Genotype×environment interaction, environmental heterogeneity and the lek paradox

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 601-613

  Greenfield, M D ^a   Danka, R G ^b   Gleason, J M ^c   Harris, B R ^c   Zhou, Y ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE TOURS   (France)

^b USDA ARS Honey Bee Breeding Genetics and Physiology Research Laboratory   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

Author keywords

Acoustic communication; Ecological crossover; Female preference; Mate choice; Phenotypic plasticity; Reaction norm; Signal evolution

Indexed keywords

AUDITORY CUE; ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOTYPE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; HETEROGENEITY; LEK; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATE CHOICE; MATING BEHAVIOR; MOTH; PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY; REACTION NORM; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNALING; SONG;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; FEMALE; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; GENOTYPE ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; MALE; MATE CHOICE; MOTH; PHYSIOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

ANIMALS; FEMALE; GENE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; GENETIC VARIATION; LOUISIANA; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MOTHS;

ACHROIA GRISELLA; LEPIDOPTERA; PYRALIDAE;

EID: 84862791967     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02450.x     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
2. Azzalini, A. & Cox, D.R. 1984. Two new tests associated with analysis of variance. J. R. Statist. Soc. B 46: 335-343.
3. Baker, R.J. 1988. Tests for crossover genotype-environmental interactions. Can. J. Plant Sci. 68: 405-410.
4. Brandt, L.S.E. & Greenfield, M.D. 2004. Condition-dependent traits and the capture of genetic variance in male advertisement song. J. Evol. Biol. 17: 821-828.
5. Brooks, R. 2000. Negative genetic correlation between male sexual attractiveness and survival. Nature 406: 67-70.
6. Brooks, R. & Endler, J.A. 2001. Female guppies agree to differ: phenotypic and genetic variation in mate choice behavior and the consequences for sexual selection. Evolution 55: 1644-1655.
7. Bussière, L.F., Hunt, J., Stölting, K.N., Jennions, M.D. & Brooks, R. 2008. Mate choice for genetic quality when environments vary: suggestions for empirical progress. Genetica 134: 69-78.
8. Charlesworth, B. 1988. The evolution of mate choice in a fluctuating environment. J. Theor. Biol. 130: 191-204.
9. Charlesworth, B. & Hughes, K.A. 2000. The maintenance of genetic variation in life-history traits. In: Evolutionary Genetics: From Molecules to Morphology, Vol. 1 (R.S. Singh, C.B. Krimbas, eds), pp. 369-392. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
10. Charmantier, A. & Garant, D. 2007. Environmental quality and evolutionary potential: lessons from wild populations. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 272: 1415-1425.
11. Collins, R.D., Jang, Y., Reinhold, K. & Greenfield, M.D. 1999. Quantitative genetics of ultrasonic advertisement signaling in the lesser waxmoth Achroia grisella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Heredity 83: 644-651.
12. Cornelius, P.L., Seyedsadr, M. & Crossa, J. 1992. Using the shifted multiplicative model to search for 'separability' in crop cultivar trials. Theor. Appl. Genet. 84: 161-172.
13. Cornwallis, C.K. & Uller, T. 2010. Towards an evolutionary ecology of sexual traits. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25: 145-152.
14. Curtsinger, J.W., Service, P.M. & Prout, T. 1994. Antagonistic pleiotropy, reversal of dominance, and genetic polymorphism. Am. Nat. 144: 210-228.
15. Danielson-François, A., Kelly, J.K. & Greenfield, M.D. 2006. Genotype×environment interaction for male attractiveness in an acoustic moth: evidence for plasticity and canalization. J. Evol. Biol. 19: 532-542.
16. Danielson-François, A., Zhou, Y. & Greenfield, M.D. 2009. Indirect genetic effects and the lek paradox: inter-genotypic competition may strengthen genotype×environment interactions and conserve genetic variance. Genetica 136: 27-36.
17. Dickerson, C.E. 1969. Techniques for research in quantitative animal genetics. In: Techniques and Procedures in Animal Science Research, pp. 36-79. Am. Soc. Animal Sci., Albany, NY.
18. Ellner, S. & Hairston, N.G. Jr 1994. Role of overlapping generations in maintaining genetic variation in a fluctuating environment. Am. Nat. 143: 403-417.
19. Felsenstein, J. 1976. The theoretical population genetics of variable selection and migration. Annu. Rev. Genet. 10: 253-280.
20. Fitzpatrick, M.J., Feder, E., Rowe, L. & Sokolowski, M.B. 2007. Maintaining a behaviour polymorphism by frequency-dependent selection on a single gene. Nature 447: 210-212.
21. Foley, B.R., Genissel, A., Kristy, H.L. & Nuzhdin, S.V. 2010. Does segregating variation in sexual or microhabitat preferences lead to non-random mating within a population of Drosophila melanogaster? Biol. Lett. 6: 102-105.
22. Fry, J.D. 1992. The mixed-model analysis of variance applied to quantitative genetics: biological meaning of the parameters. Evolution 46: 540-550.
23. Gillespie, J.H. & Turelli, M. 1989. Genotype-environment interactions and the maintenance of polygenic variation. Genetics 121: 129-138.
24. Greig, E.I. & Greenfield, M.D. 2004. Sexual selection and predator avoidance in an acoustic moth: discriminating females take fewer risks. Behaviour 141: 799-815.
25. Hall, M.D., Lailvaux, S.P., Blows, M.W. & Brooks, R.C. 2009. Sexual conflict and the maintenance of multivariate genetic variation. Evolution 64: 1697-1703.
26. Hansen, T.F., Pelabon, C. & Houle, D. 2011. Heritability is not evolvability. Evol. Biol. 38: 258-277.
27. Higginson, A.D. & Reader, T. 2009. Environmental heterogeneity, genotype-by-environment interactions and the reliability of sexual traits as indicators of mate quality. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 276: 1153-1159.
28. Hine, E., Chenoweth, S.F. & Blows, M.W. 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.
29. Hine, E., McGuigan, K. & Blows, M.W. 2011. Natural selection stops the evolution of male attractiveness. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108: 3659-3664.
30. Holm, S. 1979. A simple sequentially-rejective multiple test procedure. Scand. J. Stat. 6: 65-70.
31. Hunt, J., Bussière, L.F., Jennions, M.D. & Brooks, R. 2004. What is genetic quality? Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 329-333.
32. Ingleby, F.C., Hunt, J. & Hosken, D.J. 2010. The role of genotype-by-environment intereactions in sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 23: 2031-2045.
33. Jang, Y. & Greenfield, M.D. 1996. Ultrasonic communication and sexual selection in wax moths: female choice based on energy and asynchrony of male signals. Anim. Behav. 51: 1095-1106.
34. Jang, Y. & Greenfield, M.D. 1998. Absolute versus relative measurements of sexual selection: assessing the contributions of ultrasonic signal characters to mate attraction in lesser wax moths. Achroia grisella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Evolution 52: 1383-1393.
35. Jang, Y. & Greenfield, M.D. 2000. Quantitative genetics of female choice in an ultrasonic pyralid moth, Achroia grisella: variation and evolvability of preference along multiple dimensions of the male advertisement signal. Heredity 84: 73-80.
36. Jang, Y., Collins, R.D. & Greenfield, M.D. 1997. Variation and repeatability of ultrasonic sexual advertisement signals in Achroia grisella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J. Insect Behav 10: 87-98.
37. Jia, F.-Y. & Greenfield, M.D. 1997. When are good genes good? Variable outcomes of female choice in wax moths Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 264: 1057-1063.
38. Jia, F.-Y., Greenfield, M.D. & Collins, R.D. 2000. Genetic variance of sexually selected traits in waxmoths: maintenance by genotype × environment interaction. Evolution 54: 953-967.
39. Kent, C., Azanchi, R., Smith, B., Formosa, A. & Levine, J.D. 2008. Social context influences chemical communication in D. melanogaster males. Curr. Biol. 18: 1384-1389.
40. Kokko, H. & Heubel, K.U. 2008. Condition-dependence, genotype-by-environment interactions and the lek paradox. Genetica 132: 209-216.
41. Kokko, H., Jennions, M.D. & Houde, A. 2007. Evolution of frequency-dependent mate choice: keeping up with fashion trends. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 274: 1317-1324.
42. Kotiaho, J.S., Simmons, L.W. & Tomkins, J.L. 2001. Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410: 684-686.
43. Künike, G. 1930. Zur biologie der kleinen wachsmotte, Achroia grisella Fabr. Z. Angew. Entomol. 16: 304-356.
44. Lewontin, R.C. 1974. The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
45. Lynch, M. & Walsh, B. 1998. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Sinauer Association, Sunderland, MA.
46. Miller, C.W. & Moore, A.J. 2007. A potential resolution to the lek paradox through indirect genetic effects. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 274: 1279-1286.
47. Mills, S.C., Alatalo, R.V., Koskela, E., Mappes, J. & Oksanen, T.A. 2007. Signal reliability compromised by genotype-by-environment interaction and potential mechanisms for its preservation. Evolution 61: 1748-1757.
48. Milum, V.G. 1940. Moth pests of honey bee combs. Glean. Bee Cult. 68: 424-428.
49. Narraway, C., Hunt, J., Wedell, N. & Hosken, D.J. 2010. Genotype-by-environment interactions for female preference. J. Evol. Biol. 23: 2550-2557.
50. Qvarnström, A. 1999. Genotype-by-environment interactions in the determination of the size of a secondary sexual character in the collared flycatcher (Ficedula albicollis). Evolution 53: 1564-1572.
51. Radwan, J.W. 2008. Maintenance of genetic variation in sexual ornaments: a review of the mechanisms. Genetica 124: 113-127.
52. Rodríguez, R.L. & Al-Wathiqui, N. 2011. Genotype×environment interaction is weaker in genitalia than in mating signals and body traits in Enchenopa treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae). Genetica 139: 871-884.
53. Rodriguez, R.L. & Greenfield, M.D. 2003. Genetic variance and phenotypic plasticity in a component of female mate choice in an ultrasonic moth. Evolution 57: 1304-1313.
54. Roff, D.A. 1997. Evolutionary Quantitative Genetics. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY.
55. Rowe, L. & Houle, D. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 263: 1415-1421.
56. Scheuber, H., Jacot, A. & Brinkhoff, M.W.G. 2004. Female preference for multiple condition-dependent components of a sexually-selected signal. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 271: 2453-2457.
57. Shuster, S.M. & Wade, M.J. 2003. Mating Systems and Strategies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
58. Slatkin, M. 1978. Spatial patterns in the distribution of polygenic characters. J. Theor. Biol. 70: 213-228.
59. Spangler, H.G., Greenfield, M.D. & Takessian, A. 1984. Ultrasonic mate calling in the lesser wax moth. Physiol. Entomol. 9: 87-95.
60. Taylor, P.D. & Williams, G.C. 1982. The lek paradox is not resolved. Theor. Popul. Biol. 22: 392-409.
61. Tomkins, J.L., Radwan, J., Kotiaho, J. & Tregenza, T. 2004. Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 323-328.
62. Turelli, M. & Barton, N.H. 2004. Polygenic variation maintained by balancing selection: pleiotropy, sex-dependent allelic effects and GxE interactions. Genetics 166: 1053-1079.
63. Via, S. & Lande, R. 1985. Genotype-environment interaction and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Evolution 39: 505-522.
64. Yeaman, S., Chen, Y. & Whitlock, M.C. 2010. No effect of environmental heterogeneity on the maintenance of genetic variation in wing shape in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 64: 3398-3408.
65. Zhang, X.-S. 2006. The phenotypic variance within plastic traits under migration-mutation-selection balance. Evolution 60: 1125-1136.
66. Zhou, Y., Kuster, H.K., Pettis, J.S., Danka, R.G., Gleason, J.M. & Greenfield, M.D. 2008. Reaction norm variants for male calling song in populations of Achroia grisella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Evolution 62: 1317-1334.