A guide to sexual selection theory

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics

Volumn 43, Issue , 2012, Pages 287-311

  Kuijper, Bram ^a,b   Pen, Ido ^a   Weissing, Franz J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

adaptive dynamics; benefits of choice; evolutionary game theory; individual based simulations; mate choice; population genetics; quantitative genetics

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; DEMOGRAPHY; EVOLUTIONARY THEORY; GAME THEORY; INDIVIDUAL-BASED MODEL; MATE CHOICE; NUMERICAL MODEL; POPULATION GENETICS; SEX RATIO; SEXUAL SELECTION; SPECIATION (BIOLOGY);

EID: 84872744556     PISSN: 1543592X     EISSN: 15452069     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110411-160245     Document Type: Review

References (155)

1. Agrawal AF. 2001. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature 411:692-95
2. Albert AYK, Otto SP. 2005. Sexual selection can resolve sex-linked sexual antagonism. Science 310:119-21
3. Alonzo S, Sinervo B. 2007. The effect of sexually antagonistic selection on adaptive sex ratio allocation. Evol. Ecol. Res. 9:1097-117
4. Alonzo SH. 2012. Sexual selection favours male parental care, when females can choose. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 279:1784-90
5. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press
6. Andersson M, Simmons LW. 2006. Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21:296-302
7. Arak A, Enquist M. 1993. Hidden preferences and the evolution of signals. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 340:207-13
8. Arnold SJ, B̈ urger R, Hohenlohe PA, Ajie BC, Jones AG. 2008. Understanding the evolution and stability of the G-matrix. Evolution 62:2451-61
9. Arnqvist G. 2006. Sensory exploitation and sexual conflict. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 361:375-86
10. Arnqvist G. 2011. Assortative mating by fitness and sexually antagonistic genetic variation. Evolution 65:2111-16
11. Arnqvist G, Rowe L. 2005. Sexual Conflict. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press
12. Ball MA, Parker GA. 2003. Sperm competition games: sperm selection by females. J. Theor. Biol. 224:27-42
13. Barton NH, Turelli M. 1991. Natural and sexual selection on many loci. Genetics 127:229-55
14. Berglund A, Bisazza A, Pilastro A. 1996. Armaments and ornaments: an evolutionary explanation of traits of dual utility. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 58:385-99
15. Blackburn G, Albert A, Otto S. 2010. The evolution of sex ratio adjustment in the presence of sexually antagonistic selection. Am. Nat. 176:264-75
16. Bro-Jørgensen J. 2010. Dynamics of multiple signalling systems: animal communication in a world in flux. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25:292-300
17. Bulmer M. 1989. Structural instability of models of sexual selection. Theor. Popul. Biol. 35:195-206
18. Bulmer M. 1994. Theoretical Evolutionary Ecology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
19. Cameron E, Day T, Rowe L. 2003. Sexual conflict and indirect benefits. J. Evol. Biol. 16:1055-60
20. Candolin U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol. Rev. 78:575-95
21. Chenoweth SF, McGuigan K. 2010. The genetic basis of sexually selected variation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 41:81-101
22. Clutton-Brock T. 2007. Sexual selection in males and females. Science 318:1882-85
23. Connallon T. 2010. Genic capture, sex linkage, and the heritability of fitness. Am. Nat. 175:564-76
24. Cotar C,McNamara JM, Collins E,Houston AI. 2008. Should females prefer to mate with low-qualitymales J. Theor. Biol. 254:561-67
25. Cotton S, Small J, Pomiankowski A. 2006. Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr. Biol. 16:R755-65
26. Darwin C. 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray.
27. Day T. 2000. Sexual selection and the evolution of costly female preferences: spatial effects. Evolution 54:715-30
28. Dawkins MS, Guildford T. 1995. An exaggerated preference for simple neural network models of signal evolution Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 261:357-60
29. Dercole F, Rinaldi S. 2008. Analysis of Evolutionary Processes: The Adaptive Dynamics Approach and its Applications. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press
30. Dieckmann U, Law R. 1996. The dynamical theory of coevolution: a derivation from stochastic ecological processes. J. Math. Biol. 34:579-612
31. Dombrovsky Y, Perrin N. 1994. On adaptive search and optimal stopping in sequential mate choice. Am. Nat. 144:355-61
32. Dugatkin LA. 1996. Interface between culturally based preferences and genetic preferences: female mate choice in Poecilia reticulata. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:2770-73
33. Endler JA, Basolo AL. 1998. Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:415-20
34. Enquist M, Ghirlanda S. 2005. Neural Networks and Animal Behavior. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press
35. Fawcett TW, Kuijper B, Pen I, Weissing FJ. 2007. Should attractive males have more sons Behav. Ecol. 18:71-80
36. Fawcett TW, Kuijper B,Weissing FJ, Pen I. 2011. Sex-ratio control erodes sexual selection, revealing evolutionary feedback from adaptive plasticity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108:15925-30
37. Fisher R. 1915. The evolution of sexual preference. Eugen. Rev. 7:184-92
38. Fromhage L, Kokko H, Reid JM. 2009. Evolution of mate choice for genome-wide heterozygosity. Evolution 63:684-94
39. Fromhage L, McNamara J, Houston A. 2008. Sperm allocation strategies and female resistance: a unifying perspective. Am. Nat. 172:25-33
40. Fuller RC. 2009. A test of the critical assumption of the sensory bias model for the evolution of female mating preference using neural networks. Evolution 63:1697-711
41. Gavrilets S, Arnqvist G, Friberg U. 2001. The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 268:531-39
42. Gavrilets S, Hayashi TI. 2005. Speciation and sexual conflict. Evol. Ecol. 19:167-98
43. Geritz S, Kisdi E, Mesźena G, Metz J. 1998. Evolutionarily singular strategies and the adaptive growth and branching of the evolutionary tree. Evol. Ecol. 12:35-57
44. Getty T. 2006. Sexually selected signals are not similar to sports handicaps. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21:83-88
45. Greenspoon PB, Otto SP. 2009. Evolution by Fisherian sexual selection in diploids. Evolution 63:1076-83
46. Hadany L, Beker T. 2007. Sexual selection and the evolution of obligatory sex. BMC Evol. Biol. 7:245
47. Hall DW, Kirkpatrick M, West B. 2000. Runaway sexual selection when female preferences are directly selected. Evolution 54:1862-69
48. Halliday T. 1983. The study of mate choice. In Mate Choice, ed. P Bateson, pp. 3-32. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
49. Hamilton W, Zuk M. 1982. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites. Science 218:384-87
50. Ḧardling R, Karlsson K. 2009. The dynamics of sexually antagonistic coevolution and the complex influences of mating system and genetic correlation. J. Theor. Biol. 260:276-82
51. Hastings IM. 1994. Manifestations of sexual selection may depend on the genetic basis of sex determination. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 258:83-87
52. Hayashi TI, Vose M, Gavrilets S. 2007. Genetic differentiation by sexual conflict. Evolution 61:516-29
53. Higashi M, Takimoto G, Yamamura N. 1999. Sympatric speciation by sexual selection. Nature 402:523-26
54. Houle D, Kondrashov AS. 2002. Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 269:97-104
55. Houston AI, Sz̀ekely T,McNamara JM. 2005. Conflict between parents over care. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20:33-38
56. Hunt J, Bussiere LF, Jennions MD, Brooks R. 2004. What is genetic quality Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:329-33
57. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A. 1994. The evolution of mate preferences for multiple sexual ornaments. Evolution 48:853-67
58. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A. 1995. Continual change in mate preferences. Nature 377:420-22
59. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A. 1999. Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. J. Theor. Biol. 200:97-109
60. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A, Nee S. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences II. The "handicap" principle. Evolution 45:1431-42
61. Johnstone RA. 1995. Honest advertisement of multiple qualities using multiple signals. J. Theor. Biol. 177:87-94
62. Johnstone RA,Reynolds JD, Deutsch JC. 1996. Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 50:1382-91
63. Jones AG, Ratterman NL. 2009. Mate choice and sexual selection:What have we learned since Darwin Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106:10001-8
64. Kirkpatrick M. 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36:1-12
65. Kirkpatrick M. 1987. Sexual selection by female choice in polygynous animals. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18:43-70
66. Kirkpatrick M, Barton N. 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94:1282-86
67. Kirkpatrick M, Dugatkin LA. 1994. Sexual selection and the evolutionary effects of copying mate choice. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 34:443-49
68. Kirkpatrick M, Hall DW. 2004. Sexual selection and sex linkage. Evolution 58:683-91
69. Kirkpatrick M, Johnson T, Barton N. 2002. General models of multilocus evolution. Genetics 161:1727-50
70. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33-38
71. Kirkpatrick M, Servedio MR. 1999. The reinforcement of mating preferences on an island. 151:865-84
72. Kokko H. 1997. Evolutionarily stable strategies of age-dependent sexual advertisement. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 41:99-107
73. Kokko H. 1998. Should advertising parental care be honest Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 265:1871-78
74. Kokko H. 2001. Fisherian and "good genes" benefits of mate choice: how (not) to distinguish between them. Ecol. Lett. 4:322-26
75. Kokko H, Brooks R, McNamara JM, Houston AI. 2002. The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 269:1331-40
76. Kokko H, Jennions MD. 2008. Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. J. Evol. Biol. 21:919-48
77. Kokko H, Jennions MD, Brooks R. 2006. Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37:43-66
78. Kokko H, Johnstone RA. 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. Ser. B 357:319-30
79. Kokko H, Mappes J. 2005. Sexual selection when fertilization is not guaranteed. Evolution 59:1876-85
80. Kotiaho JS, LeBas NR, Puurtinen M, Tomkins JL. 2008. On the resolution of the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23:1-3
81. Lachlan RF, Feldman MW. 2003. Evolution of cultural communication systems: the coevolution of cultural signals and genes encoding learning preferences. J. Evol. Biol. 16:1084-95
82. Lachlan RF, Servedio MR. 2004. Song learning accelerates allopatric speciation. Evolution 58:2049-63
83. Laland KN. 1994. Sexual selection with a culturally transmitted mating preference. Theor. Popul. Biol. 45:1-15
84. Lande R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78:3721-25
85. Lande R. 1983. The response to selection on major and minor mutations affecting a metrical trait. Heredity 50:47-65
86. Lehmann L, Keller LF, Kokko H. 2007. Mate choice evolution, dominance effects, and the maintenance of genetic variation. J. Theor. Biol. 244:282-95
87. Lehtonen J, Jennions MD, Kokko H. 2012. The many costs of sex. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27:172-78
88. Levins R. 1966. The strategy of model building in population biology. Am. Sci. 54:421-31
89. Lorch PD, Proulx S, Rowe L, Day T. 2003. Condition-dependent sexual selection can accelerate adaptation. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5:867-81
90. Luttbeg B. 1996. A comparative Bayes tactic for mate assessment and choice. Behav. Ecol. 7:451-60
91. MarieCurie SpeciationNetwork. 2012. What do we need to know about speciation Trends Ecol. Evol. 27:27-39
92. Maynard Smith J. 1985. Sexual selection, handicaps and true fitness. J. Theor. Biol. 115:1-8
93. McElreath R, Boyd R. 2007. Mathematical Models of Social Evolution. Chicago: Univ. Chic. Press
94. McGill BJ, Brown JS. 2007. Evolutionary game theory and adaptive dynamics of continuous traits. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 38:403-35
95. McNamara JM, Barta Z, Fromhage L, Houston AI. 2008. The coevolution of choosiness and cooperation. Nature 451:189-92
96. McNamara JM, Sźekely T,Webb JN, Houston AI. 2000. A dynamic game-theoretic model of parental care. J. Theor. Biol. 205:605-23
97. Mead LS, Arnold SJ. 2004. Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:264-71
98. Metz J, Nisbet R, Geritz S. 1992. How should we define 'fitness' for general ecological scenarios Trends Ecol. Evol. 7:198-202
99. Møller A, JennionsM. 2001. How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection. Naturwissenschaften 88:401-15
100. Møller A, Pomiankowski A. 1993. Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 32:167-76
101. Parker GA, Pizzari T. 2010. Sperm competition and ejaculate economics. Biol. Rev. 85:897-934
102. Pen I,Weissing FJ. 2000. Sexual selection and the sex ratio: an ESS analysis. Selection 1:111-21
103. Phelps S. 2007. Sensory ecology and perceptual allocation: new prospects for neural networks. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 362:355-67
104. Pomiankowski A. 1987. The costs of choice in sexual selection. J. Theor. Biol. 128:195-218
105. Pomiankowski A, Bridle J. 2004. Evolutionary genetics: no sex please we're atQLE(quasi-linkage equilibrium). Heredity 93:407
106. Pomiankowski A, Iwasa Y. 1993. Evolution ofmultiple sexual preferences by Fisher's runaway process of sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 253:173-81
107. Pomiankowski A, Iwasa Y. 1998. Runaway ornament diversity caused by Fisherian sexual selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:5106-11
108. Pomiankowski A, Iwasa Y,Nee S. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences I. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution 45:1422-30
109. Pomiankowski A, Møller AP. 1995. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 260:21-29
110. Price T, Schluter D, Heckman NE. 1993. Sexual selection when the female directly benefits. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 48:187-211
111. Proulx SR. 2001. Female choice via indicator traits easily evolves in the face of recombination and migration. Evolution 55:2401-11
112. Puurtinen M, Ketola T, Kotiaho J. 2009. The good-genes and compatible-genes benefits of mate choice. Am. Nat. 174:741-52
113. Qvarnstr ̈om A, Bailey RI. 2009. Speciation through evolution of sex-linked genes. Heredity, 102, 4-15.
114. Rands SA, EvansMR, Johnstone RA. 2011. The dynamics of honesty: modelling the growth of costly, sexuallyselected ornaments. PLoS ONE 6:e27174
115. Ratikainen II, Kokko H. 2010. Differential allocation and compensation: Who deserves the silver spoon Behav. Ecol. 21:195-200
116. Real L. 1990. Search theory and mate choice. I. Models of single-sex discrimination. Am. Nat. 136:376-405
117. Reeve HK, PfennigDW. 2003. Genetic biases for showy males: Are some genetic systems especially conducive to sexual selection Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:1089-94
118. Reinhold K. 1998. Sex linkage among genes controlling sexually selected traits. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 44:1-7
119. Reinhold K. 2004. Modeling a version of the good-genes hypothesis: female choice of locally adapted males. Org. Divers. Evol. 4:157-63
120. Rice WR. 1996. Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 381:232-34
121. Ritchie MG. 2007. Sexual selection and speciation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 38:79-102
122. Rowe L, Cameron E, Day T. 2005. Escalation, retreat, and female indifference as alternative outcomes of sexually antagonistic coevolution. Am. Nat. 165:S5-18
123. Rowe L, Houle D. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 263:1415-21
124. Roze D, Otto SP. 2012. Differential selection between the sexes and selection for sex. Evolution 66:558-74
125. Schluter D, Price T. 1993. Honesty, perception and population divergence in sexually selected traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 253:117-22
126. Seger J. 1985. Unifying genetic models for the evolution of female choice. Evolution 39:1185-93
127. Servedio MR. 2004. The evolution of premating isolation: local adaptation and natural and sexual selection against hybrids. Evolution 58:913-24
128. Servedio M, Lande R. 2006. Population genetic models of male and mutual mate choice. Evolution 60:674-85
129. Servedio MR, Noor MAF. 2003. The role of reinforcement in speciation: theory and data. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34:339-64
130. Shirangi TR, Dufour HD, Williams TM, Carroll SB. 2009. Rapid evolution of sex pheromone-producing enzyme expression in Drosophila. PLoS Biol. 7:e1000168
131. Siller S. 1998. The epistatic handicap principle does work. J. Theor. Biol. 191:141-61
132. Siller S. 2001. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex. Nature 411:689-92
133. SwansonWJ, Vacquier VD. 2002. The rapid evolution of reproductive proteins. Nat. Rev. Genet. 3:137-44
134. Taylor PD. 1996. Inclusive fitness arguments in genetic models of behaviour. J. Math. Biol. 34:654-74
135. Tazzyman SA, Pizzari T, Seymour R, Pomiankowski A. 2009. The evolution of continuous variation in ejaculate expenditure strategy. Am. Nat. 174:E71-82
136. Tazzyman SJ, Seymour RM, Pomiankowski A. 2012. Fixed and dilutable benefits: female choice for good genes or fertility. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 279:334-40
137. Ten Tusscher K, Hogeweg P. 2009. The role of genome and gene regulatory network canalization in the evolution of multi-trait polymorphisms and sympatric speciation. BMC Evol. Biol. 9:159
138. Trivers R. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, ed. B Campbell, pp. 136-79. Chicago: Aldine
139. Trivers RL, Willard DE. 1973. Natural selection of parental ability to vary the sex ratio of offspring. Science 179:90-92
140. Uyeda JC, Arnold SJ,Hohenlohe PA,Mead LS. 2009. Drift promotes speciation by sexual selection. Evolution 63:583-94
141. Vakirtzis A. 2011. Mate choice copying and nonindependent mate choice: a critical review. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 48:91-107
142. Van Doorn GS, Dieckmann U, Weissing FJ. 2004. Sympatric speciation by sexual selection: a critical reevaluation. Am. Nat. 163:709-25
143. Van Doorn GS, Edelaar P, Weissing FJ. 2009. On the origin of species by natural and sexual selection. Science 326:1704-7
144. Van Doorn GS, Luttikhuizen PC, Weissing FJ. 2001. Sexual selection at the protein level drives the extraordinary divergence of sex related genes during sympatric speciation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 268:2155-61
145. Van Doorn GS, Weissing FJ. 2004. The evolution of female preferences for multiple indicators of quality. Am. Nat. 164:173-86
146. Van Doorn GS, Weissing FJ. 2006. Sexual conflict and the evolution of female preferences for indicators of male quality. Am. Nat. 168:742-57
147. Veen T. 2008. Mating decisions in a hybrid zone. PhD thesis. Univ. Groningen, Neth.
148. Walsh B, Lynch M. 2013. Evolution and Selection of Quantitative Traits: I. Foundations. In press http://nitro. biosci.arizona.edu/zbook/NewVolume-2/ newvol2.html.
149. Weissing FJ. 1996. Genetic versus phenotypic models of selection: can genetics be neglected in a long-term perspective J. Math. Biol. 34:533-55
150. Weissing FJ, Edelaar P, Van Doorn G. 2011. Adaptive speciation theory: a conceptual review. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65:461-80
151. Whitlock MC, Agrawal AF. 2009. Purging the genome with sexual selection: reducing mutation load through selection on males. Evolution 63:569-82
152. Wiegmann DD, Seubert SM,Wade GA. 2010. Mate choice and optimal search behavior: fitness returns under the fixed sample and sequential search strategies. J. Theor. Biol. 262:596-600
153. Wiens JJ. 2001. Widespread loss of sexually selected traits: how the peacock lost its spots. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16:517-23
154. Wolf M, Van Doorn GS, Leimar O, Weissing FJ. 2008. Do animal personalities emerge Reply. Nature 451:E9-10
155. Zahavi A. 1975. Mate selection- A selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53:205-14