Curves as traits: Genetic and environmental variation in mate preference functions

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 434-442

  Rodriguez R L ^a   Hallett, A C ^a   Kilmer, J T ^a   Fowler Finn, K D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

Author keywords

Auchenorrhyncha; Function valued trait; Genotype environment interaction

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENOTYPE; HERITABILITY; INSECT; MATE CHOICE; ORNAMENTAL SPECIES; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNALING;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; HEMIPTERA; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALS; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; GENETIC VARIATION; HEMIPTERA; MALE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

AUCHENORRHYNCHA; ENCHENOPA; HEMIPTERA; HEXAPODA; MEMBRACIDAE;

EID: 84872609910     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12061     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Andersson, M. 1994 Sexual Selection. Princeton, Princeton, NJ.
2. Andersson, M. & Simmons, L.S. 2006. Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21: 296-302.
3. Astles, P.A., Moore, A.J. & Preziosi, R.F. 2006. A comparison of methods to estimate cross-environmental genetic correlations. J. Evol. Biol. 19: 114-122.
4. Bailey, N.W. 2008. Love will tear you apart: different components of female choice exert contrasting selection pressures on male field crickets. Behav. Ecol. 19: 960-966.
5. Bailey, N.W. & Zuk, M. 2008. Acoustic experience shapes female mate choice in field crickets. Proc. Biol. Sci. 275: 2645-2650.
6. Bakker, T.C.M. 1999. The study of intersexual selection using quantitative genetics. Behaviour 136: 1237-1266.
7. Bakker, T.C.M. & Pomiankowski, A. 1995. The genetic basis of female mate preferences. J. Evol. Biol. 8: 129-171.
8. 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.
9. Bussière, L.F., Hunt, J., Stölting, K.N., Jennions, M. & Brooks, R. 2008. Mate choice for genetic quality when environments vary: suggestions for empirical progess. Genetica 134: 69-78.
10. Chaine, A.S. & Lyon, B.E. 2008. Adaptive plasticity in female mate choice dampens sexual selection on male ornaments in the lark bunting. Science 319: 459-462.
11. Chenoweth, S.F. & Blows, M.W. 2006. Dissecting the complex genetic basis of mate choice. Nat. Rev. Genet. 7: 681-692.
12. Chenoweth, S.F. & McGuigan, K. 2010. The genetic basis of sexually selected variation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 41: 81-101.
13. Clark, C.J. 2012. The role of power versus energy in courtship: what is the 'energetic cost' of a courtship display? Anim. Behav. 84: 269-277.
14. Cocroft, R.B., Rodríguez, R.L. & Hunt, R.E. 2008. Host shifts, the evolution of communication, and speciation in the Enchenopa binotata species complex of treehoppers. In: Specialization, Speciation, and Radiation: The Evolutionary Biology of Herbivorous Insects (K. Tilmon, ed.), pp. 88-100. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
15. Cocroft, R.B., Rodríguez, R.L. & Hunt, R.E. 2010. Host shifts and signal divergence: mating signals covary with host use in a complex of specialized plant-feeding insects. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 99: 60-72.
16. Coyne, J.A. & Orr, H.A. 2004 Speciation. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
17. Day, T. & Bondurianksy, R. 2011. A unified approahc to the evolutionary consequences of genetic and nongenetic inheritance. Am. Nat. 178: E18-E36.
18. Delcourt, M., Blows, M.W. & Rundle, H.D. 2010. Quantitative genetics of female mate preferences in an ancestral and a novel environment. Evolution 64: 2758-2766.
19. Fisher, R.A. 1958 The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. A Complete Variorum Edition. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
20. Fowler-Finn, K.D. & Rodríguez, R.L. 2012a. Experience-mediated plasticity in mate preferences: mating assurance in a variable environment. Evolution 66: 459-468.
21. Fowler-Finn, K.D. & Rodríguez, R.L. 2012b. The evolution of experience-mediated plasticity in mate preferences. J. Evol. Biol. 25: 1855-1863.
22. Gray, D.A. & Cade, W.H. 1999. Quantitative genetics of sexual selection in the field cricket, Gryllus integer. Evolution 53: 848-854.
23. Greenfield, M.D. & Rodríguez, R.L. 2004. Genotype-environment interaction and the reliability of mating signals. Anim. Behav. 68: 1461-1468.
24. Hamilton, K.G.A. & Cocroft, R.B. 2009. Establishing the identity of existing names in the North American Enchenopa binotata species complex of treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae). Entomol. News 120: 554-565.
25. Higginson, A.D. & Reader, T. 2009. Environmental heterogeneity, genotype-by-environment interactions and the reliability of sexual traits as indicators of mate quality. Proc. Biol. Sci. 276: 1153-1159.
26. Hill, G.E. 2011. Condition-dependent traits as signals of the functionality of vital cellular processes. Ecol. Lett. 14: 625-634.
27. Hunt, R.E. 1994. Vibrational signals associated with mating behavior in the treehopper Enchenopa binotata Say (Hemiptera: Homoptera: Membracidae). J. NY Entomol. Soc. 102: 266-270.
28. Ingleby, F.C., Hunt, J. & Hosken, D.J. 2010. The role of genotype-by-environment interactions in sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 23: 2031-2045.
29. Jennions, M.D. & Petrie, M. 1997. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. 72: 283-327.
30. Kokko, H. & Heubel, K. 2008. Condition-dependence, genotype-by-environment interactions and the lek paradox. Genetica 132: 209-216.
31. Kokko, H., Jennions, M.D. & Brooks, R. 2006. Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37: 43-66.
32. Lehmann, L., Keller, L.F. & Kokko, H. 2007. Mate choice evolution, dominance effects, and the maintenance of genetic variation. J. Theor. Biol. 244: 282-295.
33. Lynch, M. & Walsh, B. 1998 Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
34. McGuigan, K., Van Homrigh, A. & Blows, M.W. 2008. Genetic analysis of female preference functions as function-valued traits. Am. Nat. 172: 194-202.
35. Mead, L.S. & Arnold, S.J. 2004. Quantitative genetics models of sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 264-271.
36. Meyer, K. & Kirkpatrick, M. 2005. Up hill, down dale: quantitative genetics of curvaceous traits. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 360: 1443-1455.
37. Nakagawa, S. 2004. A farewell to Bonferroni: the problems of low statistical power and publication bias. Behav. Ecol. 15: 1044-1045.
38. Nakagawa, S. & Cuthill, I.C. 2007. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol. Rev. 82: 591-605.
39. Narraway, C., Hunt, J., Wedell, N. & Hosken, D.J. 2010. Genotype-by-environment interactions for female preference. J. Evol. Biol. 23: 2550-2557.
40. Prum, R.O. 2010. The Lande-Kirkpatrick mechanism is the null model of evolution by intersexual selection: implications for meaning, honesty, and design in intersexual signals. Evolution 64: 3085-3100.
41. Qvarnström, A. 2001. Context-dependent genetic benefits from mate choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 5-7.
42. R Development Core Team. 2011. 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.
43. Rice, W.R. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43: 223-225.
44. Ritchie, M.G. 1996. The shape of female mating preferences. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93: 14628-14631.
45. Ritchie, M.G. 2000. The inheritance of female preference functions in a mate recognition system. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267: 327-332.
46. Ritchie, M.G. 2007. Sexual selection and speciation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 38: 79-102.
47. Ritchie, M.G. & Phillips, S.D.F. 1998. The genetics of sexual isolation. In: Endless Forms. Species and Speciation (D.J. Howard & S.H. Berlocher, eds), pp. 291-308. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
48. 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.
49. Rodríguez, R.L. 2012. Grain of environment explains variation in strength of genotype × environment interaction. J. Evol. Biol. 25: 1897-1901.
50. Rodríguez, R.L. & Cocroft, R.B. 2006. Divergence in female duetting signals in the Enchenopa binotata species complex of treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae). Ethology 112: 1231-1238.
51. Rodríguez, R.L., Sullivan, L.E. & Cocroft, R.B. 2004. Vibrational communication and reproductive isolation in the Enchenopa binotata species complex of treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae). Evolution 58: 571-578.
52. Rodríguez, R.L., Ramaswamy, K. & Cocroft, R.B. 2006. Evidence that female preferences have shaped male signal evolution in a clade of specialized plant-feedings insects. Proc. Biol. Sci. 273: 2585-2593.
53. Rodríguez, R.L., Sullivan, L.M., Snyder, R.L. & Cocroft, R.B. 2008. Host shifts and the beginning of signal divergence. Evolution 62: 12-20.
54. Rodríguez, R.L., Haen, C., Cocroft, R.B. & Fowler-Finn, K.D. 2012. Males adjust signalling effort based on female mate preference cues. Behav. Ecol. 23: 1218-1225.
55. Roff, D.A. 1997 Evolutionary Quantitative Genetics. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY.
56. Schielzeth, H., Bolund, E. & Forstmeier, W. 2010. Heritability of and early environment effects on variation in mating preferences. Evolution 64: 998-1006.
57. Schluter, D. 1988. Estimating the form of natural selection on a quantitative trait. Evolution 42: 849-861.
58. Stinchcombe, J.R., Function-valued Traits Working Group & Kirkpatrick, M. 2012. Genetics and evolution of function-valued traits: understanding environmentally responsive phenotypes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27: 637-647.
59. Sullivan-Beckers, L. & Cocroft, R.B. 2010. The importance of female choice, male-male competition, and signal transmission as causes of selection on male mating signals. Evolution 64: 3158-3171.
60. Verzijden, M.N., ten Cate, C., Servedio, M.R., Kozak, G.M., Boughman, J.W. & Svensson, E.I. 2012. The impact of learning on sexual selection and speciation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27: 511-519.
61. Via, S. & Lande, R. 1985. Genotype-environment interaction and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Evolution 39: 505-522.
62. West-Eberhard, M.J. 1983. Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Q. Rev. Biol. 58: 155-183.
63. West-Eberhard, M.J. 2003 Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
64. West-Eberhard, M.J. 2005. Developmental plasticity and the origin of species differences. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102: 6543-6549.
65. Wiley, C.W. & Shaw, K.L. 2010. Multiple genetic linkages between female preference and male signal in rapidly speciating Hawaiian crickets. Evolution 64: 2238-2245.
66. Wood, T.K. 1993 Speciation of the Enchenopa binotata complex (Insecta: Homoptera: Membracidae). In: Evolutionary Patterns and Processes (D.R. Lees, D. Edwards, eds), pp. 299-317. Academic Press, New York, NY.
67. 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): toward a resolution of the lek paradox. Evolution 62: 1317-1334.