The evolution of social interactions changes predictions about interacting phenotypes

Evolution

Volumn 66, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 2056-2064

  Kazancioǧlu, Erem ^a,c   Klug, Hope ^b,c   Alonzo, Suzanne H ^c  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA   (United States)

^c YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Evolution of plasticity; Indirect genetic effects; Phenotypic coevolution; Quantitative genetic models; Social behavior

Indexed keywords

COEVOLUTION; EVOLUTIONARILY STABLE STRATEGY; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; GENE EXPRESSION; GENETIC STRUCTURE; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; PHENOTYPE; PREDICTION; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; THEORETICAL STUDY;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; EVOLUTION; GENETIC SELECTION; PHENOTYPE; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; MODELS, GENETIC; PHENOTYPE; SELECTION, GENETIC; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 84863430592     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01585.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bleakley, B., and E. Brodie. 2009. Indirect genetic effects influence antipredator behavior in guppies: estimates of the coefficient of interaction psi and the inheritance of reciprocity. Evolution 63:1796-1806.
2. Burley, N. 1986. Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care. Am. Nat. 127: 415-445.
3. Chenoweth, S., H. Rundle, and M. Blows. 2010. Experimental evidence for the evolution of indirect genetic effects: changes in the interaction effect coefficient, psi (ψ), due to sexual selection. Evolution 64: 1849-1856.
4. De Lope, F., and A. Møller. 1993. Female reproductive effort depends on the degree of ornamentation of their mates. Evolution 47: 1152-1160.
5. DeWitt, T. J., A. Sih, and D. S. Wilson. 1998. Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13: 77-81.
6. Falconer, D. S., and T. Mackay. 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics. 4th ed. Longman, New York.
7. Frank, S. A. 1998. Foundations of social evolution. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
8. Gowaty, P. 2008. Reproductive compensation. J. Evol. Biol. 21: 1189-1200.
9. Hamilton, W. 1964. Genetical evolution of social behaviour I. J. Theor. Biol. 7:1-16.
10. Harris, W., and T. Uller. 2009. Reproductive investment when mate quality varies: differential allocation versus reproductive compensation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 364: 1039-1048.
11. Harrison, F., Z. Barta, I. Cuthill, and T. Szekely. 2009. How is sexual conflict over parental care resolved? A meta-analysis. J. Evol. Biol. 22: 1800-1812.
12. Johnstone, R., and C. Hinde. 2006. Negotiation over offspring care-how should parents respond to each other's efforts? Behav. Ecol. 17: 818-827.
13. Karino, K., and R. Arai. 2006. Effect of clutch size on male egg-fanning behavior and hatching success in the goby, Eviota prasina (Klunzinger). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 334: 43-50.
14. Kent, C., R. Azanchi, B. Smith, A. Formosa, and J. Levine. 2008. Social context influences chemical communication in D. melanogaster males. Curr. Biol.18: 1384-1389.
15. Kolm, N. 2001. Females produce larger eggs for large males in a paternal mouthbrooding fish. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268: 2229-2234.
16. Kölliker, M. 2005. Ontogeny in the family. Behav. Genet. 35: 7-18.
17. Kölliker, M., J. P. Chuckalovcak, K. F. Haynes, and E. Brodie. 2006. Maternal food provisioning in relation to condition-dependent offspring odours in burrower bugs (Sehirus cinctus). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 273: 1523-1528.
18. Kölliker, M., B. J. Ridenhour, and S. Gaba. 2010. Antagonistic parent-offspring co-adaptation. PLoS ONE 5: e8606.
19. Lindström, K. 1998. Effects of costs and benefits of brood care on filial cannibalism in the sand goby. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 42: 101-106.
20. Lindström, K., C. St. Mary, and C. Pampoulie. 2006. Sexual selection for male parental care in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 60: 46-51.
21. Mas, F., K. F. Haynes, and M. Kölliker. 2009. A chemical signal of offspring quality affects maternal care in a social insect. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 276: 2847-2853.
22. McGlothlin, J., and E. Brodie. 2009. How to measure indirect genetic effects: the congruence of trait-based and variance-partitioning approaches. Evolution 63: 1785-1795.
23. McGlothlin, J., A. Moore, J. Wolf, and E. Brodie. 2010. Interacting phenotypes and the evolutionary process. III. Social evolution. Evolution 64: 2558-2574.
24. Moore, A., E. Brodie, and J. Wolf. 1997. Interacting phenotypes and the evolutionary process. I. Direct and indirect genetic effects of social interactions. Evolution 51: 1352-1362.
25. Nussbaum, R., and D. Schultz. 1989. Coevolution of parental care and egg size. Am. Nat. 133: 591-603.
26. Pigliucci, M. 2005. Evolution of phenotypic plasticity: where are we going now? Trends Ecol. Evol. 20: 481-486.
27. Ridgway, M. 1989. The parental response to brood size manipulation in smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui). Ethology 80: 47-54.
28. Sargent, R. 1988. Paternal care and egg survival both increase with clutch size in the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 23: 33-37.
29. Scheiner, S. 1993. Genetics and evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24: 35-68.
30. Trivers, R. 1985. Social evolution. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, CA.
31. West, S., A. Griffin, A. Gardner, and S. Diggle. 2006. Social evolution theory for microorganisms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 4: 597-607.
32. Wilson, A., U. Gelin, M. Perron, and D. Reale. 2009. Indirect genetic effects and the evolution of aggression in a vertebrate system. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 276: 533-541.
33. Wilson, A., M. Morrissey, M. Adams, C. Walling, F. Guinness, J. Pemberton, T. Clutton-Brock, and L. Kruuk. 2011. Indirect genetics effects and evolutionary constraint: an analysis of social dominance in red deer, Cervus elaphus. J. Evol. Biol. 24: 772-783.
34. Wolf, J., E. Brodie, J. Cheverud, A. Moore, and M. Wade. 1998. Evolutionary consequences of indirect genetic effects. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13: 64-69.
35. Wolf, J., E. Brodie, and A. Moore. 1999. Interacting phenotypes and the evolutionary process II: Selection resulting from social interactions. Am. Nat. 153:254-266.