Widespread genetic linkage of mating signals and preferences in the Hawaiian cricket Laupala

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 279, Issue 1731, 2012, Pages 1203-1209

  Wiley, Chris ^a   Ellison, Christopher K ^a   Shaw, Kerry L ^a  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

Fisherian runaway; Genetic correlation; Linkage disequilibrium; Reinforcement

Indexed keywords

ALLELE; CRICKET; DIVERGENCE; EVOLUTIONARY THEORY; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; GENE FLOW; GENETIC MARKER; GENETIC STRUCTURE; HYBRIDIZATION; INTERSEXUAL INTERACTION; INTROGRESSION; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATE CHOICE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL SELECTION; SONG; SPECIATION (BIOLOGY);

GRYLLIDAE; LAUPALA; LAUPALA KOHALENSIS; LAUPALA PARANIGRA;

EID: 84856792041     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2011.1740     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Barraclough, T. G., Harvey, P. H. & Nee, S. 1995 Sexual selection and taxonomic diversity in Passerine birds. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 259, 211-215. (doi:10.1098/rspb.1995.0031)
2. Gray, D. A. & Cade, W. H. 2000 Sexual selection and speciation in field crickets. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 14 449-14 454. (doi:10.1073/pnas.97.26.14449)
3. Mendelson, T. C. 2003 Sexual isolation evolves faster than hybrid inviability in a diverse and sexually dimorphic genus of fish (Percidae: Etheostoma). Evolution 57, 317-327. (doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00266.x)
4. Ritchie, M. G. 2007 Sexual selection and speciation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 38, 79-102. (doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095733)
5. West-Eberhard, M. J. 1983 Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Q. Rev. Biol. 58, 155-183. (doi:10.1086/413215)
6. Butlin, R. & Ritchie, M. G. 1989 Genetic coupling in mate recognition systems: what is the evidence? Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 37, 237-246. (doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1989.tb01902.x)
7. Kirkpatrick, M. & Nuismer, S. L. 2004 Sexual selection can constrain sympatric speciation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 687-693. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2645)
8. Boake, C. R. B. 1991 Coevolution of senders and receivers of sexual signals: genetic coupling and genetic correlations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 6, 225-227. (doi:10.1016/0169-5347(91)90027-U)
9. Fisher, R. A. 1930 The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
10. Kirkpatrick, M. 1982 Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36, 1-12. (doi:10.2307/2407961)
11. Lande, R. 1981 Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 78, 3721-3725. (doi:10.1073/pnas.78.6.3721)
12. Hebets, E. A., Wesson, J. & Shamble, P. 2008 Diet influences mate choice selectivity in adult female wolf spiders. Anim. Behav. 76, 355-363. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.12.021)
13. Hunt, J., Brooks, R. & Jennions, M. D. 2005 Female mate choice as a condition-dependent life-history trait. Am. Nat. 166, 79-92. (doi:10.1086/430672)
14. Milner, R. N. C., Detto, T., Jennions, M. D. & Backwell, P. R. Y. 2010 Experimental evidence for a seasonal shift in the strength of a female mating preference. Behav. Ecol. 21, 311-316. (doi:10.1093/beheco/arp196)
15. Woodgate, J. L., Bennett, A. T. D., Leitner, S., Catchpole, C. K. & Buchanan, K. L. 2010 Developmental stress and female mate choice behaviour in the zebra finch. Anim. Behav. 79, 1381-1390. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.03.018)
16. Qvarnström, A., Brommer, J. E. & Gustafsson, L. 2006 Testing the genetics underlying the co-evolution of mate choice and ornament in the wild. Nature 441, 84-86. (doi:10.1038/nature04564)
17. Servedio, M. R. 2000 Reinforcement and the genetics of nonrandom mating. Evolution 54, 21-29. (doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00003.x)
18. Servedio, M. R. 2009 The role of linkage disequilibrium in the evolution of premating isolation. Heredity 102, 51-56. (doi:10.1038/hdy.2008.98)
19. Trickett, A. J. & Butlin, R. K. 1994 Recombination suppressors and the evolution of new species. Heredity 73, 339-345. (doi:10.1038/hdy.1994.180)
20. Verzijden, M. N., Lachlan, R. F. & Servedio, M. R. 2005 Female mate-choice behavior and sympatric speciation. Evolution 59, 2097-2108. (doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb00920.x)
21. Bakker, T. C. M. 1993 Positive genetic correlation between female preference and preferred male ornament in sticklebacks. Nature 363, 255-257. (doi:10.1038/363255a0)
22. Brooks, R. & Couldridge, V. 1999 Multiple sexual ornaments coevolve with multiple mating preferences. Am. Nat. 154, 37-45. (doi:10.1086/303219)
23. Fu, X., Tatsuki, S., Hosizaki, S. & Ishikawa, Y. 2005 Study of the genetics of female sex pheromone production and male behavioural response in a moth, Ostrinia orientalis. Entom. Sci. 8, 363-369. (doi:10.1111/j.1479-8298.2005.00136.x)
24. Greenacre, M. L., Ritchie, M. G., Byrne, B. C. & Kyriacou, C. P. 1993 Female song preference and the period gene in Drosophila. Behav. Genet. 23, 85-90. (doi:10.1007/BF01067557)
25. Houde, A. E. 1994 Effect of artificial selection on male colour patterns on mating preference of female guppies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 256, 125-130. (doi:10.1098/rspb.1994.0059)
26. Iyengar, V. K., Reeve, H. K. & Eisner, T. 2002 Paternal inheritance of a female moth's mating preference. Nature 419, 830-832. (doi:10.1038/nature01027)
27. Kronforst, M. R., Young, L. G., Kapan, D. D., McNeely, C., O'Neill, R. J. & Gilbert, L. E. 2006 Linkage of butterfly mate preference and wing color preference cue at the genomic location of wingless. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 6575-6580. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0509685103)
28. Pryke, S. R. 2010 Sex chromosome linkage of mate preference and color signal maintains assortative mating between interbreeding finch morphs. Evolution 64, 1301-1310. (doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00897.x)
29. Sæther, S. A. et al. 2007 Sex chromosome-linked species recognition and evolution and reproductive isolation in flycatchers. Science 318, 95-97. (doi:10.1126/science.1141506)
30. van der Sluijs, I., Seehausen, O., Van Dooren, T. J. M. & van Alphen, J. J. M. 2010 No evidence for a genetic association between female mating preference and male secondary sexual trait in a Lake Victoria cichlid fish. Curr. Zool. 56, 57-64.
31. Wilkinson, G. S. & Reillo, P. R. 1994 Female choice response to artificial selection on an exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 255, 1-6. (doi:10.1098/rspb.1994.0001)
32. Wagner Jr, W. E. 1998 Measuring female mating preferences. Anim. Behav. 55, 1029-1042. (doi:10.1006/anbe.1997.0635)
33. Mendelson, T. C. & Shaw, K. L. 2005 Sexual behaviour: rapid speciation in an arthropod. Nature 433, 375-376. (doi:10.1038/433375a)
34. Otte, D. 1994 The crickets of Hawaii: origin, systematics and evolution. Philadelphia, PA: The Orthopterists' Society and the Academy of Natural Sciences.
35. Grace, J. L. & Shaw, K. L. 2011 Coevolution ofmalemating signal and female preference during early lineage divergence of the Hawaiian cricket, Laupala cerasina. Evolution 65, 2184-2196. (doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01278.x)
36. Shaw, K. L. & Herlihy, D. P. 2000 Acoustic preference functions and song variability in the Hawaiian cricket Laupala cerasina. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267, 577-584. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1040)
37. Mendelson, T. C. & Shaw, K. L. 2002 Genetic and behavioural components of the cryptic species boundary between Laupala cerasina and L. kohalensis (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Genetica 116, 301-310. (doi:10.1023/A:1021244812270)
38. Shaw, K. L. 1996 Polygenic inheritance of a behavioural phenotype: interspecific genetics of song in the Hawaiian cricket genus Laupala. Evolution 50, 256-266. (doi:10.2307/2410797)
39. Shaw, K. L., Parsons, Y. M. & Lesnick, S. C. 2007 QTL analysis of a rapidly evolving speciation phenotype in the Hawaiian cricket Laupala. Mol. Ecol. 16, 2879-2892. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03321.x)
40. Shaw, K. L. 2000 Interspecific genetics of mate recognition: inheritance of female acoustic preference in Hawaiian crickets. Evolution 54, 1303-1312. (doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00563.x)
41. Shaw, K. L. & Lesnick, S. C. 2009 Genomic linkage of male song and female acoustic preference QTL underlying a rapid species radiation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 9737-9742. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0900229106)
42. Wiley, C. & Shaw, K. L. 2010 Multiple genetic linkages between female preference and male signal in rapidly speciating Hawaiian crickets. Evolution 64, 2238-2245. (doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01007)
43. Hospital, F. 2005 Selection in backcross programmes. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 360, 1503-1511. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1670)
44. Ellison, C. K., Wiley, C. & Shaw, K. L. 2011 The genetics of speciation: genes of small effect underlie sexual isolation in the Hawaiian cricket Laupala. J. Evol. Biol. 5, 1110-1119. (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02244.x)
45. Allison, J. D., Roff, D. A. & Cardé, R. T. 2008 Genetic independence of female signal form and male receiver design in the almond moth, Cadra cautella. J. Evol. Biol. 21, 1666-1672. (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01595.x)
46. Ritchie, M. G., 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. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.01.018)
47. Bakker, T. C. M. & Pomiankowski, A. 1995 The genetic basis of female mate preferences. J. Evol. Biol. 8, 129-171. (doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.1995.8020129.x)
48. Gray, D. A. & Cade, W. H. 1999 Correlated-response-toselection experiments designed to test for a genetic correlation between female preferences and male traits yield biased results Anim. Behav. 58, 1325-1327. (doi:10.1006/anbe.1999.1271)
49. Fukamachi, S., Kinoshita, M., Aizawa, K., Oda, S., Meyer, A. & Mitani, H. 2009 Dual control by a single gene of secondary sexual characters and mating preferences in medaka. BMC Biol. 7, 64. (doi:10.1186/1741-7007-7-64)
50. Gumm, J. M., Snekser, J. L. & Iovine, M. K. 2008 Fin-mutant female zebrafish (Danio rerio) exhibit differences in association preferences for male fin length. Behav. Process. 80, 35-38. (doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2008.09.004)
51. Marcillac, F., Grosjean, Y. & Ferveur, F. 2005 A single mutation alters production and discrimination of Drosophila sex pheromones. Proc. R. Soc. B 272, 303-309. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2971)
52. Shaw, K. L., Ellison, C. K., Oh, K. P. & Wiley, C. 2011 Pleiotropy, 'sexy' traits, and speciation. Behav. Ecol. (doi:10.1093/beheco/arr136)
53. Servedio, M. R. 2007 Male versus female mate choice: sexual selection and the evolution of species recognition via reinforcement. Evolution 61, 2772-2789. (doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00247.x)
54. Felsenstein, J. 1981 Scepticism towards Santa Rosalia, or why are there so few kinds of animals? Evolution 35, 124-138. (doi:10.2307/2407946)
55. Alexander, R. D. 1962 Evolutionary change in cricket acoustical communication. Evolution 16, 443-467. (doi:10.2307/2406178)
56. Hoy, R. R. 1974 Genetic control of acoustic behavior in crickets. Am. Zool. 14, 1067-1080.
57. Pires, A. & Hoy, R. R. 1992 Temperature coupling in cricket acoustic communication. J. Comp. Phys. 171, 79-92. (doi:10.1007/BF00195963)
58. Wilfert, L., Gadau, J. & Schmid-Hempel, P. 2007 Variation in genomic recombination rates among animal taxa and the case of social insects. Heredity 98, 189-197. (doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6800950)
59. Endler, J. A. & Basolo, A. L. 1998 Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 415-420. (doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01471-2)
60. Rowe, C. & Skelhorn, J. 2004 Avian psychology and communication. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 1435-1442. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2753)
61. Ryan, M. J. 1998 Sexual selection, receiver biases, and the evolution of sex differences. Science 281, 1999-2003. (doi:10.1126/science.281.5385.1999)
62. Price, T. 1998 Sexual selection and natural selection in bird speciation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 353, 251-260. (doi:10.1098/rstb.1998.0207)
63. Prager, M. & Andersson, S. 2009 Phylogeny and evolution of sexually selected tail ornamentation in widowbirds and bishops (Euplectes spp.). J. Evol. Biol. 22, 2068-2076. (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01818.x)
64. Hall, D. W., Kirkpatrick, M. & West, B. 2000 Runaway sexual selection when female preference are directly selected. Evolution 54, 1862-1869. (doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb01233.x)