Sexual selection in complex environments

Annual Review of Entomology

Volumn 59, Issue , 2014, Pages 427-445

  Miller, Christine W ^a   Svensson, Erik I ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Cryptic female choice; Fluctuating selection; Genotype by environment interactions; Male male competition; Mate choice; Phenotypic plasticity; Selection analyses; Sperm competition

Indexed keywords

ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; ANIMAL; ARTHROPOD; ENVIRONMENT; EVOLUTION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; MATE CHOICE; PHYSIOLOGY;

ANIMALS; ARTHROPODS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; ENVIRONMENT; GENETIC VARIATION; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL;

EID: 84891924737     PISSN: 00664170     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-ento-011613-162044     Document Type: Article

References (178)

1. Abou-El-Fittouh HA, Rawlings JO, Miller PA. 1969. Classification of environments to control genotype by environment interactions with an application to cotton. Crop Sci. 9:135-40
2. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
3. Arnold SJ. 1983. Sexual selection: The interface of theory and empiricism. In Mate Choice, ed. PPG Bateson, pp. 67-107. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
4. Arnold SJ, Wade MJ. 1984. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: Theory. Evolution 38:709-19
5. Arnqvist G. 1992. Spatial variation in selective regimes: Sexual selection in the water strider Gerris odontogaster. Evolution 46:914-29
6. Arnqvist G, Kirkpatrick M. 2005. The evolution of infidelity in socially monogamous passerines: The strength of direct and indirect selection on extrapair copulation behavior in females. Am.Nat. 165:S26-37
7. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T. 2000. The evolution of polyandry: Multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim. Behav. 60:145-64
8. Arnqvist G, Rowe L. 2005. Sexual Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
9. Badyaev AV, Duckworth RA. 2003. Context-dependent sexual advertisement: Plasticity in development of sexual ornamentation throughout the lifetime of a passerine bird. J. Evol. Biol. 16:1065-76
10. Bakker TCM, Pomiankowski A. 1995. The genetic basis of female mate preferences. J. Evol. Biol. 8:129-71
11. Bateman AJ. 1948. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349-68
12. Bateman PW, Fleming PA. 2006. Males are selective too: Mating, but not courtship, with sequential females influences choosiness in male field crickets (Gryllus bimaculatus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 59:577-81
13. Bell G. 2010. Fluctuating selection: The perpetual renewal of adaptation in variable environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 365:87-97
14. Bel-VennerMC, Dray S, Allaine D,Menu F, Venner S. 2008. Unexpected male choosiness for mates in a spider. Proc. R. Soc. B 275:77-82
15. BlanckenhornWU,MuhlhauserC,MorfC,ReuschT,ReuterM. 2000. Female choice, female reluctance to mate and sexual selection on body size in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Ethology 106:577-93
16. Bonduriansky R. 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: A synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol. Rev. 76:305-39
17. Bonduriansky R. 2007. The evolution of condition-dependent sexual dimorphism. Am. Nat. 169:9-19
18. Borgia G. 1979. Sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. In Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects, ed. MS Blum, NA Blum, pp. 19-80. New York: Academic
19. Borgia G. 1980. Sexual competition in Scatophaga stercoraria: Size- And density-related changes in male ability to capture females. Behaviour 75:185-206
20. Brommer JE, Fricke C, Edward DA, Chapman T. 2012. Interactions between genotype and sexual conflict environment influence transgenerational fitness in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 66:517-31
21. Bussiere LF, Hunt J, Stoelting KN, Jennions MD, Brooks R. 2008. Mate choice for genetic quality when environments vary: Suggestions for empirical progress. Genetica 134:69-78
22. Calsbeek R, Cox RM. 2010. Experimentally assessing the relative importance of predation and competition as agents of selection. Nature 465:613-16
23. Candolin U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol. Rev. 78:575-95
24. Carroll SP, Salamon MH. 1995. Variation in sexual selection on male body size within and between populations of the soapberry bug. Anim. Behav. 50:1463-74
25. Chaine AS, Lyon BE. 2008. Adaptive plasticity in female mate choice dampens sexual selection on male ornaments in the lark bunting. Science 319:459-62
26. Conner J. 1989. Density-dependent sexual selection in the fungus beetle, Bolitotherus cornutus. Evolution 43:1378-86
27. Cornwallis CK, Uller T. 2010. Towards an evolutionary ecology of sexual traits. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25:145-52
28. Cotton S, Rogers DW, Small J, Pomiankowski A, Fowler K. 2006. Variation in preference for a male ornament is positively associated with female eyespan in the stalk-eyed fly Diasemopsis meigenii. Proc. R. Soc. B 273:1287-92
29. Cotton S, Small J, Pomiankowski A. 2006. Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr. Biol. 16:R755-65
30. Cox CR, Le Boeuf BJ. 1977. Female incitation of male competition: A mechanism in sexual selection. Am. Nat. 3:317-35
31. Danielson-François A, Kelly JK,Greenfield MD. 2006. Genotype × environment interaction for male attractiveness in an acoustic moth: Evidence for plasticity and canalization. J. Evol. Biol. 19:532-42
32. Darwin CR. 1871. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray
33. delBarco-Trillo J, Ferkin MH. 2004. Male mammals respond to a risk of sperm competition conveyed by odours of conspecific males. Nature 431:446-49
34. Delcourt M, Blows MW, Rundle HD. 2010. Quantitative genetics of female mate preferences in an ancestral and a novel environment. Evolution 64:2758-66
35. Dugatkin LA. 1992. Sexual selection and imitation: Females copy the mate choice of others. Am. Nat. 139:1384-89
36. Dukas R. 2006. Learning in the context of sexual behaviour in insects. Anim. Biol. 56:125-41
37. EberhardWG. 1991. Copulatory courtship and cryptic female choice in insects. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 66:1-31
38. EberhardWG. 1996. Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
39. Edward DA, Chapman T. 2011. The evolution and significance of male mate choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26:647-54
40. Edward DA, Gilburn AS. 2013. Male-specific genotype by environment interactions influence viability selection acting on a sexually selected inversion system in the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida. Evolution 67:295-302
41. Ellner S, Hairston NG. 1994. Role of overlapping generations in maintaining genetic variation in a fluctuating environment. Am. Nat. 143:403-17
42. Emlen DJ. 2008. The evolution of animal weapons. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 39:387-413
43. Endler JA. 1986. Natural Selection in the Wild. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
44. Eshel I. 1979. Sexual selection, population density, and availability ofmates. Theor. Popul. Biol. 16:301-14
45. Falconer DS. 1952. The problem of environment and selection. Am. Nat. 86:293-98
46. Formica VA, Wood CW, Larsen WB, Butterfield RE, Augat ME, et al. 2012. Fitness consequences of social network position in a wild population of forked fungus beetles (Bolitotherus cornutus). J. Evol. Biol. 25:130-37
47. Fricke C, Bretman A, Chapman T. 2010. Female nutritional status determines the magnitude and sign of responses to a male ejaculate signal in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Evol. Biol. 23:157-65
48. Gage A, Barnard C. 1996. Male crickets increase sperm number in relation to competition and female size. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 38:349-53
49. Garbaczewska M, Billeter J-C, Levine JD. 2013. Drosophila melanogaster males increase the number of sperm in their ejaculate when perceiving rival males. J. Insect Physiol. 59:306-10
50. Garcia-Gonzalez F. 2008. Male genetic quality and the inequality between paternity success and fertilization success: Consequences for studies of sperm competition and the evolution of polyandry. Evolution 62:1653-65
51. Gosden TP, Svensson EI. 2008. Spatial and temporal dynamics in a sexual selection mosaic. Evolution 62:845-56
52. Grafen A. 1990. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol. 144:517-46
53. Grant PR, Grant BR. 2002. Unpredictable evolution in a 30-year study of Darwin's finches. Science 296:707-11
54. Green JP, Rose C, Field J. 2012. The role of climatic factors in the expression of an intrasexual signal in the paper wasp Polistes dominulus. Ethology 118:766-74
55. Greenfield MD, Rodriguez RL. 2004. Genotype-environment interaction and the reliability of mating signals. Anim. Behav. 68:1461-68
56. Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Burke T. 1999. Environmental determination of a sexually selected trait. Nature 400:358-60
57. GrossMR. 1996. Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: Diversity within sexes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:92-98
58. Gwynne DT, Lorch PD. 2013. Mating failures as a consequence of sexual selection on females. Entomolog. Exp. Appl. 146:3-10
59. Gwynne DT, Simmons LW. 1990. Experimental reversal of courtship roles in an insect. Nature 346:172-74
60. Hall MD, Bussiere LF, Hunt J, Brooks R. 2008. Experimental evidence that sexual conflict influences the opportunity, form and intensity of sexual selection. Evolution 62:2305-15
61. Hamilton WD, Zuk M 1982. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: A role for parasites? Science 218:384-87
62. Hebets EA. 2003. Subadult experience influences adult mate choice in an arthropod: Exposed female wolf spiders prefer males of a familiar phenotype. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:13390-95
63. Hebets EA, Wesson J, Shamble PS. 2008. Diet influences mate choice selectivity in adult female wolf spiders. Anim. Behav. 76:355-63
64. Hedrick AV, Perez D, Lichti N, Yew J. 2002. Temperature preferences of male field crickets (Gryllus integer) alter their mating calls. J. Comp. Physiol. A 188:799-805
65. Heisler IL. 1994. Quantitative geneticmodels of the evolution of mating behavior. In Quantitative Genetic Studies of Behavioral Evolution, ed. CRB Boake, pp. 101-25. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
66. Higginson AD, Reader T. 2009. Environmental heterogeneity, genotype-by-environment interactions and the reliability of sexual traits as indicators of mate quality. Proc. R. Soc. B 276:1153-59
67. Hingle A, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A. 2001. The effect of transient food stress on female mate preference in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. Proc. R. Soc. B 268:1239-44
68. Hunt J, Breuker CJ, Sadowski JA, Moore AJ. 2009. Male-male competition, female mate choice and their interaction: Determining total sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 22:13-26
69. Huxley JS. 1938. Darwin's theory of sexual selection and the data subsumed by it, in the light of recent research. Am. Nat. 72:416-33
70. Ingleby FC, Hosken DJ, Flowers K, Hawkes MF, Lane SM, et al. 2013. Genotype-by-environment interactions for cuticular hydrocarbon expression in Drosophila simulans. J. Evol. Biol. 26:94-107
71. Ingleby FC, Hunt J, Hosken DJ. 2010. The role of genotype-by-environment interactions in sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 23:2031-45
72. Jann P, Blanckenhorn WU, Ward PI. 2000. Temporal and microspatial variation in the intensities of natural and sexual selection in the yellow dung fly Scathophaga stercoraria. J. Evol. Biol. 13:927-38
73. Jennions MD, Petrie M. 1997. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: A review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 72:283-327
74. Jia FY, Greenfield MD. 1997. When are good genes good? Variable outcomes of female choice in wax moths. Proc. R. Soc. B 264:1057-63
75. Jia FY, Greenfield MD, Collins RD. 2000. Genetic variance of sexually selected traits in waxmoths: Maintenance by genotype × environment interaction. Evolution 54:953-67
76. Judge KA. 2010. Female social experience affects the shape of sexual selection on males. Evol. Ecol. Res. 12:389-402
77. Kasumovic MM, Andrade MCB. 2009. A change in competitive context reverses sexual selection on male size. J. Evol. Biol. 22:324-33
78. Kasumovic MM, Bruce MJ, Andrade MCB,Herberstein ME. 2008. Spatial and temporal demographic variation drives within-season fluctuations in sexual selection. Evolution 62:2316-25
79. Kingsolver JG, Diamond SE. 2011. Phenotypic selection in natural populations:What limits directional selection? Am. Nat. 177:346-57
80. Kingsolver JG, Hoekstra HE, Hoekstra JM, Berrigan D, Vignieri SN, et al. 2001. The strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations. Am. Nat. 157:245-61
81. Kirkpatrick M. 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36:1-12
82. Kirkpatrick M, Barton NH. 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94:1282-86
83. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33-38
84. Kokko H. 1997. Evolutionarily stable strategies of age-dependent sexual advertisement. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 41:99-107
85. Kokko H, Brooks R, McNamara JM, Houston AI. 2002. The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. B 269:1331-40
86. Kokko H, Heubel K. 2008. Condition-dependence, genotype-by-environment interactions and the lek paradox. Genetica 132:209-16
87. Kokko H, Jennions MD, Brooks R. 2006. Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37:43-66
88. Krupa JJ, Sih A. 1993. Experimental studies on water strider mating dynamics: Spatial variation in density and sex ratio. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 33:107-20
89. Kvarnemo C, Simmons LW. 2013. Polyandry as a mediator of sexual selection before and after mating. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 368:20120042
90. Lande R. 1979. Quantitative genetic analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain-body size allometry. Evolution 33:402-16
91. Lande R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78:3721-25
92. Lande R, Arnold SJ. 1983. Themeasurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37:1210-26
93. LeBas NR, Hockham LR, RitchieMG. 2004. Sexual selection in the gift-giving dance fly, Rhamphomyia sulcata, favors small males carrying small gifts. Evolution 58:1763-72
94. Lewis SM, Tigreros N, Fedina T, Ming QL. 2012. Genetic and nutritional effects on male traits and reproductive performance in Tribolium flour beetles. J. Evol. Biol. 25:438-51
95. Llusia D, Marquez R, Beltran JF, Benitez M, do Amaral JP. 2013. Calling behaviour under climate change: Geographical and seasonal variation of calling temperatures in ectotherms. Glob. Change Biol. 19:2655-74
96. Lynch M,Walsh B. 1998. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Sunderland, MA: Sinaeur Assoc
97. Lyon BE, Montgomerie R. 2012. Sexual selection is a form of social selection. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 367:2266-73
98. Maccoll AD. 2011. The ecological causes of evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26:514-22
99. McLain DK. 1992. Population density and the intensity of sexual selection on body length in spatially or temporally restricted natural populations of a seed beetle. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 30:347-56
100. Mery F, Varela SAM, Danchin E, Blanchet S, Parejo D, et al. 2009. Public versus personal information for mate copying in an invertebrate. Curr. Biol. 19:730-34
101. MillerCW.2008. Seasonal effects on offspring reproductive traits through maternal oviposition behavior. Behav. Ecol. 19:1297-304
102. Miller CW. 2013. Sexual selection: Male-male competition. In The Princeton Guide to Evolution, ed. J Losos, pp. 641-46. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
103. Miller CW, Emlen DJ. 2010. Dynamic effects of oviposition site on offspring sexually-selected traits and scaling relationships. Evol. Ecol. 24:375-90
104. Miller CW, Moore AJ. 2007. A potential resolution to the lek paradox through indirect genetic effects. Proc. R. Soc. B 274:1279-86
105. Mittelbach GG, Schemske DW, Cornell HV, Allen AP, Brown JM, et al. 2007. Evolution and the latitudinal diversity gradient: Speciation, extinction and biogeography. Ecol. Lett. 10:315-31
106. Moczek AP. 2003. The behavioral ecology of threshold evolution in a polyphenic beetle. Behav. Ecol. 14:841-54
107. Moczek AP, Emlen DJ. 1999. Proximate determination of male horn dimorphism in the beetle Onthophagus taurus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). J. Evol. Biol. 12:27-37
108. Moller AP, JennionsMD 2001. How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection? Naturwissenschaften 88:401-15
109. Moore AJ, Moore PJ. 1999. Balancing sexual selection through opposing mate choice and male competition. Proc. R. Soc. B 266:711-16
110. Moore PJ, Moore AJ. 2001. Reproductive aging and mating: The ticking of the biological clock in female cockroaches. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98:9171-76
111. Moya-Larano J, El-Sayyid MET, Fox CW. 2007. Smaller beetles are better scramble competitors at cooler temperatures. Biol. Lett. 3:475-78
112. Narraway C, Hunt J, Wedell N, Hosken DJ. 2010. Genotype-by-environment interactions for female preference. J. Evol. Biol. 23:2550-57
113. Nystrand M, Dowling DK, Simmons LW. 2011. Complex genotype by environment interactions and changing genetic architectures across thermal environments in the Australian field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus. BMC Evol. Biol. 11:222
114. O'Donald P. 1980. Sexual selection by female choice in a monogamous bird: Darwin's theory corroborated. Heredity 45:201-17
115. Otte D, Joern A. 1975. Insect territoriality and its evolution: Population studies of desert grasshoppers on creosote bushes. J. Anim. Ecol. 44:29-54
116. Parker GA. 1970. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 45:525-67
117. Pischedda A, Rice WR. 2012. Partitioning sexual selection into its mating success and fertilization success components. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109:2049-53
118. Pomfret JC, Knell RJ. 2008. Crowding, sex ratio and horn evolution in a South African beetle community. Proc. R. Soc. B 275:315-21
119. Pomiankowski A. 1987. The costs of choice in sexual selection. J. Theor. Biol. 128:195-218
120. Pomiankowski A, Møller AP. 1995. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc. R. Soc. B 269:21-29
121. Procter DS, Moore AJ, Miller CW. 2012. The form of sexual selection arising from male-male competition depends on the presence of females in the social environment. J. Evol. Biol. 25:803-12
122. Prudic KL, Jeon C, Cao H, Monteiro A. 2011. Developmental plasticity in sexual roles of butterfly species drives mutual sexual ornamentation. Science 331:73-75
123. Pruett-Jones S. 1992. Independent versus nonindependent mate choice: Do females copy each other? Am. Nat. 140:1000-9
124. Punzalan D, Rodd FH, Rowe L. 2010. Temporally variable multivariate sexual selection on sexually dimorphic traits in a wild insect population. Am. Nat. 175:401-14
125. Qvarnström A. 2001. Context-dependent genetic benefits from mate choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16:5-7
126. Qvarnström A, Pärt T, Sheldon BC. 2000. Adaptive plasticity in mate preference linked to differences in reproductive effort. Nature 405:344-47
127. Qvarnström A, Price TD. 2001. Maternal effects, paternal effects and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16:95-100
128. Radwan J. 1993. The adaptive significance of male polymorphism in the acarid mite Caloglyphus berlesei. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 33:201-8
129. Rebar D, Zuk M, Bailey NW.2011. Mating experience in field cricketsmodifies pre- And postcopulatory female choice in parallel. Behav. Ecol. 22:303-9
130. Rhainds M. 2010. Female mating failures in insects. Entomolog. Exp. Appl. 136:211-26
131. Rieseberg LH, Widmer A, Arntz AM, Burke JM. 2002. Directional selection is the primary cause of phenotypic diversification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:12242-45
132. Ritchie MG. 2007. Sexual selection and speciation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 38:79-102
133. Ritchie MG, Saarikettu M, Livingstone S, Hoikkala A. 2001. Characterization of female preference functions for Drosophila montana courtship song and a test of the temperature coupling hypothesis. Evolution 55:721-27
134. Rittschof CC. 2010. Male density affects large-male advantage in the golden silk spider, Nephila clavipes. Behav. Ecol. 21:979-85
135. Robinson MR, van Doorn GS, Gustafsson L, Qvarnström A. 2012. Environment-dependent selection on mate choice in a natural population of birds. Ecol. Lett. 15:611-18
136. Robson LJ, Gwynne DT. 2010. Measuring sexual selection on females in sex-role-reversed Mormon crickets (Anabrus simplex, Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). J. Evol. Biol. 23:1528-37
137. Rodŕiguez RL, Greenfield MD. 2003. Genetic variance and phenotypic plasticity in a component of female mate choice in an ultrasonic moth. Evolution 57:1304-13
138. Rodŕiguez-Muñoz R, Bretman A, Slate J,Walling C, Tregenza T. 2010. Natural and sexual selection in a wild insect population. Science 328:1269-72
139. Rodŕiguez-Muñoz R, Bretman A, Tregenza T. 2011. Guarding males protect females from predation in a wild insect. Curr. Biol. 21:1716-19
140. Rosengrave P, Taylor H, Montgomerie R, Metcalf V, McBride K, Gemmell NJ. 2009. Chemical composition of seminal and ovarian fluids of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and their effects on sperm motility traits. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 152:123-29
141. Rundle HD,Chenoweth SF, Blows MW.2008. Comparing complex fitness surfaces: Among-population variation in mutual sexual selection in Drosophila serrata. Am. Nat. 171:443-54
142. Sardell RJ, Arcese P, Keller LF, Reid JM. 2012. Are there indirect fitness benefits of female extra-pair reproduction?Lifetime reproductive success of within-pair and extra-pair offspring. Am.Nat. 179:779-93
143. Schluter D. 2009. Evidence for ecological speciation and its alternative. Science 323:737-41
144. Searcy WA, Nowicki S, eds. 2005. The Evolution of Animal Communication: Reliability and Deception in Signaling Systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
145. Siepielski AM, DiBattista JD, Carlson SM. 2009. It's about time: The temporal dynamics of phenotypic selection in the wild. Ecol. Lett. 12:1261-76
146. Siepielski AM, DiBattista JD, Evans JA, Carlson SM. 2011. Differences in the temporal dynamics of phenotypic selection among fitness components in the wild. Proc. R. Soc. B 278:1572-80
147. Siepielski AM, Gotanda KM, Morrissey MB, Diamond SE, DiBattista JD, Carlson SM. 2013. The spatial patterns of directional phenotypic selection. Ecol. Lett. 16:1382-92
148. Simmons LW. 2005. The evolution of polyandry: Sperm competition, sperm selection, and offspring viability. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36:125-46
149. Simmons LW, Fitzpatrick JL. 2012. Sperm wars and the evolution of male fertility. Reproduction 144:519-34
150. Siva-Jothy M. 1999. Male wing pigmentation may affect reproductive success via female choice in a calopterygid damselfly (Zygoptera). Behaviour 136:1365-77
151. Svensson E, Eroukhmanoff F, Karlsson K, Runemark A, Brodin A. 2010. A role for learning in population divergence of mate preferences. Evolution 64:3101-13
152. Svensson E, Friberg M. 2007. Selective predation on wing morphology in sympatric damselflies. Am. Nat. 170:101-12
153. Svensson E, Karlsson K, Friberg M, Eroukhmanoff F. 2007. Gender differences in species recognition and the evolution of asymmetric sexual isolation. Curr. Biol. 17:1943-47
154. Svensson E, Kristoffersen L, Oskarsson K, Bensch S. 2004. Molecular population divergence and sexual selection on morphology in the banded demoiselle (Calopteryx splendens). Heredity 93:423-33
155. Svensson E, Sinervo B. 2000. Experimental excursions on adaptive landscapes: Density-dependent selection on egg size. Evolution 54:1396-403
156. Svensson E,Waller JT. 2013. Ecology and sexual selection: Evolution of wing pigmentation in calopterygid damselflies in relation to latitude, sexual dimorphism, and speciation. Am. Nat. 182:174-95
157. Taff CC, Freeman-Gallant CR, Dunn PO, Whittingham LA. 2013. Spatial distribution of nests constrains the strength of sexual selection in a warbler. J. Evol. Biol. 26:1392-405
158. Takahashi Y,Watanabe M. 2011. Male mate choice based on ontogenetic colour changes of females in the damselfly Ischnura senegalensis. J. Ethol. 29:293-99
159. Thornhill R. 1983. Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps. Am. Nat. 122:765-88
160. Thornhill R, Alcock J. 1983. The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
161. Tomkins JL, Brown GS. 2004. Population density drives the local evolution of a threshold dimorphism. Nature 431:1099-103
162. Trivers RL, ed. 1972. Parental Investment and Sexual Selection. Chicago: Aldine
163. Tynkkyen K, Kotiaho JS, Svensson EI. 2008. Interspecific interactions and premating reproductive isolation. In Dragonflies and Damselflies: Model Organisms for Ecological and Evolutionary Research, ed. A
164. Ć ordoba-Auilar, pp. 139-52. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
165. van Doorn GS, Edelaar P, Weissing FJ. 2009. On the origin of species by natural and sexual selection. Science 326:1704-7
166. Venner S,Bernstein C, Dray S, Bel-VennerM-C. 2010. Make love notwar:When should less competitive males choose low-quality but defendable females? Am. Nat. 175:650-61
167. Verzijden MN, ten Cate C, Servedio MR, Kozak GM, Boughman JW, Svensson EI. 2012. The impact of learning on sexual selection and speciation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27:511-19
168. Wade MJ, Kalisz S. 1989. The additive partitioning of selection gradients. Evolution 43:1567-69
169. Wade MJ, Pruett-Jones SG. 1990. Female copying increases the variance on male mating success. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87:5749-53
170. Wagner WE. 1998. Measuring female mating preferences. Anim. Behav. 55:1029-42
171. Wallace A. 1889. Darwinism - An Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection with Some of Its Applications. London: Macmillan
172. Weddle CB, Mitchell C, Bay SK, Sakaluk SK, Hunt J. 2012. Sex-specific genotype-by-environment interactions for cuticular hydrocarbon expression in decorated crickets, Gryllodes sigillatus: Implications for the evolution of signal reliability. J. Evol. Biol. 25:2112-25
173. Weir JT, Schluter D. 2007. The latitudinal gradient in recent speciation and extinction rates of birds and mammals. Science 315:1574-76
174. Wheeler J, Gwynne DT, Bussiere LF. 2012. Stabilizing sexual selection for female ornaments in a dance fly. J. Evol. Biol. 25:1233-42
175. Wojtczak M, Dietrich GJ, Slowinska M, Dobosz S, Kuzminski H, Ciereszko A. 2007. Ovarian fluid pH enhances motility parameters of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) spermatozoa. Aquaculture 270: 259-64
176. Wong B, Candolin U. 2005. How is female mate choice affected by male competition? Biol. Rev. 80: 559-71
177. Zahavi A. 1975. Mate selection - A selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53:205-14
178. Zeh DW. 1987. Aggression, density, and sexual dimorphism in chernetid pseudoscorpions (Arachnida: Pseudoscorpionida). Evolution 41:1072-87