva A., Goossens B., Allainé D. Extra-pair paternity in the monogamous alpine marmot (Marmota marmota): the roles of social setting and female mate choice. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2006, 59:597-605.
15. Coltman D.W., Bowen W.D., Wright J.M. Birth weight and neonatal survival of harbour seal pups are positively correlated with genetic variation measured by microsatellites. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 1998, 265:803-809.
16. Csilléry K., Johnson T., Beraldi D., Clutton-Brock T., Coltman D., Hansson B., Spong G., Pemberton J.M. Performance of marker-based relatedness estimators in natural populations of outbred vertebrates. Genetics 2006, 173:2091-2101.
17. Depeiges A., Force A., Dufaure J.P. Production and glycosylation of sperm constitutive proteins in the lizard Lacerta vivipara: evolution during the reproduction period. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. B 1987, 86:233-240.
18. DeRose M.A., Roff D.A. A comparison of inbreeding depression in life-history and morphological traits in animals. Evolution 1999, 53:1288-1292.
19. Dombrovsky Y., Perrin N. On adaptive search and optimal stopping in sequential mate choice. Am. Nat. 1994, 144:355-361.
20. Eberle M., Kappeler P.M. Selected polyandry: female choice and inter-sexual conflict in a small nocturnal solitary primate (Microcebus murinus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2004, 57:91-100.
21. Eizaguirre C., Laloi D., Massot M., Richard M., Federici P., Clobert J. Condition-dependence of reproductive strategy and the benefits of polyandry in a viviparous lizard. Proc. R. Soc. B 2007, 274:425-430.
22. Fitze P.S., Le Galliard J.F., Federici P., Richard M., Clobert J. Conflict over multiple-partner mating between males and females of the polygynandrous common lizards. Evolution 2005, 59:2451-2459.
23. Fitze P.S., Cote J., Clobert J. Mating order-dependent female mate choice in the polygynandrous common lizard Lacerta vivipara. Oecologia 2010, 162:331-341.
24. Gabor C.R., Halliday T.R. Sequential mate choice by multiply mating smooth newts: females become more choosy. Behav. Ecol. 1997, 8:162-166.
25. Goth A. Mound and mate choice in a polyandrous megapode: females lay more and larger eggs in nesting mounds with the best incubation temperatures. Auk 2007, 124:253-263.
26. Halliday T.R. The study of mate choice. Mate Choice 1983, 3-32. University Press, Cambridge. P. Bateson (Ed.).
27. Heulin B. Observations sur l'organisation de la reproduction et sur les comportements sexuels et agonistiques chez Lacerta vivipara. Vie Milieu 1988, 38:177-187.
28. Heulin B., Osenegg K., Lebouvier M. Timing and embryonic development and birth dates in oviparous and viviparous strains of Lacerta vivipara: testing the predictions of an evolutionary hypothesis. Acta Oecol. 1991, 12:517-528.
29. Hoffman J.I., Forcada J., Trathan P.N., Amos W. Female fur seals show active choice for males that are heterozygous and unrelated. Nature 2007, 445:912-914.
30. Jennions M.D., Petrie M. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. 1997, 72:283-327.
31. Jennions M.D., Petrie M. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. 2000, 75:21-64.
32. Johnstone R.A. Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence. Biol. Rev. 1995, 70:1-65.
33. Laloi D., Richard M., Lecomte J., Massot M., Clobert J. Multiple paternity in clutches of common lizard Lacerta vivipara: data from microsatellite markers. Mol. Ecol. 2004, 13:719-723.
34. Laloi D., Richard M., Fédérici P., Clobert J., Teillac-Deschamps P., Massot M. Relationship between female mating strategy, litter success and offspring dispersal. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12:823-829.
35. Madsen T., Shine R., Loman J., Håkansson T. Why do female adders copulate so frequently?. Nature 1992, 355:440-441.
36. Martín J., Salvador A. Tail loss reduces mating success in the Iberian rock-lizard, Lacerta monticola. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1993, 32:185-189.
37. Massot M., Clobert J., Lorenzon P., Rossi J.M. Condition-dependent dispersal and ontogeny of the dispersal behaviour: an experimental approach. J. Anim. Ecol. 2002, 71:253-261.
38. McCullagh P., Nelder J.A. Generalized Linear Models 1989, Chapman and Hall, London. second ed.
39. Milinski M., Bakker T.C.M. Costs influence sequential mate choice in sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 1992, 250:229-233.
40. Milinski M. The major histocompatibility complex, sexual selection, and mate choice. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2006, 37:159-186.
41. Miller H.C., Moore J.A., Nelson N.J., Daugherty C.H. Influence of major histocompatibility complex genotype on mating success in a free-ranging reptile population. Proc. R. Soc. B 2009, 276:1695-1704.
42. Mitton J.B. Enzyme heterozygosity, metabolism, and developmental stability. Genetica 1993, 89:47-65.
43. Møller A.P., Jennions M.D. How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection?. Naturwissenschaften 2001, 88:401-415.
44. Olsson M., Madsen T. Sexual selection and sperm competition in reptiles. Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection 1998, 503-577. Academic Press, Cambridge. T.R. Birkhead, A.P. Møller (Eds.).
45. Olsson M., Madsen T., Nordby J., Wapstra E., Ujvari B., Håkan W. Major histocompatibility complex and mate choice in sand lizards. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2003, 270:S254-S256.
46. Olsson M., Madsen T., Ujvari B., Wapstra E. Fecundity and MHC affects ejaculation tactics and paternity bias in sand lizards. Evolution 2004, 58:906-909.
47. Penn D.J. The scent of genetic compatibility: sexual selection and the major histocompatibility complex. Ethology 2002, 108:1-21.
48. Petrie M. Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate strains. Nature 1994, 371:598-599.
49. Pitcher T.E., Neff B.D., Rodd F.H., Rowe L. Multiple mating and sequential mate choice in guppies: females trade up. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2003, 270:1623-1629.
50. Pujolar J.M., Maes G.E., Vancoillies C., Volckaert A.M. Growth rate correlates to individual heterozygosity in the European eel, Anguilla anguilla L. Evolution 2005, 59:189-199.
51. Richard M., Lecomte J., de Fraipont M., Clobert J. Age-specific mating strategies and reproductive senescence. Mol. Ecol. 2005, 14:3147-3155.
52. Rousset F. GENEPOP'007: a complete re-implementation of the GENEPOP software for Windows and Linux. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2008, 8:103-106.
53. Sheldon B.C. Male phenotype, fertility, and the pursuit of extra-pair copulations by female birds. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 1994, 257:25-30.
54. Slate J., David P., Dodds K.G., Veenvliet B.A., Glass B.C., Broad T.E., McEwan J.C. Understanding the relationship between the inbreeding coefficient and multilocus heterozygosity: theoretical expectations and empirical data. Heredity 2004, 93:255-265.
55. Tokarz R.R. Mate choice in lizards: a review. Herpetol. Monogr. 1995, 9:17-40.
56. Tregenza T., Wedell N. Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: Invited Review. Mol. Ecol. 2000, 9:1013-1028.
57. Uller T., Olsson M. Multiple paternity in reptiles: patterns and processes. Mol. Ecol. 2008, 17:2566-2580.
58. Väli ü., Einarsson A., Waits L., Ellegren H. To what extent do microsatellite markers reflect genome-wide genetic diversity in natural populations?. Mol. Ecol. 2008, 17:3808-3817.
59. Watson P.J. Multiple paternity as genetic bet-hedging in female sierra dome spiders, Linyphia litigiosa (Linyphiidae). Anim. Behav. 1991, 41:343-360.
60. Wiegmann D.D., Mukhopadhyay K., Real L.A. Sequential search and the influence of male quality on female mating decisions. J. Math. Biol. 1999, 39:193-216.
61. Yasui Y. The 'genetic benefits' of female multiple mating reconsidered. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1998, 13:246-250.
62. Zeh J.A., Zeh D.W. Outbred embryos rescue inbred half-siblings in mixed-paternity broods of live-bearing females. Nature 2006, 439:201-203.
63. Zelano B., Edwards S.V. An MHC component to kin recognition and mate choice in birds: predictions, progress, and prospects. Am. Nat. 2002, 160:S225-S237.