Fixed and dilutable benefits: Female choice for good genes or fertility

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 279, Issue 1727, 2012, Pages 334-340

  Tazzyman, Samuel J ^a   Seymour, Robert M ^a   Pomiankowski, Andrew ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Female preference; Good genes; Mate choice; Phenotype linked fertility; Sexual selection; Sperm

Indexed keywords

FEMALE BEHAVIOR; FERTILITY; GOOD GENES HYPOTHESIS; MATE CHOICE; PHENOTYPE; REPRODUCTIVE COST; SKEWNESS; SPERM;

EID: 82955229526     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2011.0633     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Darwin, C. 1871 The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London, UK: J. Murray.
2. Andersson, M. 1994 Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3. Kirkpatrick, M. 1996 Good genes and direct selection in the evolution of mating preferences. Evolution 50, 2125-2140. (doi:10.2307/2410684)
4. Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M. J. 1991 The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350, 33-38. (doi:10.1038/350033a0)
5. Sheldon, B. C. 1994 Male phenotype, fertility, and the pursuit of extra-pair copulations by female birds. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 257, 25-30. (doi:10.1098/rspb.1994.0089)
6. Trivers, R. L. 1972 Parental investment and sexual selection. In Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971 (ed. B. Campbell), pp. 136-179. Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.
7. Zahavi, A. 1975 Mate selection: selection for a handicap. J. Theoret. Biol. 53, 205-214. (doi:10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3)
8. Tregenza, T. & Wedell, N. 2000 Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol. Ecol. 9, 1013-1027. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.00964.x)
9. Madsen, T., Shine, R., Loman, J. & Hakansson, T. 1992 Why do female adders copulate so frequently. Nature 355, 440-441. (doi:10.1038/355440a0)
10. Parker, G. A. 1992 Evolutionary biology: snakes and female sexuality. Nature 355, 395-396. (doi:10.1038/355395a0)
11. Fisher, R. A. 1930 The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford, UK: The Clarendon Press.
12. Jaquiery, J., Broquet, T., Aguilar, C., Evanno, G. & Perrin, N. 2010 Good genes drive female choice for mating partners in the lek-breeding European treefrog. Evolution 64, 108-115. (doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00816.x)
13. Kirkpatrick, M. & Barton, N. H. 1997 The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 1282-1286. (doi:10.1073/pnas.94.4.1282)
14. Kojima, W., Kitamura, W., Kitajima, S., Ito, Y., Ueda, K., Fujita, G. & Higuchi, H. 2009 Female barn swallows gain indirect but not direct benefits through social mate choice. Ethology 115, 939-947. (doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2009.01680.x)
15. Møller, A. P. & Jennions, M. D. 2001 How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection? Naturwissenschaften 88, 401-415.
16. Taylor, M. L., Wedell, N. & Hosken, D. J. 2010 Attractive males do not sire superior daughters. Evol. Ecol. 24, 195-205. (doi:10.1007/s10682-009-9298-0)
17. Cameron, E., Day, T. & Rowe, L. 2003 Sexual conflict and indirect benefits. J. Evol. Biol. 16, 1055-1060. (doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00584.x)
18. Hosken, D. J. & Tregenza, T. 2005 Evolution: do bad husbands make good fathers? Curr. Biol. 15, R836-R838. (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2005.10.005)
19. Hettyey, A., Hegyi, G., Puurtinen, M., Hoi, H., Torok, J. & Penn, D. J. 2010 Mate choice for genetic benefits: time to put the pieces together. Ethology 116, 1-9. (doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2009.01704.x)
20. Hunt, J., Bussiere, L. F., Jennions, M. D. & Brooks, R. 2004 What is genetic quality? Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 329-333. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.035)
21. Kotiaho, J. S. & Puurtinen, M. 2007 Mate choice for indirect genetic benefits: scrutiny of the current paradigm. Funct. Ecol. 21, 638-644. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01286.x)
22. Iwasa, Y., Pomiankowski, A. & Nee, S. 1991 The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The handicap principle. Evolution 45, 1431-1442. (doi:10.2307/2409890)
23. Houle, D. & Kondrashov, A. S. 2002 Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 97-104. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2001.1823)
24. Danielsson, I. 2001 Antagonistic pre- and post-copulatory sexual selection on male body size in a water strider (Gerris lacustris). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268, 77-81. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1332)
25. Preston, B. T., Stevenson, I. R., Pemberton, J. M. & Wilson, K. 2001 Dominant rams lose out by sperm depletion: a waning success in siring counters a ram's high score in competition for ewes. Nature 409, 681-682. (doi:10.1038/35055617)
26. Tazzyman, S. J., Pizzari, T., Seymour, R. M. & Pomiankowski, A. 2009 The evolution of continuous variation in ejaculate expenditure strategy. Am. Nat. 174, E71-E82. (doi:10.1086/603612)
27. Maynard Smith, J. 1982 Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28. Bomze, I. M. & Pötscher, B. M. 1989 Game theoretic foundations of evolutionary stability. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
29. Vickers, G. T. & Cannings, C. 1987 On the definition of an evolutionarily stable strategy. J. Theoret. Biol. 129, 349-353. (doi:10.1016/S0022-5193(87)80007-3)
30. Andersson, M. & Simmons, L. W. 2006 Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 296-302. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.03.015)
31. Orians, G. H. 1969 On evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals. Am. Nat. 103, 589.
32. Searcy, W. A. & Yasukawa, K. 1989 Alternative models of territorial polygyny in birds. Am. Nat. 134, 323-343.
33. Altmann, S. A., Wagner, S. S. & Lenington, S. 1977 Models for evolution of polygyny. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2, 397-410. (doi:10.1007/BF00299508)
34. Magrath, M. J. L. & Komdeur, J. 2003 Is male care compromised by additional mating opportunity? Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 424-430. (doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(0300124-1)
35. Buston, P. M., Reeve, H. K., Cant, M. A., Vehrencamp, S. L. & Emlen, S. T. 2007 Reproductive skew and the evolution of group dissolution tactics: a synthesis of concession and restraint models. Anim. Behav. 74, 1643-1654. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.03.003)
36. Johnstone, R. A. & Keller, L. 2000 How males can gain by harming their mates: sexual conflict, seminal toxins, and the cost of mating. Am. Nat. 156, 368-377.
37. Keller, L. & Reeve, H. 1994 Partitioning of reproduction in animal societies. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9, 98-102. (doi:10.1016/0169-5347(94)90204-6)
38. Seymour, R. M. & Sozou, P. D. 2009 Duration of courtship effort as a costly signal. J. Theoret. Biol. 256, 1-13. (doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.09.026)
39. Gibson, R. M. & Langen, T. A. 1996 How do animals choose their mates? Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 468-470. (doi:10.1016/0169-5347(96)10050-1)
40. Real, L. 1990 Search theory and mate choice. I. Models of single-sex discrimination. Am. Nat. 136, 376-405.
41. Iwasa, Y. & Pomiankowski, A. 1999 Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. J. Theoret. Biol. 200, 97-109. (doi:10.1006/jtbi.1999.0979)
42. Weatherhead, P. J. & Robertson, R. J. 1979 Offspring quality and the polygyny threshold-sexy son hypothesis. Am. Nat. 113, 201-208.