The evolution and evolutionary consequences of social plasticity in mate preferences

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 85, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 1041-1047

  Rodríguez, Rafael Lucas ^a   Rebar, Darren ^a   Fowler Finn, Kasey D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

Author keywords

Experience mediated plasticity; Genotype environment interaction; Indirect genetic effects; Learning; Maintenance of variation; Mate choice

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; ANIMAL; BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOTYPE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; LEARNING; MATE CHOICE; PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL SELECTION; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 84877605176     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.01.006     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Agrawal A.F., Brodie E.D., Brown J. Parent-offspring coadaptation and the dual genetic control of maternal care. Science 2001, 292:1710-1712.
2. Andersson M. Sexual Selection 1994, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
3. Autumn K., Ryan M.J., Wake D.B. Integrating historical and mechanistic biology enhances the study of adaptation. Quarterly Review of Biology 2002, 77:383-408.
4. 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.
5. Bailey N.W., Moore A.J. Runaway sexual selection without genetic correlations: social environments and flexible mate choice initiate and enhance the Fisher process. Evolution 2012, 66:2674-2684.
6. Bailey N.W., Zuk M. Acoustic experience shapes female mate choice in field crickets. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2008, 275:2645-2650.
7. Bailey N.W., Zuk M. Field crickets change mating preferences using remembered social information. Biology Letters 2009, 5:449-451.
8. Bailey N.W., Zuk M. Socially flexible female choice differs among populations of the Pacific field cricket: geographical variation in the interaction coefficient psi (ψ). Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2012, 279:3589-3596.
9. Bateman P.W., Gilson L.N., Ferguson J.W.H. Male size and sequential mate preference in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Animal Behaviour 2001, 61:631-637.
10. Biscarini F., Bovenhuis H., van der Poel J., Rodenburg T.B., Jungerius A.P., van Arendonk J.A.M. Across-line SNP association study for direct and associative effects on feather damage in laying hens. Behavioral Genetics 2010, 40:715-727.
11. Bleakey B.H., Brodie E.D. Indirect genetic effects influence antipredator behavior in guppies: estimates of the coefficient of interaction PSI and the inheritance of reciprocity. Evolution 2009, 63:1796-1806.
12. Brodie E.D., Moore A.J., Janzen F.J. Visualizing and quantifying natural selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 1995, 10:313-318.
13. Chaine A.S., Lyon B.E. Adaptive plasticity in female mate choice dampens sexual selection on male ornaments in the lark bunting. Science 2008, 319:459-462.
14. Clutton-Brock T.H. Sexual selection in males and females. Science 2007, 318:1882-1885.
15. Collins S.A. The effect of recent experience on female choice in zebra finches. Animal Behaviour 1995, 49:479-486.
16. Costa J.T. The Other Insect Societies 2006, Belknap Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
17. Cotton S., Small J., Pomiankowski A. Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Current Biology 2006, 16:R755-R765.
18. Danchin é., Giraldeau L.-A., Valone T.J., Wagner R.H. Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science 2004, 305:487-491.
19. Danielson-François A.M., Zhou Y., Greenfield M.D. Indirect genetic effects and the lek paradox: inter-genotypic competition may strengthen genotype×environment interactions and conserve genetic variance. Genetica 2009, 136:27-36.
20. Darwin C. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex 1871, J. Murray, London.
21. De Winter A.J., Rollenhagen T. Differences in preference for species-specific female calls between acoustically experienced and acoustically naive male Ribautodelphax planthoppers (Homoptera: Delphacidae). Journal of Insect Behavior 1993, 6:411-419.
22. Dingemanse N.J., Wolf M. Between-individual differences in behavioural plasticity within populations: causes and consequences. Animal Behaviour 2013, 85:1031-1039.
23. Dukas R. Learning in the context of sexual behaviour in insects. Animal Biology 2006, 56:125-141.
24. Dukas R. Effects of learning on evolution: robustness, innovation and speciation. Animal Behaviour 2013, 85:1023-1030.
25. Fincke O.M., Fargevieille A., Schultz T.D. Lack of innate preference for morph and species identity in mate-searching Enallagma damselflies. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2007, 61:1121-1131.
26. Foster S.A. Evolution of behavioural phenotypes: influences of ancestry and expression. Animal Behaviour 2013, 85:1061-1075.
27. Fowler-Finn K.D., Rodríguez R.L. Experience-mediated plasticity in mate preferences: mating assurance in a variable environment. Evolution 2012, 66:459-468.
28. Fowler-Finn K.D., Rodríguez R.L. The evolution of experience-mediated plasticity in mate preferences. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2012, 25:1855-1863.
29. Fowler-Finn K.D., Rodríguez R.L. Repeatability of mate preference functions in Enchenopa treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae). Animal Behaviour 2013, 85:493-499.
30. Getty T. Search, discrimination, and selection: mate choice by pied flycatchers. American Naturalist 1995, 148:378-385.
31. Greenfield M.D. Signalers and Receivers 2002, Oxford University Press, New York.
32. Hebets E.A. Subadult experience influences adult mate choice in an arthropod: exposed female wolf spiders prefer males of a familiar phenotype. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 2003, 100:13390-13395.
33. Hebets E.A., Sullivan-Beckers L. Mate choice and learning. Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior. Vol. 2 2010, 389-393. Academic Press, London. M.D. Breed, J. Moore (Eds.).
34. Hebets E.A., Vink C.J. Experience leads to preference: experienced females prefer brush-legged males in a population of syntopic wolf spiders. Behavioral Ecology 2007, 18:1010-1020.
35. Hoekstra H.E., Hoekstra J.M., Berrigan D., Vignieri S.N., Hoang A., Hill C.E., Beerli P., Kingsolver J.G. Strength and tempo or directional selection in the wild. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 2001, 98:9157-9160.
36. Hollander J. Testing the grain-size model for the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Evolution 2008, 62:1381-1389.
37. Irwin D.E., Price T. Sexual imprinting, learning and speciation. Heredity 1999, 82:347-354.
38. Jennions M.D., Petrie M. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biological Reviews 1997, 72:283-327.
39. Johnson J.B., Basolo A.L. Predator exposure alters female mate choice in the green swordtail. Behavioral Ecology 2003, 14:619-625.
40. Jordan L.A., Brooks R.C. Recent social history alters male courtship preferences. Evolution 2012, 66:280-287.
41. Kasumovic M.M. The multi-dimensional consequences of the juvenile environment: towards an integrative view of the adult phenotype. Animal Behaviour 2013, 85:1049-1059.
42. Kent C., Azanchi R., Smith B., Formosa A., Levine J.D. Social context influences chemical communication in D. melanogaster males. Current Biology 2008, 18:1384-1389.
43. 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.
44. Knoppien P. Rare male mating advantage: a review. Biological Reviews 1985, 60:81-117.
45. Kozak G.M., Boughman J.W. Learned conspecific mate preference in a species pair of sticklebacks. Behavioral Ecology 2009, 20:1282-1288.
46. Lesna I., Sabelis M.W. Diet-dependent female choice for males with 'good genes' in a soil predatory mite. Nature 1999, 401:581-584.
47. Lyon B.E., Montgomerie R. Sexual selection is a form of social selection. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 2012, 367:2266-2273.
48. 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.
49. Magurran A.E., Ramnarine I.W. Learned mate recognition and reproductive isolation in guppies. Animal Behaviour 2004, 67:1077-1082.
50. Magurran A.E., Ramnarine I.W. Evolution of mate discrimination in a fish. Current Biology 2005, 15:R867-R868.
51. Mariette M.M., Zajitschek S.R.K., Garcia C.M., Brooks R.C. The effects of familiarity and group size on mating preferences in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2010, 23:1772-1782.
52. Mayr E., Dobzhansky Th Experiments on sexual isolation in Drosophila. IV. Modification of the degree of isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis and of sexual preferences in Drosophila prosaltans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 1945, 31:75-82.
53. Meyer K., Kirkpatrick M. Up hill, down dale: quantitative genetics of curvaceous traits. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 2005, 360:1443-1455.
54. Miller C.W., Moore A.J. A potential resolution to the lek paradox through indirect genetic effects. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2007, 274:1279-1286.
55. Miller M.N., Fincke O.M. Cues for mate recognition and the effect of prior experience on mate recognition in Enallagma damselflies. Journal of Insect Behavior 1999, 12:801-814.
56. Moore A.J., Brodie E.D., Wolf J.B. Interacting phenotypes and the evolutionary process: I. Direct and indirect genetic effects of social interactions. Evolution 1997, 51:1352-1362.
57. Moore B.R. The evolution of learning. Biological Reviews 2004, 79:301-335.
58. O'Hara E., Pruzan A., Ehrman L. Ethological isolation and mating experience in Drosophila paulistorum. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 1976, 73:975-976.
59. Pfennig K.S. Facultative mate choice drives adaptive hybridization. Science 2007, 318:965-967.
60. Prokop Z.M., Michalczyk Ł., Drobniak S.M., Herdegen M., Radwan J. Meta-analysis suggests choosy females get sexy sons more than 'good genes'. Evolution 2012, 66:2665-2673.
61. Puurtinen M., Ketola T., Kotiaho J.S. The good-genes and compatible-genes benefits of mate choice. American Naturalist 2009, 174:741-752.
62. Qvarnström A. Context-dependent genetic benefits from mate choice. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2001, 16:5-7.
63. Qvarnström A., Pärt T., Sheldon B.C. Adaptive plasticity in mate preference linked to differences in reproductive effort. Nature 2000, 405:344-347.
64. Real L. Search theory and mate choice. I. Models of single-sex discrimination. American Naturalist 1990, 136:376-405.
65. Rebar D., Zuk M., Bailey N.W. Mating experience in field crickets modifies pre- and post-copulatory female choice in parallel. Behavioral Ecology 2011, 22:303-309.
66. Ritchie M.G. The shape of female mating preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 1996, 93:14628-14631.
67. 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.
68. Rodríguez R.L., Hallett A.C., Kilmer J.T., Fowler-Finn K.D. Curves as traits: genetic and environmental variation in mate preference functions. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2013, 26:434-442.
69. Rutledge J.M., Miller A., Uetz G.W. Exposure to multiple sensory cues as a juvenile affects adult female mate preferences in wolf spiders. Animal Behaviour 2010, 80:419-426.
70. Schluter D. Estimating the form of natural selection on a quantitative trait. Evolution 1988, 42:849-861.
71. Servedio M.R., Sæther S.A., Sætre G.-P. Reinforcement and learning. Evolutionary Ecology 2009, 23:109-123.
72. Snell-Rood E.C. An overview of the evolutionary causes and consequences of behavioural plasticity. Animal Behaviour 2013, 85:1004-1011.
73. Stinchcombe J.R., Function-valued Traits Working Group, Kirkpatrick M. Genetics and evolution of function-valued traits: understanding environmentally responsive phenotypes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2012, 27:637-647.
74. Svensson E.I., Eroukhmanoff F., Karlsson K., Runemark A., Brodin A. A role for learning in population divergence of mate preferences. Evolution 2010, 64:3101-3113.
75. Verzijden M.N., ten Cate C., Servedio M.R., Kozak G.M., Boughman J.W., Svensson E.I. The impact of learning on sexual selection and speciation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2012, 27:511-519.
76. Via S., Lande R. Genotype-environment interaction and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. American Naturalist 1985, 39:505-522.
77. Wagner W.E., Smeds M.R., Wiegmann D.D. Experience affects female responses to male song in the variable field cricket Gryllus lineaticeps (Orthoptera, Gryllidae). Ethology 2001, 107:769-776.
78. Walling C.A., Royle N.J., Lindström J., Metcalfe N.B. Experience-induced preference for short-sworded males in the green swordtail, Xiphophorus helleri. Animal Behaviour 2008, 76:271-276.
79. West-Eberhard M.J. Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Quarterly Review of Biology 1983, 58:155-183.
80. West-Eberhard M.J. Adaptation: current usages. Keywords in Evolutionary Biology 1992, 13-18. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. E.F. Keller, E.A. Lloyd (Eds.).
81. West-Eberhard M.J. Developmental Plasticity and Evolution 2003, Oxford University Press, New York.
82. Williams G.C. Adaptation and Natural Selection 1966, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
83. Wolf J.B., Brodie E.D., Moore A.J. Interacting phenotypes and the evolutionary process. II. Selection resulting from social interactions. American Naturalist 1999, 153:254-266.
84. Zajitschek S.R.K., Brooks R.C. Distinguishing the effects of familiarity, relatedness, and color pattern rarity on attractiveness and measuring their effects on sexual selection in guppies (Poecilia reticulata). American Naturalist 2008, 172:843-854.
85. Zuk M., Kolluru G.R. Exploitation of sexual signals by predators and parasitoids. Quarterly Review of Biology 1998, 73:415-438.