The juvenile social environment introduces variation in the choice and expression of sexually selected traits

Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 2, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 1036-1047

  Kasumovic, Michael M ^a   Hall, Matthew D ^b   Brooks, Robert C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Adult behavior; Age specific calling effort; Condition dependence; Developmental plasticity; Juvenile environment; Social environment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876546847     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20457758     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.230     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Akaike, H. 1983. Information measures and model selection. Bull. Int. Stat. Inst. 44:277-291.
2. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
3. Andersson, M. B. 1982. Sexual selection, natural selection and quality advertisement. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 17:375-393.
4. Bailey, N.W., B. Gray, and M. Zuk. 2010. Acoustic experience shapes alternative mating tactics and reproductive investment in male field crickets. Curr. Biol. 20:845-849.
5. Bailey, N.W., and M. Zuk. 2008. Acoustic experience shapes female choice in field crickets. Proc. R. Soc. B 275:2645- 2650.
6. Barton, N. H., and P. D. Keightley. 2002. Understanding quantitative genetic variation. Nat. Rev. Gen. 3:11-21.
7. Barton, N. H., and M. Turelli. 1989. Evolutionary quantitative genetics: how little do we know? Ann. Rev. Gen. 23:337-370.
8. Bates, D., M. Maechler, and B. Dai. 2008. lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-28. Available at: http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/
9. Bentsen, C. L., J. Hunt, M. D. Jennions, and R. Brooks. 2006. Complex multivariate sexual selection on male acoustic signaling in a wild population of Teleogryllus commodus. Am. Nat. 167:E102-E116.
10. Blows, M.W., R. Brooks, and P. G. Kraft. 2003. Exploring complex fitness surfaces: multiple ornamentation and polymorphism in male guppies. Evolution 57:1622-1630.
11. Blows, M.W., and A. A. Hoffmann. 2005. A reassessment of genetic limits to evolutionary change. Ecology 86:1371-1384.
12. Brooks, R., J.Hunt, M. W. Blows, M. J. Smith, L. F. Bussière, and M. D. Jennions. 2005. Experimental evidence for multivariate stabilizing sexual selection. Evolution 59:871-880.
13. Bürger, R. 2000. The mathematical theory of selection, recombination, and mutation.Wiley, Chichester, U.K.
14. Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multi-model inference. Springer, New York, NY.
15. Bussière, L. F., J. Hunt, K. N. Stölting, M. D. Jennions, and R. Brooks. 2008. Mate choice for genetic quality when environments vary: suggestions for empirical progress Genetica 134:69-78.
16. Clark, L., and J.W. A. Grant. 2010. Intrasexual competition and courtship in female and male Japanese medaka, Oryzias latipes: effects of operational sex ratio and density. Anim. Behav. 80:707-712.
17. Cotton, S., K. Fowler, and A. Pomiankowski. 2004. Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap principle? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 271:771-783.
18. Cotton, S., J. Small, and A. Pomiankowski. 2006. Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr. Biol. 16:R755-R765.
19. Crawley, M. J. 2008. The R book. JohnWiley and Sons,West Sussex, U.K.
20. DeBruine, L. M., B. C. Jones, J. R. Crawford, L. M.Welling, and A. C. Little. 2010. The health of a nation predictes their mate preferences: cross-cultural variation in women's preferences for masculinized male faces. Proc. R. Soc. B 277:2405- 2410.
21. Drayton, J. M., R. N. C. Milner, J. Hunt, and M. D. Jennions. 2010. Inbreeding and advertisement calling in the cricket Teleogryllus commodus: laboratory and field experiments. Evolution 64:3069-3083.
22. Eraly, D., F. Hendrickx, and L. Lens. 2009. Condition-dependent mate choice and its implications for population differentiation in the wolf spider Pirata piraticus. Behav. Ecol. 20:856- 863.
23. Evans, A. R. 1988. Mating systems and reproductive strategies in three Australian gryllid crickets: Bobilla victoriae Otte, Balamara gidya Otte and Telleogryllus commodus (Walker) (Orthoptera; Gryllidae; Nemobiinae; Trigonidiinae; Gryllinae). Ethology 78:21-52.
24. Fox, C.W., and J. Moya-Larano. 2009. Diet affects female mating behaviour in a seed-feeding beetle. Physiol. Entomol. 34:370-378.
25. Gerhardt, H. C. 1991. Female mate choice in treefrogs: static and dynamic acoustic criteria. Anim. Behav. 42:615-635.
26. Gosden, T. P., and S. F. Chenoweth. 2011. On the evolution of heightened condition dependence. J. Evol. Biol. 24:685-692. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02205.x
27. Hall, M. D., S. P. Lailvaux, M.W. Blows, and R. Brooks. 2010. Sexual conflict and the maintenance of multivariate genetic variation. Evolution 64:1697-1703.
28. Hebets, E. A. 2003. Subadult experience influences adult mate choice in an arthropod: exposed female wolf spiders prefer males of a familiar phenotype. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100:13390-13395.
29. Hebets, E. A., and C. J. Vink. 2007. Experience leads to preference: experienced females prefer brush-legged males in a population of syntopic wolf spiders. Behav. Ecol. 18:1010-1020.
30. Hebets, E. A., J.Wesson, and P. S. Shamble. 2008. Diet influences mate choice selectivity in adult female wolf spiders. Anim. Behav. 76:355-363.
31. Hoback,W.W., andW. E.Wagner, Jr. 1997. The energetic cost of calling in the variable field cricket, Gryllus lineaticeps. Physiol. Entomol. 22:286-290.
32. Hunt, J., M.W. Blows, F. Zajitschek, M. D. Jennions, and R. Brooks. 2007. Reconciling strong stabilizing selection with the maintenance of genetic variation in a natural population of black field crickets (Teleogryllus commodus). Genetics 177:875-880.
33. Hunt, J., R. Brooks, and M. D. Jennions. 2005. Female mate choice as a condition-dependent life-history trait. Am. Nat. 166:79-92.
34. Hunt, J., R. Brooks, M. D. Jennions, M. J. Smith, C. L. Bentsen, and L. F. Bussière. 2004. High-quality male field crickets invest heavily in sexual display but die young. Nature 432:1024-1027.
35. Ingleby, F. C., J. Hunt, and D. J. Hosken. 2010. The role of genotype-by-environment interactions in sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 23:2031-2045.
36. Iwasa, Y., and A. Pomiankowski. 1995. Continual change in mate preferences. Nature 377:420-422.
37. Jennions, M. D., and M. Petrie. 1997. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. Cam. Philos. Soc. 72:283-327.
38. Johnson, T., and N. Barton. 2005. Theoretical models of selection and mutation on quantitative traits. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 360:1411-1425.
39. Johnstone, R. A., S. A. Rands, and M. R. Evans. 2009. Sexual selection and condition-dependence. J. Evol. Biol. 22:2387-2394.
40. Judge, K. A., J. J. Ting, and D. T. Gwynne. 2008. Condition dependence of male life span and calling effort in a field cricket. Evolution 62:868-878.
41. Kasumovic, M. M., and M. C. B. Andrade. 2006. Male development tracks rapidly shifting sexual versus natural selection pressures. Curr. Biol. 16:R242-243.
42. Kasumovic, M. M., and R. Brooks. 2011. It's all who you know: the evolution of socially-cued anticipatory plasticity as a mating strategy. Q. Rev. Biol. 86:181-197.
43. Kasumovic,M.M., M. J. Bruce, M. C. B. Andrade, andM. E. Herberstein. 2008. Spatial and temporal demographic variation drives within-season fluctuations in sexual selection. Evolution 62:2316-2325.
44. Kasumovic, M. M., M. D. Hall, H. Try, and R. Brooks. 2011. The importance of listening: allocation shifts in response to the juvenile acoustic environment. J. Evol. Biol. 24:1325-1334.
45. Kirkpatrick, M., and M. J. Ryan. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33-38.
46. Kokko, H., R. Brooks, M. D. Jennions, and J. Morley. 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. B Biol. Sci. 270:653-664.
47. Kolluru, G. R., M. Zuk, and M. A. Chappell. 2002. Reduced reproductive effort in male field crickets infested with parasitoid larvae. Behav. Ecol. 13:607-614.
48. Kotiaho, J. S., L.W. Simmons, and J. L. Tomkinsa. 2001. Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410:684-686.
49. Lailvaux, S. P., and M. M. Kasumovic. 2011. Defining individual quality over lifetimes and selective contexts. Proc. B Biol. Sci. 278:321-328.
50. Maklakov, A. A., M. D. Hall, S. J. Simpson, J. Dessmann, F. Clissold, F. Zajitschek, S. P. Lailvaux, D. Raubenheimer, R. Bonduriansky, and R. C. Brooks. 2009. Sex differences in nutrient-dependent reproductive ageing. Aging Cell 8:324-330.
51. Maklakov, A. A., S. J. Simpson, F. Zajitschek, M. D. Hall, J. Dessman, F. J. Clissold, D. Raubenheimer, R. Bonduriansky, and R. Brooks. 2008. Sex-specific fitness effects of nutrient intake on reproduction and lifespan. Curr. Biol. 18: 1062-1068.
52. McGuigan, K., and M.W. Blows. 2009. Asymmetry of genetic variation in fitness-related traits: apparent stabilizing selection on G(max). Evolution 63:2838-2847.
53. Murphy, C. G., and H. C. Gerhardt. 2000. Mating preference functions of individual female barking treefrogs, Hyla gratiosa, for two properties of male advertisement calls. Evolution 54:660-669.
54. Petfield,D., S. F. Chenoweth, H. D. Rundle, andM. W. Blows. 2005. Genetic variance in female condition predicts indirect genetic variance in male sexual display traits. PNAS 102:6045-6050.
55. Polakow, D. A., P. R. Y. Backwell, N. Caithness, and M. D. Jennions. 1995. Stabilizing or directional selection in signalling systems: investigations in a population of painted reed frogs, Hyperolius marmoratus. S. Afr. J. Sci. 91:270-273.
56. Preston, B. T., M. S. Jalme, Y. Hingrat, F. Lacroix, and G. Sorci. 2011. Sexually extravagant males age more rapidly. Ecol. Lett. 14:1017-1024.
57. Punzalan, D., F. H. Rodd, and L. Rowe. 2010. Temporally variable multivariate sexual selection on sexually dimorphic traits in a wild insect population. Am. Nat. 175:401-414.
58. Riebel, K., M. Naguib, and D. Gil. 2009. Experimental manipulation of the rearing environment influences adult female zebra finch song preferences. Anim. Behav. 78:1397-1404.
59. Ritchie, M. G. 1996. The shape of female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:14628-14361.
60. Rode, N. O., and E. H. Morrow. 2009. An examination of genetic variation and selection on condition in Drosophila melanogaster males. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 131:167-177.
61. Rosenqvist, G., and A. Houde. 1997. Prior exposure to male phenotypes influences mate choice in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Behav. Ecol. 8:194-198.
62. Rowe, L., and D. Houle. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. B 263:1415-1421.
63. Rutledge, J. M., A. Miller, and G.W. Uetz. 2010. Exposure to multiple sensory cues as a juvenile affects adult female mate preferences in wolf spiders. Anim. Behav. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.1005.1027
64. Ryan, M. J. 1988. Energy, calling and selection. Am. Zool. 28:885-898.
65. Ryan, M. J. 1990. Signals, species, and sexual selection. Am. Sci. 78:46-52.
66. Ryan, M. J., and A. Keddy-Hector. 1992. Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am. Nat. 139:S4-S35.
67. Ryan, M. J., S. A. Perrill, andW.Wilczynski. 1992. Auditory tuning and call frequency predict population-based mating preferences in the cricket frog, Acris crepitans. Am. Nat. 139:1370-1383.
68. Ryan, M. J., andW.Wilczynski. 1988. Coevolution of sender and receiver: effect on local mate preferences in cricket frogs. Science 240:1786-1788.
69. Saastamoinen, M., D. van der Sterren, N. Vastenhout, B. J. Zwaan, and P. M. Brakefield. 2010. Predictive adaptive responses: condition-dependent impact of adult nutrition and flight in the tropical butterfly Bicyclus anynana. Am. Nat. 176:686-698.
70. Scheuber, H. 2003. Condition dependence of a multicomponent sexual signal in the field cricket Gryllus campestris. Anim. Behav. 65:721-727.
71. Scheuber, H., A. Jacot, andM.W. G. Brinkhof. 2003. The effect of past condition on a multicomponent sexual signal. Proc. R. Soc. B 270:1779-1784.
72. Shine, R., T. Langkilde, and R. T. Mason. 2003. The opportunistic serpent: male garter snakes adjust courtship tactics to mating opportunities. Behaviour 140:1509-1526.
73. Stillwell, R. C.,W. U. Blanckenhorn, T. Teder, G. Davidowitz, and C.W. Fox. 2010. Sex differences in phenotypic plasticity affect variation in sexual size dimorphism in insects: from physiology to evolution. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 55:227-245.
74. Syriatowicz, A., and R. Brooks. 2004. Condition-dependent variation in mate choice in guppies. BMC Ecol. 4:5.
75. Tomkins, J. L., J. Radwane, J. S. Kotiaho, and T. Tregenza. 2004. Genic capture and resolving the lek hypothesis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:323-328.
76. Wagner,W. E. J. 1998. Measuring female mating preferences. Anim. Behav. 55:1029-1042.
77. Wood, S. 2009. gamm4: generalized additive mixed models using mgcv and lme4. R package version 0.0-2. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gamm4
78. Woodgate, J. L., A. T. D. Bennett, S. Leitner, C. K. Catchpole, and K. L. Buchanan. 2009. Developmental stress and female mate choice behaviour in the zebra finch. Anim. Behav. 79:1381-1390.
79. Zajitschek, F., C. E. Brassil, R. Bonduriansky, and R. C. Brooks. 2009a. Sex effects on life span and senescence in the wild when dates of birth and death are unknown. Ecology 90:1698- 1707.
80. Zajitschek, F., J. Hunt, M. D. Jennions, M. D. Hall, and R. C. Brooks. 2009b. Effects of juvenile and adult diet on ageing and reproductive effort of male and female black field crickets, Teleogryllus commodus. Func. Ecol. 23:602-611.