The potential additive and non-additive benefits of mate choice in the threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)

Evolutionary Ecology Research

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 331-341

  Smith, Carl ^a   Spence, Rowena ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Additive genetic benefit; Genetic compatibility; Good genes; Major histocompatibility complex; Mating system; Non additive genetic benefit; Olfactory cues; Sexual selection; Stickleback; Teleost

Indexed keywords

EID: 84879614461     PISSN: 15220613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Aeschlimann, P.B., Haberli, M.A., Reusch, T.B.H., Boehm, T. and Milinski, M. 2003. Female sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus use self-reference to optimize MHC allele number during mate selection. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 54: 19-26.
2. Agbali, M., Reichard, M., Bryjová, A., Bryja, J. and Smith, C. 2010. Mate choice for non-additive genetic benefits correlate with MHC dissimilarity in the rose bitterling (Rhodeus ocellatus). Evolution, 64: 1683-1696.
3. Arkush, K.D., Giese, A.R., Mendonca, H.L., McBride, A.M., Marty, G.D. and Hedrick, P.W. 2002. Resistance to three pathogens in the endangered winter-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): effects of inbreeding and major histocompatibility complex genotypes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat Sci., 59: 966-975.
4. Bakker, T.C.M. 1993. Positive genetic correlation between female preference and preferred male ornament in sticklebacks. Nature, 363: 255-257.
5. Baratti, M., Dessì-Fulgheri, F., Ambrosini, R., Bonisoli-Alquati, A., Caprioli, M., Goti, E. et al. 2012. MHC genotype predicts mate choice in the ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus. J. Evol. Biol., 25: 1531-1542.
6. Barber, I. 2007. Host-parasite interactions of the threespined stickleback. In The Biology of the Threespined Stickleback (S. Östlund-Nilsson, I. Mayer and FA. Huntingford, eds.), pp. 271-317. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
7. Barber, I. and Arnott, S.A. 2000. Split-clutch IVF: a technique to examine indirect fitness con-sequences of mate preferences in sticklebacks. Behaviour, 137: 1129-1140.
8. Barber, I., Nairn, D. and Huntingford, FA. 2001a. Nests as ornaments: revealing construction by male sticklebacks. Behav. Ecol., 12: 390-396.
9. Barber, I., Arnott, S.A., Braithwaite, VA., Andrew, J. and Huntingford, FA. 2001b. Indirect fitness consequences of mate choice in sticklebacks: offspring of brighter males grow slowly but resist parasite infections. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 268: 71-76.
10. Bell, M.A. and Aguirre, W.E. 2013. Contemporary evolution, allelic recycling, and adaptive radiation of the threespine stickleback. Evol. Ecol. Res., 15: 377-411.
11. Bell, M.A., Aguirre, W.E. and Buck, N.J. 2004. Twelve years of contemporary armor evolution in a threespine stickleback population. Evolution, 58: 814-824.
12. Blaxter, J.H.S. and Hempel, G. 1963. The influence of egg size on herring larvae. J. Cons. Perm. Int. Explor. Mer., 28: 211-240.
13. Brooks, S., Tyler, C.R. and Sumpter, J.P. 1997. Egg quality in fish: what makes a good egg? Rev. Fish Biol. Fish., 7: 387-416.
14. Candolin, U. and Voigt, H.R. 2001. Correlation between male size and territory quality: con-sequence of male competition or predation risk? Oikos, 95: 225-230.
15. Casalini, M., Agbali, M., Reichard, M., Konecna, M., Bryjová, A. and Smith, C. 2009. Male dominance, female mate choice and intersexual conflict in the rose bitterling (Rhodeus ocellatus). Evolution, 63: 366-376.
16. Cruzan, M.B., Hamrick, J.L., Arnold, M.L. and Bennett, B.D. 1994 Mating system variation in hybridizing Irises: effects of phenology and floral densities on family outcrossing rates. Heredity, 72: 95-105.
17. Dezfuli, B.S., Giari, L., Simoni, E., Shinn, A.P. and Bosi, G. 2004. Immunohistochemistry, histopathology and ultrastructure of Gasterosteus aculeatus tissues infected with Glugea anomala. Dis. Aquat. Org., 58: 193-202.
18. Dyková, I. and Lom, J. 1978. Tissue reaction of the three-spined stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus L. to infection with Glugea anomala (Moniez, 1887). J. Fish Dis., 1: 83-90.
19. Dziminski, M.A., Roberts, D.J. and Simmons, L.W. 2008. Fitness consequences of parental compatibility in the frog Crinia georgiana. Evolution, 62: 879-886.
20. Eizaguirre, C., Lenz, T.L., Kalbe, M. and Milinski, M. 2012. Rapid and adaptive evolution of MHC genes under parasite selection in experimental vertebrate populations. Nature Commun., 3: 621-627.
21. Fraser, B.A., Ramnarine, I.W. and Neff, B.D. 2010. Selection at the MHC class IIB locus across guppy (Poecilia reticulata) populations. Heredity, 104: 155-167.
22. Froeschke, G. and Sommer, S. 2005. MHC Class II DRB variability and parasite load in the striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio) in the southern Kalahari. Mol. Biol. Evol., 22: 1254-1259.
23. Gerlach, G., Hodgins-Davis, A., Avolio, C. and Schunter, C. 2008. Kin recognition in zebrafish: a 24-hour window for olfactory imprinting. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 275: 2165-2170.
24. Huntingford, F.A. and Ruiz-Gomez, M.L. 2009. Three-spined sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus as a model for exploring behavioural biology J. Fish Biol., 75: 1943-1976.
25. Iwasa, Y and Pomiankowski, A. 1994. The evolution of mate preferences for multiple sexual ornaments. Evolution, 48: 853-867.
26. Jordan, W.C. and Bruford, M.W. 1998. New perspectives on mate choice and the MHC. Heredity, 81: 127-133.
27. Kamler, E. 2008. Resource allocation in yolk-feeding fish. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish., 18: 143-200.
28. Kempenaers, B. 2007. Mate choice and genetic quality: a review of the heterozygosity theory. Adv. Stud. Behav., 37: 189-278.
29. Kirkpatrick, M. and Barton, N.H. 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 94: 1282-1286.
30. Kjoglum, S., Grimholt, U. and Larsen, S. 2005. Non-MHC genetic and tank effects influence disease challenge tests in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Aquaculture, 250: 102-109.
31. Künzler, R. and Bakker, T.C.M. 2000. Pectoral fins and paternal quality in sticklebacks. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 267: 999-1004.
32. Kurtz, J., Kalbe, M., Aeschlimann, P.B., Häberli, M.A., Wegner, K.M., Reusch, T.B.H. et al. 2004. Major histocompatibility complex diversity influences parasite resistance and innate immunity in sticklebacks. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 271: 197-204.
33. Le Comber, S.C., Faulkes, C.G., Formosinho, J. and Smith, C. 2003. Response of territorial males to the threat of sneaking in the three-spined stickleback: a field study. J. Zool., 261: 15-20.
34. Le Comber, S., Faulkes, C.G., Van Look, K.J.W., Holt, W.V. and Smith, C. 2004. Recovery of sperm activity after osmotic shock in the three-spined stickleback: implications for pre-oviposition behaviour. Behaviour, 141: 1555-1570.
35. Lynch, M. and Walsh, B. 1998. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
36. Magurran, A.E. and Henderson, P.A. 2010. Temporal turnover and the maintenance of diversity in ecological assemblages. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, 365: 3611-3620.
37. Maynard Smith, J. and Harper, D. 2003. Animal Signals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38. Milinski, M. 1985. Risk of predation of parasitized sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.) under competition for food. Behaviour, 93: 203-216.
39. Milinski, M. 2006. The major histocompatibility complex, sexual selection, and mate choice. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 37: 159-186.
40. Mobley, K.B. and Jones, A.G. 2007. Geographical variation in the mating system of the dusky pipefish (Syngnathus floridae). Mol. Ecol., 16: 2596-2606.
41. Neff, B.D. and Pitcher, T.E. 2005. Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Mol. Ecol., 14: 19-38.
42. Oliver, M.K., Telfer, S. and Piertney, S.B. 2009. Major histocompatibility complex (MHC) heterozygote superiority to natural multi-parasite infections in the water vole (Arvicola terrestris). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 276: 1119-1128.
43. Parker, GA. 1992. Snakes and female sexuality. Nature, 355: 395-396.
44. Penn, D. and Potts, W.K. 1999. The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility complex genes. Am. Nat., 153: 145-164.
45. Pepin, P. 1991. Effect of temperature and size on development, mortality, and survival rates of the pelagic early life history stages of marine fish. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 48: 503-518.
46. Piálek, J. and Albrecht, T. 2005. Choosing mates: complementary versus compatible genes. Trends Ecol. Evol., 20: 63.
47. Piertney, S.B. and Oliver, M.K. 2006. The evolutionary ecology of the major histocompatibility complex. Heredity, 9: 7-21.
48. Pitcher, T.E. and Neff, B.D. 2006. MHC class IIB alleles contribute to both additive and non-additive genetic effects on survival in Chinook salmon. Mol. Ecol., 15: 2357-2365.
49. Puurtinen, M., Ketola, T. and Kotiaho, J.S. 2009. The good-genes and compatible-genes benefits of mate choice. Am. Nat., 174: 741-752.
50. Qvarnström, A., Brommer, J.E. and Gustafsson, L. 2006. Testing the genetics underlying the co-evolution of mate choice and ornament in the wild. Nature, 441: 84-86.
51. Reichard, M., Spence, R., Bryjova, A., Bryja, J. and Smith, C. 2012. Female rose bitterling prefer MHC-dissimilar males: experimental evidence. PLoS One, 7: e40780.
52. Reznick, D. 1985. Costs of reproduction: an evaluation of the empirical evidence. Oikos, 44: 257-267.
53. Richards, E.J. 2006. Inherited epigenetic variation-revisiting soft inheritance. Nature Rev. Genet., 7: 395-401.
54. Ritchie, M.G. 2007. Sexual selection and speciation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 38: 79-102.
55. Roberts, S.C. and Gosling, L.M. 2003. Genetic similarity and quality interact in mate choice decisions by female mice. Nature Genet., 35: 103-106.
56. Rushbrook, B.J. and Barber, I. 2008. A comparison of nest building by three-spined sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus from still and flowing waters. J. Fish Biol., 73: 746-752.
57. Smith, C., Barber, I., Wootton, R.J. and Chittka, L. 2004. A receiver bias in the origin of three-spined stickleback mate choice. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 271: 949-955.
58. Smith, C., Ondracková, M., Spence, R., Adams, S., Betts, D.S. and Mallon, E. 2011. Pathogen-mediated selection for MHC variability in wild zebrafish. Evol. Ecol. Res., 13: 589-605.
59. Spence, R. and Smith, C. 2006. Female mate preferences in the zebrafish (Danio rerio). Behav. Ecol., 17: 779-783.
60. Spence, R., Wootton, R.J., Przybylski, M., Macdonald, K. and Smith, C. 2012. Calcium and salinity as selective factors in plate morph evolution of the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). J. Evol. Biol., 25: 1965-1974.
61. Steele, D.H. 1977. Correlation between egg size and development period. Am. Nat, 111: 371-372.
62. Tamada, K. and Iwata, K. 2005. Intra-specific variations of egg size, clutch size and larval survival related to maternal size in amphidromous Rhinogobius goby. Environ. Biol. Fish., 73: 379-389.
63. Tregenza, T. and Wedell, N. 2000. Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage. Mol. Ecol., 9: 1013-1027.
64. Trippel, E.A. 1998. Egg size and viability and seasonal offspring production of young Atlantic cod. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 127: 339-359.
65. Wegner, K.M., Reusch, T.B.H. and Kalbe, M. 2003. Multiple parasites are driving major histo-compatibility complex polymorphism in the wild. J. Evol. Biol., 16: 233-241.
66. Wootton, R.J. 1976. Biology of the Sticklebacks. London: Academic Press.
67. Wootton, R.J. 1984. A Functional Biology of Sticklebacks. London: Croom Helm.
68. Wootton, RJ. 1998. Ecology of Teleost Fishes. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
69. Wootton, R.J. 2009. The Darwinian stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus: a history of evolutionary studies. J. Fish Biol., 75: 1919-1942.
70. Yokoi, K., Ohta, H. and Hosoya, K. 2008. Sperm motility and cryopreservation of spermatozoa in freshwater gobies. J. Fish Biol., 72: 534-544.
71. Yamazaki, K. and Beauchamp, G.K. 2007. Genetic basis for MHC-dependent mate choice. Adv. Genet., 59: 129-145.
72. Zeh, J.A. and Zeh, D.W. 1996. The evolution of polyandry. I. Intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 263: 1711-1717.
73. Zeh, J.A. and Zeh, D.W. 1997. The evolution of polyandry. II. Post-copulatory defences against genetic incompatibility Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 264: 69-75.