The evolution and significance of male mate choice

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 26, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 647-654

  Edward, Dominic A ^a   Chapman, Tracey ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); MALE; MATE CHOICE; PARENTAL CARE; POLYGYNY; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; MALE; MATE CHOICE; REVIEW; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; FEMALE; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; SEX CHARACTERISTICS;

EID: 81055157865     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.07.012     Document Type: Review

References (90)

1. Andersson M.B. Sexual Selection 1994, Princeton University Press.
2. Parker G.A. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in insects. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 1970, 45:525.
3. Eberhard W.G. Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice 1996, Princeton University Press.
4. Chapman T., et al. Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2003, 18:41-47.
5. Arnqvist G., Rowe L. Sexual Conflict 2005, Princeton University Press.
6. Darwin C. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex 1871, John Murray.
7. Bateman A.J. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 1948, 2:349-368.
8. Gwynne D.T. Sexual competition among females - what causes courtship-role reversal. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1991, 6:118-121.
9. Amundsen T., Forsgren E. Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2001, 98:13155-13160.
10. Amundsen T. Why are female birds ornamented?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2000, 15:149-155.
11. Bonduriansky R. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol. Rev. 2001, 76:305-339.
12. Berglund A., Rosenqvist G. Male pipefish prefer ornamented females. Anim. Behav. 2001, 61:345-350.
13. Tudor M.S., Morris M.R. Variation in male mate preference for female size in the swordtail Xiphophorus malinche. Behaviour 2009, 146:727-740.
14. Hoefler C.D., et al. The interaction of female condition and mating status on male-male aggression in a wolf spider. Ethology 2009, 115:331-338.
15. Lihoreau M., et al. Mutual mate choice: when it pays both sexes to avoid inbreeding. PLoS ONE 2008, 3:e3365.
16. Trivers R.L. Parental investment and sexual selection. Sexual selection and the Descent of Man, 1871-1971 1972, 136-179. Aldine. B.G. Campbell (Ed.).
17. Kokko H., Monaghan P. Predicting the direction of sexual selection. Ecol. Lett. 2001, 4:159-165.
18. Kokko H., Johnstone R.A. Why is mutual mate choice not the norm? Operational sex ratios, sex roles and the evolution of sexually dimorphic and monomorphic signalling. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 2002, 357:319-330.
19. Servedio M.R., Lande R. Population genetic models of male and mutual mate choice. Evolution 2006, 60:674-685.
20. Fawcett T.W., Johnstone R.A. Mate choice in the face of costly competition. Behav. Ecol. 2003, 14:771-779.
21. Bonduriansky R. Reappraising sexual coevolution and the sex roles. PLoS Biol. 2009, 7:1-3.
22. Clutton-Brock T. Sexual selection in females. Anim. Behav. 2009, 77:3-11.
23. Clutton-Brock T. Sexual selection in males and females. Science 2007, 318:1882-1885.
24. Kokko H., et al. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2003, 270:653-664.
25. Halliday T. The study of mate choice. Mate Choice 1983, 3-32. Cambridge University Press. P.P.G. Bateson (Ed.).
26. Barry K.L., Kokko H. Male mate choice: why sequential choice can make its evolution difficult. Anim. Behav. 2010, 80:163-169.
27. Emlen S.T., Oring L.W. Ecology, sexual selection, and evolution of mating systems. Science 1977, 197:215-223.
28. Clutton-Brock T.H., Vincent A.C.J. Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females. Nature 1991, 351:58-60.
29. Clutton-Brock T.H., Parker G.A. Potential reproductive rates and the operation of sexual selection. Q. Rev. Biol. 1992, 67:437-456.
30. Jennions M.D., Kokko H. Sexual selection. Evolutionary Behavioral Ecology 2010, 343-364. Oxford University Press. D.F. Westneat, C.W. Fox (Eds.).
31. Gwynne D.T., Simmons L.W. Experimental reversal of courtship roles in an insect. Nature 1990, 346:172-174.
32. Simmons L.W. Quantification of role reversal in relative parental investment in a bush cricket. Nature 1992, 358:61-63.
33. Clutton-Brock T.H. The Evolution of Parental Care 1991, Princeton University Press.
34. Jones A.G., et al. The Bateman gradient and the cause of sexual selection in a sex-role-reversed pipefish. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2000, 267:677-680.
35. Kokko H., Jennions M.D. Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. J. Evol. Biol. 2008, 21:919-948.
36. Wedell N., et al. Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2002, 17:313-320.
37. Servedio M.R. Male versus female mate choice: sexual selection and the evolution of species recognition via reinforcement. Evolution 2007, 61:2772-2789.
38. Byrne P.G., Rice W.R. Evidence for adaptive male mate choice in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2006, 273:917-922.
39. Long T.A.F., et al. A cost of sexual attractiveness to high-fitness females. PLoS Biol. 2009, 7:e1000254.
40. Friberg U. Male perception of female mating status: its effect on copulation duration, sperm defence and female fitness. Anim. Behav. 2006, 72:1259-1268.
41. Johnstone R.A., et al. Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 1996, 50:1382-1391.
42. Parker G.A. Mate quality and mating decisions. Mate Choice 1983, 141-166. Cambridge University Press. P.P.G. Bateson (Ed.).
43. Dosen L.D., Montgomerie R. Female size influences mate preferences of male guppies. Ethology 2004, 110:245-255.
44. Reading K.L., Backwell P.R.Y. Can beggars be choosers? Male mate choice in a fiddler crab. Anim. Behav. 2007, 74:867-872.
45. Gillingham M.A.F., et al. Cryptic preference for MHC-dissimilar females in male red junglefowl, Gallus gallus. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2009, 276:1083-1092.
46. Ryan K.K., Altmann J. Selection for male choice based primarily on mate compatibility in the oldfield mouse, Peromyscus polionotus rhoadsi. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2001, 50:436-440.
47. Amundsen T., Forsgren E. Male preference for colourful females affected by male size in a marine fish. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2003, 54:55-64.
48. Pizzari T., et al. Sophisticated sperm allocation in male fowl. Nature 2003, 426:70-74.
49. Tomkins J.L., et al. Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19:323-328.
50. Cotton S., et al. Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr. Biol. 2006, 16:R755-R765.
51. Hardling R., Kokko H. The evolution of prudent choice. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2005, 7:697-715.
52. Bel-Venner M.C., et al. Unexpected male choosiness for mates in a spider. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2008, 275:77-82.
53. Whitlock M.C., Agrawal A.F. Purging the genome with sexual selection: reducing mutation load through selection on males. Evolution 2009, 63:569-582.
54. Lorch P.D., et al. Condition-dependent sexual selection can accelerate adaptation. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2003, 5:867-881.
55. Ritchie M.G. Sexual selection and speciation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2007, 38:79-102.
56. Kokko H., Mappes J. Sexual selection when fertilization is not guaranteed. Evolution 2005, 59:1876-1885.
57. Hurd L.E., et al. Cannibalism reverses male-biased sex-ratio in adult mantids - female strategy against food limitation. Oikos 1994, 69:193-198.
58. Almeida C.R., de Abreu F.V. Dynamical instabilities lead to sympatric speciation. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2003, 5:739-757.
59. Pierotti M.E.R., et al. Individual variation in male mating preferences for female coloration in a polymorphic cichlid fish. Behav. Ecol. 2008, 19:483-488.
60. Johannesson K., et al. Male discrimination of female mucous trails permits assortative mating in a marine snail species. Evolution 2008, 62:3178-3184.
61. Peterson M.A., et al. Relative abundance and the species-specific reinforcement of male mating preference in the Chrysochus (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) hybrid zone. Evolution 2005, 59:2639-2655.
62. Kozak G.M., et al. Sex differences in mate recognition and conspecific preference in species with mutual mate choice. Evolution 2009, 63:353-365.
63. Hochkirch A., et al. Sympatry with the devil: reproductive interference could hamper species coexistence. J. Anim. Ecol. 2007, 76:633-642.
64. Sheldon B.C. Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2000, 15:397-402.
65. Gage M.J.G. Influences of sex, size, and symmetry on ejaculate expenditure in a moth. Behav. Ecol. 1998, 9:592-597.
66. Engqvist L., Sauer K.P. Strategic male mating effort and cryptic male choice in a scorpionfly. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2001, 268:729-735.
67. Mack P.D., et al. Sperm competitive ability and genetic relatedness in Drosophila melanogaster: similarity breeds contempt. Evolution 2002, 56:1789-1795.
68. Ratikainen I.I., Kokko H. Differential allocation and compensation: who deserves the silver spoon?. Behav. Ecol. 2010, 21:195-200.
69. Matessi G., et al. Male rock sparrows differentially allocate nest defence but not food provisioning to offspring. Behaviour 2009, 146:209-223.
70. Parker G.A., Pizzari T. Sperm competition and ejaculate economics. Biol. Rev. 2010, 85:897-934.
71. Galvani A., Johnstone R. Sperm allocation in an uncertain world. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1998, 44:161-168.
72. Reinhold K., et al. Cryptic male choice: sperm allocation strategies when female quality varies. J. Evol. Biol. 2002, 15:201-209.
73. Hardling R., et al. Male mating constraints affect mutual mate choice: prudent male courting and sperm-limited females. Am. Nat. 2008, 172:259-271.
74. Kirkpatrick M., Barton N.H. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1997, 94:1282-1286.
75. Nakahashi W. Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection by male choice. Theor. Popul. Biol. 2008, 74:167-181.
76. Friberg U., Arnqvist G. Fitness effects of female mate choice: preferred males are detrimental for Drosophila melanogaster females. J. Evol. Biol. 2003, 16:797-811.
77. Pitnick S., Garcia-Gonzalez F. Harm to females increases with male body size in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2002, 269:1821-1828.
78. Sandvik M., et al. Male and female mate choice affects offspring quality in a sex-role-reversed pipefish. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2000, 267:2151-2155.
79. Merila J., Sheldon B.C. Genetic architecture of fitness and nonfitness traits: empirical patterns and development of ideas. Heredity 1999, 83:103-109.
80. Arnold S.J., Wade M.J. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection - theory. Evolution 1984, 38:709-719.
81. Arnqvist G., Nilsson T. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim. Behav. 2000, 60:145-164.
82. Long T.A.F., et al. The timing of mating influences reproductive success in Drosophila melanogaster: implications for sexual conflict. J. Evol. Biol. 2010, 23:1024-1032.
83. Ruiz M., et al. Courtship attention in sagebrush lizards varies with male identity and female reproductive state. Behav. Ecol. 2008, 19:1326-1332.
84. Price T., et al. Sexual selection when the female directly benefits. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 1993, 48:187-211.
85. Fitzpatrick S., et al. Ornaments or offspring - costs to reproductive success restrict sexual selection processes. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 1995, 55:251-260.
86. Lebas N.R. Female finery is not for males. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2006, 21:170-173.
87. Amundsen T. Female ornaments: genetically correlated or sexually selected?. Animal Signals: Signalling and Signal Design in Animal Communication 2000, 133-154. Tapir Academic Press. Y. Espmark (Ed.).
88. Chenoweth S.F., et al. Can non-directional male mating preferences facilitate honest female ornamentation?. Ecol. Lett. 2006, 9:179-184.
89. Chenoweth S.F., Blows M.W. Contrasting mutual sexual selection on homologous signal traits in Drosophila serrata. Am. Nat. 2005, 165:281-289.
90. Rundle H.D., Chenoweth S.F. Stronger convex (stabilizing) selection on homologous sexual display traits in females than in males: a multipopulation comparison in Drosophila serrata. Evolution 2011, 65:893-899.