Repeatability of mate preference functions in Enchenopa treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae)

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 85, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 493-499

  Fowler Finn, Kasey D ^a   Rodríguez, Rafael L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

Author keywords

Enchenopa binotata 'Ptelea'; Function valued trait; Mate preference; Peak preference; Preference selectivity; Repeatability of behaviour; Sexual selection; Trait variation; Treehopper

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATE CHOICE; PLANTHOPPER; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNAL;

ENCHENOPA; ENCHENOPA BINOTATA; HEMIPTERA; MEMBRACIDAE; PTELEA;

EID: 84873091024     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.12.015     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Andersson M. Sexual Selection 1994, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
2. Arnold S.J. Constraints on phenotypic evolution. American Naturalist, Supplement 1992, 140:S85-S107.
3. Bailey N.W. Love will tear you apart: different components of female choice exert contrasting selection pressures on male field crickets. Behavioral Ecology 2008, 19:960-966.
4. Bell A.M., Hankison S.J., Laskowski K.L. The repeatability of behaviour: a meta-analysis. Animal Behaviour 2009, 77:771-783.
5. Bentsen C.L., Hunt J., Jennions M.D., Brooks R. Complex multivariate sexual selection on male acoustic signaling in a wild population of Teleogryllus commodus. American Naturalist 2006, 167:E102-E116.
6. Boake C.R.B. Repeatability: its role in evolutionary studies of mating behavior. Evolutionary Ecology 1989, 3:173-182.
7. Brooks R., Endler J.A. Female guppies agree to differ: phenotypic and genetic variation in mate-choice behavior and the consequences for sexual selection. Evolution 2001, 55:1644-1655.
8. Brooks R., Hunt J., Blows M.W., Smith M.J., Bussiere L.F., Jennions M.D. Experimental evidence for multivariate stabilizing sexual selection. Evolution 2005, 59:871-880.
9. Chenoweth S.F., Blows M.W. Dissecting the complex genetic basis of mate choice. Nature Reviews Genetics 2006, 7:681-692.
10. Chenoweth S.F., McGuigan K. The genetic basis of sexually selected variation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 2010, 41:81-101.
11. Cocroft R.B., Rodríguez R.L. The behavioral ecology of insect vibrational communication. Bioscience 2005, 55:323-334.
12. Cocroft R.B., Rodríguez R.L., Hunt R.E. Host shifts, the evolution of communication and speciation in the Enchenopa binotata complex of treehoppers. Specialization, Speciation, and Radiation: the Evolutionary Biology of Herbivorous Insects 2008, 88-100. University of California Press, Berkeley. K.J. Tilmon (Ed.).
13. Cocroft R.B., Rodríguez R.L., Hunt R.E. Host shifts and signal divergence: mating signals covary with host use in a complex of specialized plant-feeding insects. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 2010, 99:60-72.
14. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 1988, L. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey. 2nd edn.
15. Cotton S., Small J., Pomiankowski A. Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Current Biology 2006, 16:R755-R765.
16. Dohm M.R. Repeatability estimates do not always set an upper limit to heritability. Functional Ecology 2002, 16:273-280.
17. Flatt T. The evolutionary genetics of canalization. Quarterly Review of Biology 2005, 80:287-316.
18. Fowler-Finn K.D., Rodríguez R.L. The evolution of experience-mediated plasticity in mate preferences. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2012, 25:1855-1863.
19. Fowler-Finn K.D., Rodríguez R.L. Experience-mediated plasticity in mate preferences: mating assurance in a variable environment. Evolution 2012, 66:459-468.
20. Getty T. Search, discrimination, and selection: mate choice by pied flycatchers. American Naturalist 1995, 148:378-385.
21. Hamilton K.G.A., Cocroft R.B. Establishing the identity of existing names in the North American Enchenopa binotata species complex of treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae). Entomological News 2009, 120:554-565.
22. Hoekstra H.E., Hoekstra J.M., Berrigan D., Vignieri S.N., Hoang A., Hill C.E., Beerli P., Kingsolver J.G. Strength and tempo of directional selection in the wild. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 2001, 98:9157-9160.
23. Jennions M.D., Petrie M. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 1997, 72:283-327.
24. Kingsolver J.G., Hoekstra H.E., Hoekstra J.M., Berrigan D., Vignieri S.N., Hill C.E., Hoang A., Gibert P., Beerli P. The strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations. American Naturalist 2001, 157:245-261.
25. Kraaijeveld K., Kraaijeveld-Smit F.J., Maan M.E. Sexual selection and speciation: the comparative evidence revisited. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 2011, 86:367-377.
26. Lessels C.M., Boag P.T. Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. Auk 1987, 104:116-121.
27. Lorch P.D., Proulx S., Rowe L., Day T. Condition-dependent sexual selection can accelerate adaptation. Evolutionary Ecology Research 2003, 5:867-881.
28. Lynch M., Walsh B. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits 1998, Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
29. McPeek M.A., Gavrilets S. The evolution of female mating preferences: differentiation from species with promiscuous males can promote speciation. Evolution 2006, 60:1967-1980.
30. Maan M.E., Seehausen O. Ecology, sexual selection and speciation. Ecology Letters 2011, 14:591-602.
31. Mead L.S., Arnold S.J. Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2004, 19:264-271.
32. Meyer K., Kirkpatrick M. Up hill, down dale: quantitative genetics of curvaceous traits. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 2005, 360:1443-1455.
33. Panhuis T.M., Butlin R., Zuk M., Tregenza T. Sexual selection and speciation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2001, 16:364-371.
34. Prum R.O. The Lande-Kirkpatrick mechanism is the null model of evolution by intersexual selection: implications for meaning, honesty, and design in intersexual signals. Evolution 2010, 64:3085-3100.
35. Real L. Search theory and mate choice. I. Models of single-sex discrimination. American Naturalist 1990, 136:376-405.
36. Reinhold K. Variation in acoustic signalling traits exhibits footprints of sexual selection. Evolution 2011, 65:738-745.
37. Ribak G., Pitts M.L., Wilkinson G.S., Swallow J.G. Wing shape, wing size, and sexual dimorphism. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 2009, 98:860-871.
38. Ritchie M.G. The shape of female mating preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 1996, 93:14628-14631.
39. Rodríguez R.L., Cocroft R.B. Divergence in female duetting signals in the Enchenopa binotata species complex of treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae). Ethology 2006, 112:1231-1238.
40. Rodríguez R.L., Sullivan L.E., Cocroft R.B. Vibrational communication and reproductive isolation in the Enchenopa binotata species complex of treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae). Evolution 2004, 58:571-578.
41. Rodríguez R.L., Ramaswamy K., Cocroft R.B. Evidence that female preferences have shaped male signal evolution in a clade of specialized plant-feeding insects. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2006, 273:2585-2593.
42. Rodríguez R.L., Cocroft R.B., Haen C., Fowler-Finn K.D. Males adjust signaling effort based on cues arising from the expression of female mate preferences. Behavioral Ecology 2012, 23:1218-1225.
43. Roff D.A. Evolutionary Quantitative Genetics 1997, Chapman & Hall, New York.
44. Rosenthal R. Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research 1991, Sage, Newbury Park, California. Revised edn.
45. Rundle H.D., Nosil P. Ecological speciation. Ecology Letters 2005, 8:336-352.
46. Sattman D.A., Cocroft R.B. Phenotypic plasticity and repeatability in the mating signals of Enchenopa treehoppers, with implications for reduced gene flow among host-shifted populations. Ethology 2003, 109:981-994.
47. Schluter D. Estimating the form of natural selection on a quantitative trait. Evolution 1988, 42:849-861.
48. Stinchcombe J.R., Function-valued Traits Working Group, Kirkpatrick M. Genetics and evolution of function-valued traits: understanding environmental responsive phenotypes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2012, 27:637-647.
49. Sullivan-Beckers L., Cocroft R.B. The importance of female choice, male-male competition, and signal transmission as causes of selection on male mating signals. Evolution 2010, 64:3158-3171.
50. Verburgt L., Ferguson J.W.H., Weber T. Phonotactic response of female crickets on the Kramer treadmill: methodology, sensory and behavioral implications. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 2008, 194:79-96.
51. Wagner W.E. Measuring female mating preferences. Animal Behaviour 1998, 55:1029-1042.
52. Wagner W.E., Murray A.M., Cade W.H. Phenotypic variation in the mating preferences of female crickets, Gryllus integer. Animal Behaviour 1995, 49:1269-1281.
53. West-Eberhard M.J. Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Quarterly Review of Biology 1983, 58:155-183.
54. West-Eberhard M.J. Phenotypic plasticity and the origins of diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1989, 20:249-278.
55. West-Eberhard M.J. Phenotypic accommodation: adaptive innovation due to developmental plasticity, with or without genetic change. Integrative and Comparative Biology 2003, 43:970.
56. West-Eberhard M.J. Phenotypic accommodation: adaptive innovation due to developmental plasticity. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B, Molecular and Developmental Evolution 2005, 304:610-618.