Meta-analysis suggests choosy females get sexy sons more than "Good genes"

Evolution

Volumn 66, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 2665-2673

  Prokop, Zofia M ^a   Michalczyk, Łukasz ^b   Drobniak, Szymon M ^a   Herdegen, Magdalena ^a   Radwan, Jacek ^a  

^a JAGIELLONIAN UNIVERSITY   (Poland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Fisherian benefits; Good genes; Indirect selection; Mate choice; Meta analysis; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; FISHERY ECONOMICS; FITNESS; GAMETE; GOOD GENES HYPOTHESIS; HERITABILITY; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATE ATTRACTION; MATE CHOICE; META-ANALYSIS; PARENT-OFFSPRING INTERACTION; PHENOTYPE;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; MALE; MATE CHOICE; META ANALYSIS;

ANIMALS; FEMALE; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MODELS, GENETIC; SELECTION, GENETIC;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 84865751245     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01654.x     Document Type: Article

References (118)

1. Alatalo, R. V., J. Kotiaho, J. Mappes, and S. Parri 1998. Mate choice for offspring performance: major benefits or minor costs? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265:2297-2301.
2. Andersson, M. B. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ
3. Andersson, M., and L. W. Simmons 2006. Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21:296-302.
4. Arellano-Aguilar, O., and C. M. Garcia 2008. Exposure to pesticides impairs the expression of fish ornaments reducing the availability of attractive males. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 275:1343-1350.
5. Aspi, J., and A. D. A. A. Hoikkala 1993. Laboratory and natural heritabilities of male courtship song characters in Drosophila montana and D. littoralis. Heredity 70:400-406
6. Bakker, T. C. M. 1993. Positive genic correlation between female preference and preferred male ornament in sticklebacks. Nature 363:255-257.
7. Barber, I., S. A. Arnott, V. A. Braithwaite, J. Andrew, and F. A. Huntingford 2001. Indirect fitness consequences of mate choice in sticklebacks: offspring of brighter males grow slowly but resist parasitic infections. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 268:71-76.
8. Blomquist, G. E. 2009. Trade-off between age of first reproduction and survival in a female primate. Biol. Lett. 5:339-342.
9. Boake, C. R. B. 1985. Genetic consequences of mate choice: a quantitative genetic method for testing sexual selection theory. Science 227:1061-1063.
10. Boake, C. R. B., and L. Konigsberg 1998. Inheritance of male courtship behavior, aggressive success, and body size in Drosophila silvestris. Evolution 52:1487-1492.
11. Bochdanovits, Z., and G. de Jong 2004. Antagonistic pleiotropy for life-history traits at the gene expression level. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271:S75-S78.
12. Bonduriansky, R., and L. Rowe 2005. Intralocus sexual conflict and the genetic architecture of sexually dimorphic traits in Prochyliza xanthostoma (Diptera: Piophilidae). Evolution 59:1965-1975.
13. Borenstein, M., L. V. Hedges, J. P. T. Higgins, and H. R. Rothstein 2009. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, UK
14. Brooks, R. 2000. Negative genetic correlation between male sexual attractiveness and survival. Nature 406:67-70.
15. Byers, J. A., and L. Waits 2006. Good genes sexual selection in nature. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103:16343-16345.
16. Calsbeek, R., and C. Bonneaud 2008. Postcopulatory fertilization bias as a form of cryptic sexual selection. Evolution 62:1137-1148.
17. Charmantier, A., and D. Reale 2005. How do misassigned paternities affect the estimation of heritability in the wild? Mol. Ecol. 14:2839-2850.
18. Cichoń, M. 1997. Evolution of longevity through optimal resource allocation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264:1383-1388.
19. Collins, R. D., Y. Jang, K. Reinhold, and M. D. Greenfield 1999. Quantitative genetics of ultrasonic advertisement signalling in the lesser waxmoth Achroia grisella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Heredity 83:644-651.
20. Connallon, T. 2010. Genic capture, sex linkage, and the heritability of fitness. Am. Nat. 175:564-576.
21. Connallon, T., and E. Jakubowski 2009. Association between sex ratio distortion and sexually antagonistic fitness consequences of female choice. Evolution 63:2179-2183.
22. Cothran, R. D. 2008. Direct and indirect fitness consequences of female choice in a crustacean. Evolution 62:1666-1675.
23. Cotton, S., J. Small, R. Hashim, and A. Pomiankowski 2010. Eyespan reflects reproductive quality in wild stalk-eyed flies. Evol. Ecol. 24:83-95.
24. Cox, R. M., and R. Calsbeek 2010. Cryptic sex-ratio bias provides indirect genetic benefits despite sexual conflict. Science 328:92-94.
25. Day, T. H., C. S. Crean, A. S. Gilburn, D. M. Shuker, and R. W. Wilcockson 1996. Sexual selection in seaweed flies: genetic variation in male size and its reliability as an indicator in natural populations. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263:1127-1134.
26. Doty, G. V., and A. M. Welch 2001. Advertisement call duration indicates good genes for offspring feeding rate in gray tree frogs (Hyla versicolor). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 49:150-156.
27. Edvardsson, M., and G. Arnqvist 2006. No apparent indirect genetic benefits to female red flour beetles preferring males with intense copulatory courtship. Behav. Genet. 36:775-782.
28. Egger, M., G. D. Smith, M. Schneider, and C. Minder 1997. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br. Med. J. 315:629-634.
29. Eilertsen, E. M., B. J. Bardsen, S. Liljedal, G. Rudolfsen, and I. Folstad 2009. Experimental evidence for paternal effects on offspring growth rate in Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 276:129-136.
30. Evans, J. P. 2010. Quantitative genetic evidence that males trade attractiveness for ejaculate quality in guppies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 277:3195-3201.
31. Evans, J. P., J. L. Kelley, A. Bisazza, E. Finazzo, and A. Pilastro 2004. Sire attractiveness influences offspring performance in guppies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271:2035-2042.
32. Fawcett, T. W., B. Kuijper, F. J. Weissing, and I. Pen 2011. Sex-ratio control erodes sexual selection, revealing evolutionary feedback from adaptive plasticity. PNAS 108:15925-15930.
33. Fedorka, K. M., and T. A. Mousseau 2004. Female mating bias results in conflicting sex-specific offspring fitness. Nature 429:65-67.
34. Fisher, R. A. 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K
35. Gromko, M. H. 1987. Genetic constraint on the evolution of courtship behaviour in Drosophila melanogaster. Heredity 58:435-441.
36. Gustafsson, L., A. Qvarnstrom, and B. C. Sheldon 1995. Trade-offs between life-history traits and a secondary sexual character in male collared flycatchers. Nature 375:311-313.
37. Hadfield, J. D. 2010. MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J. Stat. Softw. 33:1-22.
38. Hadfield, J. D., and S. Nakagawa 2010. General quantitative methods for comparative biology: phylogenies, taxonomies and multi-trait models for continuous and categorical characters. J. Evol. Biol. 23:494-508.
39. Hadfield, J. D., M. D. Burgess, A. Lord, A. B. Phillimore, S. M. Clegg, and I. P. F. Owens 2006. Direct versus indirect sexual selection: genetic basis of colour, size and recruitment in a wild bird. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 273:1347-1353.
40. Hamilton, W. D., and M. Zuk 1982. Heritable true fitness and bright birds-a role for parasites. Science 218:384-387.
41. Head, M. L., J. Hunt, M. D. Jennions, and R. Brooks 2005. The indirect benefits of mating with attractive males outweigh the direct costs. PLoS Biol. 3:289-294.
42. Hill, G. E. 1991. Plumage coloration is a sexually selected indicator of male quality. Nature 350:337-339.
43. Hine, E., S. Lachish, M. Higgie, and M. W. Blows 2002. Positive genetic correlation between female preference and offspring fitness. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:2215-2219.
44. Hoefler, C. D., A. L. Carlascio, M. H. Persons, and A. L. Rypstra 2009. Male courtship repeatability and potential indirect genetic benefits in a wolf spider. Anim. Behav. 78:183-188.
45. Horne, T. J., and H. Ylonen 1998. Heritabilities of dominance-related traits in male bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus). Evolution 52:894-899.
46. Horváthová, T., S. Nakagawa, and T. Uller 2011. Strategic female reproductive investment in response to male attractiveness in birds. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 279:163-170.
47. Houde, A. E. 1992. Sex-linked heritability of a sexually selected character in a natural population of Poecilia reticulata (Pisces: Poeciliidae) (guppies). Heredity 69:229-235.
48. Hunt, J., L. F. Bussiere, M. D. Jennions, and R. Brooks 2004. What is genetic quality? Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:329-333.
49. Iwasa, Y., A. Pomiankowski, and S. Nee 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. the 'handicap' principle. Evol. 45:1431-1442.
50. Iyengar, V. K., and T. Eisner 1999. Heritability of body mass, a sexually selected trait, in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:9169-9171.
51. Jacob, A., G. Evanno, B. A. von Siebenthal, C. Grossen, and C. Wedekind 2010. Effects of different mating scenarios on embryo viability in brown trout. Mol. Ecol. 19:5296-5307.
52. Janhunen M., N. Peuhkuri, C. R. Primmer, I. Kolari, and J. Piironen 2011. Does breeding ornamentation signal genetic quality in Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus? Evol. Biol. 381:68-78.
53. Jaquiery, J., T. Broquet, C. Aguilar, G. Evanno, and N. Perrin 2010. Good genes drive female choice for mating partners in the lek-breeding European treefrog. Evolution 64:108-115.
54. Jia, F. Y., and M. D. Greenfield 1997. When are good genes good? Variable outcomes of female choice in wax moths. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264:1057-1063.
55. Karino, K., and Y. Haijima 2001. Heritability of male secondary sexual traits in feral guppies in Japan. J. Ethol. 19:33-37.
56. Kekalainen, J., H. Huuskonen, M. Tuomaala, and R. Kortet 2010. Both male and female sexual ornaments reflect offspring performance in a fish. Evolution 64:3149-3157.
57. Kekalainen, J., G. Rudolfsen, M. Janhunen, L. Figenschou, N. Peuhkuri, N. Tamper, and R. Kortet 2010. Genetic and potential non-genetic benefits increase offspring fitness of polyandrous females in non-resource based mating system. BMC Evol. Biol. 10:1-9.
58. Kemp, D. J., and R. L. Rutowski 2007. Condition dependence, quantitative genetics, and the potential signal content of iridescent ultraviolet butterfly coloration. Evolution 61:168-183.
59. Kirkpatrick, M., and N. H. Barton 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94:1282-1286.
60. Kleven, O., F. Jacobsen, R. Izadnegahdar, R. J. Robertson, and J. T. Lifjeld 2006. No evidence of paternal genetic contribution to nestling cell-mediated immunity in the North American barn swallow. Anim. Behav. 71:839-845.
61. Kokko, H., R. Brooks, J. M. McNamara, and A. I. Houston 2002. The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:1331-1340.
62. Kokko, H., R. Brooks, M. D. Jennions, and J. Morley 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270:653-664.
63. Kokko, H., M. D. Jennions, and R. Brooks 2006. Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37:43-66.
64. Kortet, R., A. Vainikka, M. J. Rantala, J. Myntti, and J. Taskinen 2004. In vitro embryo survival and early viability of larvae in relation to male sexual ornaments and parasite resistance in roach, Rutilus rutilus L. J. Evol. Biol. 17:1337-1344.
65. Kotiaho, J. S., and M. Puurtinen 2007. Mate choice for indirect genetic benefits: scrutiny of the current paradigm. Funct. Ecol. 21:638-644.
66. Kotiaho, J. S., L. W. Simmons, and J. L. Tomkins 2001. Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410:684-686.
67. Kraaijeveld, K., P. J. Carew, T. Billing, G. J. Adcock, and R. A. Mulder 2004. Extra-pair paternity does not result in differential sexual selection in the mutually ornamented black swan (Cygnus atratus). Mol. Ecol. 13:1625-1633.
68. Kruczek, M., and M. Zatorska 2008. Male rank affects reproductive success and offspring performance in bank voles. Physiol. Behav. 94:611-615.
69. Kurtz, J. 2007. The correlation between immunocompetence and an ornament trait changes over lifetime in Panorpa vulgaris scorpionflies. Zoology 110:336-343.
70. Kurtz, J., and K. P. Sauer 1999. The immunocompetence handicap hypothesis: testing the genetic predictions. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266:2515-2522.
71. Lancaster, L. T., C. A. Hipsley, and B. Sinervo 2009. Female choice for optimal combinations of multiple male display traits increases offspring survival. Behav. Ecol. 20:993-999.
72. Lande, R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78:3721-3725.
73. Leibowitz, A., M. Santos, and A. Fontdevila 1995. Heritability and selection on body size in a natural population of Drosophila buzzatii. Genetics 141:181-189.
74. Loyau, A., and F. Lacroix 2010. Watching sexy displays improves hatching success and offspring growth through maternal allocation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 277:3453-3460.
75. Mead, L. S., and S. J. Arnold 2004. Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:264-271.
76. Mills, S. C., R. V. Alatalo, E. Koskela, J. Mappes, T. Mappes, and T. A. Oksanen 2007. Signal reliability compromised by genotype-by-environment interaction and potential mechanisms for its preservation. Evolution 61:1748-1757.
77. Mills, S. C., A. Grapputo, I. Jokinen, E. Koskela, T. Mappes, and T. Poikonen 2010. Fitness trade-offs mediated by immunosuppression costs in a small mammal. Evolution 64:166-179.
78. Mitchell, S. L. 1990. The mating system genetically affects offspring performance in woodhouse's toad (Bufo woodhousei). Evolution 44:502-519.
79. Møller, A., and R. Alatalo 1999. Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266:85-91.
80. Norry, F. M., J. C. Vilardi, and E. Hasson 1997. Genetic and phenotypic correlations among size-related traits, and heritability variation between body parts in Drosophila buzzatii. Genetica 101:131-139.
81. Oksanen, T. A., R. V. Alatalo, T. J. Horne, E. Koskela, J. Mappes, and T. Mappes 1999. Maternal effort and male quality in the bank vole, Clethrionomys glareolus. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266:1495-1499.
82. Parker, T. H. 2003. Genetic benefits of mate choice separated from differential maternal investment in red junglefowl (Gallus gallus). Evolution 57:2157-2165.
83. Petersson, E., and T. Jarvi 2007. Characteristics of brown trout males influence growth and survival of their offspring. J. Fish. Biol. 71:493-509.
84. Petrie, M., and M. Lipsitch 1994. Avian polygyny is most likely in populations with high variability in heritable male fitness. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 256:275-280.
85. Pischedda, A., and A. K. Chippindale 2006. Intralocus sexual conflict diminishes the benefits of sexual selection. PLoS Biol. 4:2099-2103.
86. Pitcher, T. E., and B. D. Neff 2007. Genetic quality and offspring performance in Chinook salmon: implications for supportive breeding. Conserv. Genet. 8:607-616.
87. Polak, M., W. T. Starmer, and L. L. Wolf 2004. Sexual selection for size and symmetry in a diversifying secondary sexual character in Drosophila bipectinata duda (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Evolution 58:597-607.
88. Pomiankowski, A., and A. P. Møller 1995. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 260:21-29.
89. Price, D. K., and N. T. Burley 1993. Constraints on the evolution of attractive traits-genetic (co)variance of zebra finch bill color. Heredity 71:405-412.
90. R Development Core Team. 2010. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/5.
91. Radwan, J. 2002. Good genes go fisherian. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17:539-539.
92. Radwan, J. 2008. Maintenance of genetic variation in sexual ornaments: a review of the mechanisms. Genetica 134:113-127.
93. Reynolds, J. D., and M. R. Gross 1992. Female mate preference enhances offspring growth and reproduction in a fish, Poecilia reticulata. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 250:57-62.
94. Ritchie, M. G., and C. P. Kyriacou 1994. Genetic variability of courtship song in a population of Drosophila melanogaster. Anim. Behav. 48:425-434.
95. Rowe, L., and D. Houle 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263:1415-1421.
96. Rudolfsen, G., L. Figenschou, I. Folstad, J. T. Nordeide, and E. Soreng 2005. Potential fitness benefits from mate selection in the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). J. Evol. Biol. 18:172-179.
97. Ryder, J. J., and M. T. Siva-Jothy 2001. Quantitative genetics of immune function and body size in the house cricket, Acheta domesticus. J. Evol. Biol. 144:646-653.
98. Sheldon, B. C. 2000. Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15:397-402.
99. Sheldon, B. C., H. Arponen, A. Laurila, P. A. Crochet, and J. Merila 2003. Sire coloration influences offspring survival under predation risk in the moorfrog. J. Evol. Biol. 16:1288-1295.
100. Simmons, L. W., R. M. Tinghitella, and M. Zuk. 2010. Quantitative genetic variation in courtship song and its covariation with immune function and sperm quality in the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. Behav. Ecol. 216:1330-1336.
101. Sirkia, P. M., M. Virolainen, and T. Laaksonen 2010. Melanin coloration has temperature-dependent effects on breeding performance that may maintain phenotypic variation in a passerine bird. J. Evol. Biol. 23:2385-2396.
102. Suk, H. Y., and J. C. Choe 2008. Dynamic female preference for multiple signals in Rhinogobius brunneus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62:945-951.
103. Szollosi, E., B. Rosivall, D. Hasselquist, and J. Torok 2009. The effect of parental quality and malaria infection on nestling performance in the Collared Flycatcher (Ficedula albicollis). J. Ornithol. 150:519-527.
104. Taylor, M. L., N. Wedell, and D. J. Hosken 2010. Attractive males do not sire superior daughters. Evol. Ecol. 24:195-205.
105. Tomkins, J. L., and L. W. Simmons 1999. Heritability of size but not symmetry in a sexually selected trait chosen by female earwigs. Heredity 82:151-157.
106. Tomkins, J. L., J. Radwan, J. S. Kotiaho, and T. Tregenza 2004. Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:323-328.
107. Tschirren, B., E. Postma, A. N. Rutstein, and S. C. Griffith 2012. When mothers make sons sexy: maternal effects contribute to the increased sexual attractiveness of extra-pair offspring. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B279:1233-1240.
108. von Schantz, T., M. Grahn, and G. Goransson 1994. Intersexual selection and reproductive success in the pheasant Phasianus colchicus. Am. Nat. 144:510-527.
109. Watson, P. J. 1998. Multi-male mating and female choice increase offspring growth in the spider Neriene litigiosa (Linyphiidae). Anim. Behav. 55:387-403.
110. Wedekind, C., R. Muller, and H. Spicher 2001. Potential genetic benefits of mate selection in whitefish. J. Evol. Biol. 14:980-986.
111. Wedekind, C., G. Evanno, D. Urbach, A. Jacob, and R. Muller 2008a. 'Good-genes' and 'compatible-genes' effects in an Alpine whitefish and the information content of breeding tubercles over the course of the spawning season. Genetica 132:199-208.
112. Wedekind, C., A. Jacob, G. Evanno, S. Nusslé, and R. Muller. 2008b. Viability of brown trout embryos positively linked to melanin-based but negatively to carotenoid-based colours of their fathers. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 275:1737-1744.
113. Welch, A. M. 2003. Genetic benefits of a female mating preference in gray tree frogs are context-dependent. Evolution 57:883-893.
114. Welch, A. M., R. D. Semlitsch, and H. C. Gerhardt 1998. Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280:1928-1930.
115. Wilcockson, R. W., C. S. Crean, and T. H. Day 1995. Heritability of a sexually selected character expressed in both sexes. Nature 374:158-159.
116. Wilkinson, G., and M. Taper 1999. Evolution of genetic variation for condition-dependent traits in stalk-eyed flies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266:1685-1690.
117. Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53:205-214.
118. Zhou, Y., J. K. Kelly, and M. D. Greenfield 2011. Testing the fisherian mechanism: examining the genetic correlation between male song and female response in waxmoths. Evol. Ecol. 25:307-329.