Genetic architecture of sensory exploitation: QTL mapping of female and male receiver traits in an acoustic moth

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 26, Issue 12, 2013, Pages 2581-2596

  Alem, S ^a   Streiff, R ^b   Courtois, B ^c   Zenboudji, S ^d   Limousin, D ^e   Greenfield, M D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE TOURS   (France)

^b CENTRE DE BIOLOGIE ET DE GESTION DES POPULATIONS   (France)

^c UMR AGAP   (France)

^d CNRS   (France)

^e INRA Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique   (France)

Author keywords

Acoustic communication; Predatory prey interactions; Receiver bias; Sensory ecology; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

BIOACOUSTICS; CHROMOSOME; FEMALE; GENETIC ENGINEERING; MALE; MOTH; PLEIOTROPY; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; SENSORY SYSTEM; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ACHROIA GRISELLA; LEPIDOPTERA; PYRALIDAE;

ACOUSTIC COMMUNICATION; ANIMAL; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; FEMALE; GENETICS; GENOTYPE; MALE; MOTH; PHENOTYPE; PHYSIOLOGY; PREDATORY-PREY INTERACTIONS; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCUS; RECEIVER BIAS; SENSORY ECOLOGY; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ACOUSTIC COMMUNICATION; PREDATORY-PREY INTERACTIONS; RECEIVER BIAS; SENSORY ECOLOGY; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; FEMALE; GENOTYPE; MALE; MOTHS; PHENOTYPE; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCI;

EID: 84888040086     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12252     Document Type: Article

References (103)

1. Alem, S. & Greenfield, M.D. 2010. Economics of mate choice at leks: do female waxmoths pay costs for indirect genetic benefits? Behav. Ecol. 21: 615-625.
2. Alem, S., Koselj, K., Siemers, B.M. & Greenfield, M.D. 2011. Bat predation and the evolution of lek in acoustic moths. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65: 2105-2116.
3. Alexander, R.D. 1962. Evolutionary change in cricket acoustical communication. Evolution 16: 443-467.
4. Andersson, M.B. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
5. Arbuthnott, D. 2009. The genetic architecture of insect courtship behavior and premating isolation. Heredity 103: 15-22.
6. Arlettaz, R., Jones, G. & Racey, P.A. 2001. Effect of acoustic clutter on prey detection by bats. Nature 414: 742-745.
7. Arnqvist, G. 2006. Sensory exploitation and sexual conflict. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 361: 375-386.
8. Basolo, A.L. 1990. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 250: 808-810.
9. Basolo, A.L. 1995. Phylogenetic evidence for the role of a preexisting bias in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 259: 307-311.
10. Basolo, A.L. & Endler, J.A. 1995. Sensory biases and the evolution of sensory systems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10: 489.
11. Beavis, W.D. 1998. QTL analyses: power, precision, and accuracy. In: Molecular Dissection of Complex Traits (A.H. Paterson, ed.), pp. 145-162. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
12. Blumstein, D.T., Lea, A.J., Olson, L.E. & Martin, J.G.A. 2010. Heritability of anti-predatory traits: vigilance and locomotor performance in marmots. J. Evol. Biol. 23: 879-887.
13. Bradbury, J.W. & Vehrencamp, S.L. 2000. Economic models of animal communication. Anim. Behav. 59: 259-268.
14. Brandt, L.S.E. & Greenfield, M.D. 2004. Condition-dependent traits and the capture of genetic variance in male advertisement song. J. Evol. Biol. 17: 821-828.
15. Brandt, L.S.E., Ludvar, B.C. & Greenfield, M.D. 2005. Co-occurrence of acceptance thresholds and preference functions in female choice: mate discrimination in the lesser wax moth. Ethology 111: 609-625.
16. Butlin, R.K. & Ritchie, M.G. 1989. Genetic coupling in mate recognition systems: what is the evidence? Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 37: 237-246.
17. Chapman, T., Arnqvist, G., Bangham, J. & Rowe, L. 2003. Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18: 41-47.
18. Christy, J.H. & Backwell, P.R.Y. 1995. The sensory exploitation hypothesis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10: 417.
19. Churchill, G.A. & Doerge, R.W. 1994. Empirical threshold values for quantitative trait mapping. Genetics 138: 963-971.
20. Collins, R.D., Jang, Y., Reinhold, K. & Greenfield, M.D. 1999. Quantitative genetics of ultrasonic advertisement signalling in the lesser waxmoth, Achroia grisella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Heredity 83: 644-651.
21. Conner, W.E. 1999. 'Un chant d'appel amoureux': acoustic communication in moths. J. Exp. Biol. 202: 1711-1723.
22. Conner, W.E. & Corcoran, A.J. 2012. Sound strategies: the 65-million-year-old battle between bats and insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 57: 2139.
23. Cremer, S. & Greenfield, M.D. 1998. Partitioning the components of sexual selection: attractiveness and agonistic behavior in male wax moths, Achroia grisella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Ethology 104: 1-9.
24. Crow, T.F. & Kimura, M. 1970. An Introduction to Population Genetics Theory. Harper and Row, New York, NY.
25. Dahm, K.H., Meyer, D., Finn, W.E., Reinhold, V. & Roller, H. 1971. The olfactory and auditory mediated sex attraction in Achroia grisella (Fabr.). Naturwissenschaften 58: 265-266.
26. Egger, B., Klaefiger, Y., Theis, A. & Salzburger, W. 2011. A sensory bias has triggered the evolution of egg-spots in cichlid fishes. PLoS ONE 6: e25601.
27. Eisner, T. & Meinwald, J. 1995. The chemistry of sexual selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92: 50-55.
28. Endler, J.A. & Basolo, A.L. 1998. Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13: 415-420.
29. Enquist, M. & Arak, A. 1993. Selection of exaggerated male traits by female aesthetic senses. Nature 361: 446-448.
30. Falconer, D.S. & Mackay, T.F.C. 1996. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Prentice Hall, Harlow, UK.
31. Faure, P.A. & Barclay, R.M.R. 1992. The sensory basis of prey detection by the long-eared bat, Myotis evotis, and the consequences for prey selection. Anim. Behav. 44: 31-39.
32. Fernandez, A.A. & Morris, M.R. 2007. Sexual selection and trichromatic color vision in primates: statistical support for the preexisting-bias hypothesis. Am. Nat. 170: 10-20.
33. Fisher, R.A. 1958. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, 2nd edn. Dover Publications, Mineola, NY.
34. Fuller, R.C. 2009. A test of the critical assumption of the sensory bias model for the evolution of female mating preference using neural networks. Evolution 63: 1697-1711.
35. Fuller, R.C., Houle, D. & Travis, J. 2005. Sensory bias as an explanation for the evolution of mate preferences. Am. Nat. 166: 437-446.
36. Gleason, J.M., Nuzhdin, S.V. & Ritchie, M.G. 2002. Quantitative trait loci affecting a courtship signal in Drosophila melanogaster. Heredity 89: 1-6.
37. Goerlitz, H.R., Greif, S. & Siemers, B.M. 2008. Cues for acoustic detection of prey: insect rustlings sounds and the influence of walking substrate. J. Exp. Biol. 211: 2799-2806.
38. Greenfield, M.D. 2002. Signalers and Receivers: Mechanisms and Evolution of Arthropod Communication. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
39. Greenfield, M.D. & Baker, M. 2003. Bat avoidance in non-aerial insects: the silence response of signaling males in an acoustic moth. Ethology 109: 427-442.
40. Greenfield, M.D. & Coffelt, J.A. 1983. Reproductive behaviour of the lesser wax moth, Achroia grisella (Pyralidae: Galleriinae): signalling, pair formation, male interactions, and mate guarding. Behaviour 84: 287-315.
41. Greenfield, M.D. & Hohendorf, H. 2009. Independence of sexual and antipredator perceptual functions in an acoustic moth: implications for the receiver bias mechanism in signal evolution. Ethology 115: 1137-1149.
42. Greenfield, M.D. & Weber, T. 2000. Evolution of ultrasonic signalling in wax moths: discrimination of ultrasonic mating calls from bat echolo- cation signals and the exploitation of an anti-predator receiver bias by sexual advertisement. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 12: 259-279.
43. Greig, E.I. & Greenfield, M.D. 2004. Sexual selection and predator avoidance in an acoustic moth: discriminating females take fewer risks. Behaviour 141: 799-815.
44. Heckel, D.G., Gahan, L.J., Liu, Y.B. & Tabashnik, B.E. 1999. Genetic mapping of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxins in diamondback moth using biphasic linkage analysis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96: 8373-8377.
45. Holland, B. & Rice, W.R. 1998. Perspective: chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52: 1-7.
46. Hoy, R.R. 1992. The evolution of hearing in insects as an adaptation to predation from bats. In: The Evolutionary Biology of Hearing (D.B. Webster, R.R. Fay & A.N. Popper, eds), pp. 115-129. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
47. Hoy, R.R. & Robert, D. 1996. Tympanal hearing in insects. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 41: 433-450.
48. Innan, H. & Kondrashov, F. 2010. The evolution of gene duplications: classifying and distinguishing between models. Nat. Rev. Gen. 11: 97-108.
49. Jang, Y. & Greenfield, M.D. 1996. Ultrasonic communication and sexual selection in wax moths: female choice based on energy and asynchrony of male signals. Anim. Behav. 51: 1095-1106.
50. Jang, Y. & Greenfield, M.D. 1998. Absolute versus relative measurements of sexual selection: assessing the contributions of ultrasonic signal characters to mate attraction in lesser wax moths, Achroia grisella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Evolution 52: 1383-1393.
51. Jang, Y. & Greenfield, M.D. 2000. Quantitative genetics of female choice in an ultrasonic pyralid moth, Achroia grisella: variation and evolvability of preference along multiple dimensions of the male advertisement signal. Heredity 84: 73-80.
52. Jang, Y., Collins, R.D. & Greenfield, M.D. 1997. Variation and repeatability of ultrasonic sexual advertisement signals in Achroia grisella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J. Insect Behav. 10: 87-98.
53. Jennions, M.D. & Brooks, R. 2001. A sense of history. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 113-115.
54. Jia, F.-Y., Greenfield, M.D. & Collins, R.D. 2001. Ultrasonic signal competition between male wax moths. J. Insect Behav. 14: 19-33.
55. Kirkpatrick, M. & Barton, N.H. 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94: 1282-1286.
56. Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M.J. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350: 33-38.
57. Kokko, H., Brooks, R., Jennions, M.D. & Morley, J. 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270: 653-664.
58. Kokko, H., Jennions, M.D. & Brooks, R. 2006. Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37: 43-66.
59. Kosambi, D.D. 1944. The estimation of map distance from recombination values. Ann. Eugen. 12: 172-175.
60. Künike, G. 1930. Zur biologie der kleinen wachsmotte, Achroia grisella (Fabricius). Zeitschrift für angewandte entomologie 16: 304-356.
61. Lafaille, M., Bimbard, G. & Greenfield, M.D. 2010. Risk trading in mating behavior: forgoing anti-predator responses reduces the likelihood of missing terminal mating opportunities. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64: 1485-1494.
62. Limousin, D. & Greenfield, M.D. 2009. Evaluation of amplitude in male song: female waxmoths prefer fortissimo notes. J. Exp. Biol. 212: 4091-4100.
63. Limousin, D., Streiff, R., Courtois, B., Dupuy, V., Alem, S. & Greenfield, M.D. 2012. Genetic architecture of sexual selection: QTL mapping of male song and female receiver traits in an acoustic moth. PLoS ONE 7: e44554.
64. Macias-Garcia, C. & Ramirez, E. 2005. Evidence that sensory traps can evolve into honest signals. Nature 434: 501-505.
65. Midamegbe, A., Vitalis, R., Malausa, T., Delava, E., Cros-Arteil, S. & Streiff, R. 2011. Scanning the European corn borer (Ostrinia spp.) genome for adaptive divergence between host-affiliated sibling species. Mol. Ecol. 20: 1414-1430.
66. Miller, L.A. & Surlykke, A. 2001. How some insects detect and avoid being eaten by bats: tactics and countertactics of prey and predator. Bioscience 51: 570-581.
67. Milum, V.G. 1940. Larval pests common to the nests of bumblebees and combs of the honeybees. J. Econ. Entomol. 33: 81-83.
68. Nakano, R., Takanashi, T., Surlykke, A., Skals, N. & Ishikawa, Y. 2013. Evolution of deceptive and true courtship songs in moths. Sci. Rep. 3: 2003.
69. Neuweiler, G. 1989. Foraging ecology and audition in echolocating bats. Trends Ecol. Evol. 4: 160-166.
70. Oxley, P.R., Spivak, M. & Oldroyd, B.P. 2010. Six quantitative trait loci influence task thresholds for hygienic behaviour in honeybees (Apis mellifera). Mol. Ecol. 19: 1452-1461.
71. Phelps, S.M. & Ryan, M.J. 2000. History influences signal recognition: neural network models of tungara frogs. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267: 1633-1639.
72. Reinhold, K., Greenfield, M.D., Jang, Y. & Broce, A. 1998. Energetic cost of sexual attractiveness: ultrasonic advertisement in waxmoths. Anim. Behav. 55: 905-913.
73. Ritchie, M.G. & Phillips, S.D.F. 1998. The genetics of sexual isolation. In: Endless Forms: Species and Speciation (D.J. Howard, S.H. Berlocher, eds), pp. 291-304. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
74. Rodriguez, R.L. & Greenfield, M.D. 2004. Behavioral context regulates dual function of hearing in ultrasonic moths: bat avoidance and pair formation. Physiol. Entomol. 29: 159-168.
75. Rodriguez, R.L. & Snedden, W.A. 2004. On the functional design of mate preferences and receiver biases. Anim. Behav. 68: 427-432.
76. Rodriguez, R.L., Cocroft, R.B., Schul, J. & Greenfield, M.D. 2005. The contribution of tympanic transmission to fine temporal signal evaluation in an ultrasonic moth. J. Exp. Biol. 208: 4159-4165.
77. Rowe, L. & Houle, D. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263: 1415-1421.
78. Russo, D., Jones, G. & Arlettaz, R. 2007. Echolocation and passive listening by foraging mouse-eared bats Myotis myotis and M. blythii. J. Exp. Biol. 210: 166-1763.
79. Ryan, M.J. 1990. Sexual selection, sensory systems and sensory exploitation. Oxf. Surv. Evol. Biol. 7: 157-195.
80. Ryan, M.J. 1998. Sexual selection, receiver biases, and the evolution of sex differences. Science 281: 1999-2003.
81. Ryan, M.J. & Rand, A.S. 1993. Sexual selection and signal evolution-the ghost of biases past. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 340: 187-195.
82. Ryan, M.J., Phelps, S.M. & Rand, A.S. 2001. How evolutionary history shapes recognition mechanisms. Trends Cogn. Sci. 5: 143-148.
83. Sasabe, M., Takami, Y. & Sota, T. 2010. QTL for the species-specific male and female genital morphologies in Ohomopterus ground beetles. Mol. Ecol. 19: 5231-5239.
84. Shaw, K.L. 1995. Phylogenetic tests of the sensory exploitation model of sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10: 117-120.
85. Shaw, K.L., Parsons, Y.M. & Lesnick, S.C. 2007. QTL analysis of a rapidly evolving speciation phenotype in the Hawaiian cricket Laupala. Mol. Ecol. 16: 2879-2892.
86. Siemers, B.M. & Güttinger, R. 2006. Prey conspicuousness can explain apparent prey selectivity. Curr. Biol. 16: 157-159.
87. Siemers, B.M., Kriner, E., Kaipf, I., Simon, M. & Greif, S. 2012. Bats eavesdrop on the sound of copulating flies. Curr. Biol. 14: R563-R564.
88. Singh, N.D. & Shaw, K.L. 2012. On the scent of pleiotropy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109: 5-6.
89. Smith, C., Barber, I., Wootton, R.J. & Chittka, L. 2004. A receiver bias in the origin of three-spined stickleback mate choice. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271: 949-955.
90. Snedden, W.A., Tosh, C.R. & Ritchie, M.G. 1994. The ultrasonic mating signal of the male lesser wax moth. Physiol. Entomol. 19: 367-372.
91. Spangler, H.G. 1988. Hearing in tiger beetles (Cicindelidae). Physiol. Entomol. 13: 447-452.
92. Spangler, H.G. & Takessian, A. 1983. Sound perception by two species of wax moths (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 76: 94-97.
93. Spangler, H.G., Greenfield, M.D. & Takessian, A. 1984. Ultrasonic mate calling in the lesser wax moth. Physiol. Entomol. 9: 87-95.
94. Velthuis, B.J., Yang, W., Van Opijnen, T. & Werren, J.H. 2005. Genetics of female mate discrimination of heterospecific males in Nasonia (Hymenoptera, Pteromalidae). Anim. Behav. 69: 1107-1120.
95. Via, S. & Lande, R. 1985. Genotype-environment interaction and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Evolution 39: 505-522.
96. Wagner, G.P. & Zhang, J. 2011. The pleiotropic structure of the genotype-phenotype map: the evolvability of complex organisms. Nat. Rev. Genet. 12: 204-213.
97. Waters, D.A. & Jones, G. 1995. Echolocation call structure and intensity in five species of insectivorous bats. J. Exp. Biol. 198: 475-489.
98. West-Eberhard, M.J. 1979. Sexual selection, social competition, and evolution. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 123: 222-234.
99. West-Eberhard, M.J. 1983. Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Q. Rev. Biol. 58: 155-183.
100. West-Eberhard, M.J. 1984. Sexual selection, competitive communication and species-specific signals in insects. In: Insect Communication (T. Lewis, ed.), pp. 283-324. Academic Press, New York, NY.
101. Xu, S. 2003. Theoretical basis of the Beavis effect. Genetics 165: 2259-2268.
102. Yager, D.D. 2012. Predator detection and evasion by flying insects. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 22: 201-207.
103. Zhou, Y., Kelly, J.K. & Greenfield, M.D. 2011. Testing the fisherian mechanism: examining the genetic correlation between male song and female response in waxmoths. Evol. Ecol. 25: 307-329.