Female preference for male courtship effort can drive the evolution of male mate choice

Evolution

Volumn 66, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 3722-3735

  South, Sandra H ^a   Arnqvist, Göran ^a   Servedio, Maria R ^b  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Courtship; Intrasexual competition; Male mate choice; Mutual mate choice; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ALLELE; COURTSHIP; FECUNDITY; FEMALE; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; INTRASPECIFIC COMPETITION; MATE CHOICE; NUMERICAL MODEL; POLYGYNY; POPULATION GENETICS; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; REPRODUCTIVE EFFORT; SEXUAL SELECTION; THEORETICAL STUDY;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; MALE; MATE CHOICE;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; FEMALE; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MODELS, GENETIC;

EID: 84870531895     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01716.x     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Amundsen, T. 2000. Why are female birds ornamented? Trends Ecol. Evol. 15:149-155.
2. Amundsen, T., and E. Forsgren. 2001. Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98:13155-13160.
3. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
4. Barton, N. H., and M. Turelli. 1991. Natural and sexual selection on many loci. Genetics 127:229-255.
5. Bateman, A. J. 1948. Intrasexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349-368.
6. Bel-Venner, M. C., S. Dray, D. Allainé, F. Menu, and S. Venner. 2008. Unexpected male choosiness for mates in a spider. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 275:77-82.
7. Bitton, P. P., R. D. Dawson, and C. L. Ochs. 2008. Plumage characteristics, reproductive investment and assortative mating in tree swallows Tachycineta bicolor. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62:1543-1550.
8. Bonduriansky, R. 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol. Rev. 76:305-339.
9. Borgia, G. 1979. Sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. Pp. 19-80 in M. Blum and A. Blum, eds. Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. Academic Press, New York.
10. Bradbury, J. W. 1981. The evolution of leks. Pp. 138-169 in R. D. Alexander and D. W. Tinkle, eds. Natural selection and social behavior: research and new theory. Chiron Press, New York.
11. Burley, N. 1983. The meaning of assortative mating. Ethol. Sociobiol. 4:191-203.
12. Burley, N. 1988. The differential-allocation hypothesis: an experimental test. Am. Nat. 132:611-628.
13. Cézilly, F. 2004. Assortative mating. Pp. 876-881 in M. Bekoff, ed. Encyclopedia of animal behavior Vol. 3. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.
14. Clutton-Brock, T. H., and P. Langley. 1997. Persistent courtship reduces male and female longevity in captive tsetse flies Glossina morsitans morsitans Westwood (diptera: glossinidae). Behav. Ecol. 8:392-395.
15. Clutton-Brock, T. H., and G. A. Parker. 1992. Potential reproductive rates and the operation of sexual selection. Q. Rev. Biol. 67:437-456.
16. Cordts, R., and L. Partridge. 1996. Courtship reduces longevity of male Drosophila melanogaster. Anim. Behav. 52:269-278.
17. Cotton, S., K. Fowler, and A. Pomiankowski. 2004. Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependence expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271:771-783.
18. Crespi, B. 1989. Causes of assortative mating in arthropods. Anim. Behav. 38:980-1000.
19. Darwin, C. 1871. The descent of man, and sexual selection in relation to sex. John Murray, London.
20. Deutsch, J. C., and J. D. Reynolds. 1995. The evolution of sex differences in mate choice. Perspect. Ethol. 11:297-323.
21. Doutrelant, C., A. Gregoire, N. Grnac, D. Gomez, M. M. Lambrechts, and P. Perret. 2008. Female coloration indicates female reproductive capacity in blue tits. J. Evol. Biol. 21:226-233.
22. Emlen, S. T., and L. W. Oring. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215-223.
23. Fawcett, T. W., and R. A. Johnstone. 2003. Mate choice in the face of costly competition. Behav. Ecol. 14:771-779.
24. Fitzpatrick, S., A. Berglund, and G. Rosenqvist. 1995. Ornaments or offspring: costs to reproductive success restrict sexual selection processes. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 55:251-260.
25. Härdling, R., and H. Kokko. 2005. The evolution of prudent choice. Evol. Ecol. Res. 7:697-715.
26. Herdman, E. J. E., C. D. Kelly, and J.-G. Godin. 2004. Male mate choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): do males prefer larger females as mates? Ethology 110:97-111.
27. Hoefler, C. D., G. Guhanarayan, M. H. Persons, and A. L. Rypstra. 2009. The interaction of female condition and mating status on male-male aggression in a wolf spider. Ethology 115:331-338.
28. Hooper, P. L., and G. F. Miller. 2008. Mutual mate choice can drive costly signaling even under perfect monogamy. Adapt. Behav. 16:53-69.
29. Hunt, J., L. F. Bussière, M. D. Jennions, and R. Brooks. 2004. What is genetic quality? Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:329-333.
30. Iwasa, Y., and A. Pomiankowski. 1999. Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. J. Theor. Biol. 200:97-109.
31. Janetos, A. C. 1980. Strategies of female mate choice: a theoretical analysis. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 7:107-112.
32. Jennions, M. D., and M. Petrie. 1997. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. 72:283-327.
33. Johnstone, R. A. 1995. Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence. Biol. Rev. 70:1-65.
34. Johnstone, R. A. 1997a. The evolution of animal signals. Pp. 155-178 in J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies, eds. Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.
35. Johnstone, R. A. 1997b. The tactics of mutual mate choice and competitive search. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 40:51-59.
36. Jones, K. M., P. Monaghan, and R. G. Nager. 2001. Male mate choice and female fecundity in zebra finches. Anim. Behav. 62:1021-1026.
37. Kirkpatrick, M. 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36:1-12.
38. Kirkpatrick, M., and N. H. Barton. 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94:1282-1286.
39. Kokko, H., and R. A. Johnstone. 2002. Why is mutual mate choice not the norm? Operational sex ratios, sex roles and the evolution of sexually dimorphic and monomorphic signalling. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 357:319-330.
40. Kokko, H., R. Brooks, J. M. McNamara, and A. I. Houston. 2002. The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:1331-1340.
41. Kotiaho, J. S., R. V. Alatalo, J. Mappes, M. G. Nielsen, S. Parri, and A. Rivero. 1998. Energetic costs of size and sexual signalling in a wolf spider. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265:2203-2209.
42. Kraaijeveld, K., F. J. L. Kraaijeveld, and J. Komdeur. 2007. The evolution of mutual ornamentation. Anim. Behav. 74:657-677.
43. Lailvaux, S. P., and D. J. Irschick. 2006. A functional perspective on sexual selection: insights and future prospects. Anim. Behav. 72:263-273.
44. Lande, R., and S. J. Arnold. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37:1210-1226.
45. LeBas, N. R. 2006. Female finery is not for males. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21:170-173.
46. LeBas, N. R., L. R. Hockham, and M. G. Ritchie. 2003. Nonlinear and correlation sexual selection on "honest" female ornamentation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270:2159-2165.
47. Lihoreau, M., C. Zimmer, and C. Rivault. 2008. Mutual mate choice: when it pays both sexes to avoid inbreeding. PloS One 3:e3365.
48. Lorch, P. D., S. Proulx, L. Rowe, and T. Day. 2003. Condition-dependent sexual selection can accelerate adaptation. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5:867-881.
49. 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.
50. Mappes, J., R. V. Atalo, J. S. Kotiaho, and S. Parri. 1996. Viability costs of condition-dependent sexual male display in a drumming wolf spider. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263:785-789.
51. Maynard Smith, J., and D. Harper. 2003. Animal signals. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
52. Nakahashi, W. 2008. Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection by male choice. Theor. Popul. Biol. 74:167-181.
53. Ojanguren, A. F., and A. E. Magurran. 2004. Uncoupling the links between male mating tactics and female attractiveness. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271:S427-S429.
54. Owens, I. P. F., and D. B. A. Thompson. 1994. Sex differences, sex ratios and sex roles. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 258:93-99.
55. Parker, G. A. 1983. Mate quality and mating decisions. Pp. 141-166 in P. Bateson, ed. Mate choice. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.
56. Pomiankowski, A. 1987. Sexual selection: the handicap principle does work-sometimes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 231:123-145.
57. Pomiankowski, A., and A. P. Møller. 1995. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 260:21-29.
58. Reading, K. L., and P. R. Y. Backwell. 2007. Can beggars be choosers? Male mate choice in a fiddler crab. Anim. Behav. 74:867-872.
59. Real, L. A. 1990. Search theory and mate choice. I. Models of single-sex discrimination. Am. Nat. 136:376-404.
60. Real, L. A. 1991. Search theory and mate choice. II. Mutual interaction, assortative mating, and equilibrium variation in male and female fitness. Am. Nat. 138:901-917.
61. Ridley, M. 1983. The explanation of organic diversity: the comparative method and adaptations for mating. Clarendon Press, Oxford, U.K.
62. Ritchie, M. G. 1996. The shape of female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:14628-14631.
63. Roberts, J. A., and G. W. Uetz. 2005. Information content of female chemical signals in the wolf spider, Schizocosa ocreata: male discrimination of reproductive state and receptivity. Anim. Behav. 70:217-223.
64. Rosvall, K. A. 2011. Intrasexual competition in females: evidence for sexual selection? Behav. Ecol. 22:1131-1140. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arr106.
65. Rowe, L. 1994. The costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. Anim. Behav. 48:1049-1056.
66. 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.
67. Rowell, J. T., and M. R. Servedio. 2009. Gentlemen prefer blondes: the evolution of mate preference among strategically allocated males. Am. Nat. 173:12-25.
68. Ruiz, M., Z. M. Beals, and E. P. Martins. 2010. Male sagebrush lizards (Sceloporus graciosus) increase exploratory behavior toward females with more courtship experience. Herpetologica 66:142-147.
69. Servedio, M. R. 2007. Male versus female mate choice: sexual selection and the evolution of species recognition via reinforcement. Evolution 61:2772-2789.
70. Servedio, M. R., and R. Lande. 2006. Population genetic models of male and mutual mate choice. Evolution 60:674-685.
71. Seymour, R. M., and P. D. Sozou. 2009. Duration of courtship effort as a costly signal. J. Theor. Biol. 256:1-13.
72. Sheldon, B. C. 2000. Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15:397-402.
73. Shuster, S. M., and M. J. Wade. 2003. Mating systems and strategies. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
74. Siefferman, L., and G. E. Hill. 2005. Evidence for sexual selection on structural plumage coloration in female eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis). Evolution 59:1819-1828.
75. Simmons, L. W., and D. J. Emlen. 2008. No fecundity cost of female secondary sexual trait expression in the horned beetle Onthophagus sagittarius. J. Evol. Biol. 21:1227-1235.
76. South, S. H., D. Steiner, and G. Arnqvist. 2009. Male mating costs in a polygynous mosquito with ornaments expressed in both sexes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 276:3671-3678.
77. Taylor, P. W., J. A. Roberts, and G. W. Uetz. 2006. Compensation for injury? Modified multi-modal courtship of wolf spiders following autotomy of signalling appendages. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 18:79-89.
78. 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.
79. Trivers, R. L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. Pp. 136-179 in B. Campbell, ed. Sexual selection and the descent of man. Heinemann, London.
80. Venner, S., C. Bernstein, S. Dray, and M. C. Bel-Venner. 2010. Make love not war: when should less competitive males choose low-quality but defendable females? Am. Nat. 175:650-661.
81. Wagner, W. E. 1998. Measuring female mating preferences. Anim. Behav. 55:1029-1042.
82. Watson, P. J., G. Arnqvist, and R. R. Stallmann. 1998. Sexual conflict and the energetic costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. Am. Nat. 151:46-58.
83. Weigmann, D. D., L. Real, T. A. Capone, and S. Ellner. 1996. Some distinguishing features of models of search and behavior and mate choice. Am. Nat. 147:188-204.
84. Weiss, S. L. 2002. Reproductive signals of female lizards: pattern of trait expression and male response. Ethology 108:793-813.
85. Wright, D., S. Kerje, H. Brändström, K. Schütz, A. Kindmark, L. Andersson, P. Jensen, and T. Pizzari. 2008. The genetic architecture of a female sexual ornament. Evolution 62:86-98.