Environmental heterogeneity, multivariate sexual selection and genetic constraints on cuticular hydrocarbons in Drosophila simulans

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 700-713

  Ingleby, F C ^a,b   Hosken, D J ^a   Flowers, K ^a   Hawkes, M F ^a   Lane, S M ^a   Rapkin, J ^a   House, C M ^a   Sharma, M D ^a   Hunt, J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cuticular hydrocarbons; Environmental variation; Female mate choice; Male sexual signals

Indexed keywords

DIET; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; FLY; HETEROGENEITY; HYDROCARBON; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATE CHOICE; NATURAL SELECTION; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNAL; TEMPERATURE EFFECT;

DROSOPHILA SIMULANS;

HYDROCARBON;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; DROSOPHILA; ENVIRONMENT; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETICS; GENOTYPE ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; MALE; MATE CHOICE; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; DROSOPHILA; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; GENE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; HYDROCARBONS; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; SELECTION, GENETIC;

EID: 84896318837     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12338     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Acebes, A., Cobb, M. & Ferveur, J-F. 2003. Species-specific effects of single sensillum ablation on mating position in Drosophila. J. Exp. Biol. 206: 3095-3100.
2. Andersson, M. & Simmons, L.W. 2006. Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21: 296-302.
3. Avent, T.D., Price, T.A.R. & Wedell, N. 2008. Age-based female preference in the fruitfly Drosophila pseudoobscura. Anim. Behav. 75: 1413-1421.
4. Barth, M., Hirsch, H.V.B. & Heisenberg, M. 1997. Rearing in different light regimes affects courtship behaviour in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim. Behav. 53: 25-38.
5. Blows, M.W. 2002. Interaction between natural and sexual selection during the evolution of mate recognition. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269: 1113-1118.
6. Blows, M.W. 2007. A tale of two matrices: multivariate approaches in evolutionary biology. J. Evol. Biol. 20: 1-8.
7. Blows, M.W., Walsh, B. 2009. Spherical cows grazing in flatland: constraints to selection and adaptation. In: Adaptation and Fitness in Animal Populations (J. van der Werf, H.U. Graser, R. Frankham, & C. Gondro, eds), pp. 83-101. Springer-Verlag, New York.
8. Blows, M.W., Chenoweth, S.F. & Hine, E. 2004. Orientation of the genetic variance-covariance matrix and the fitness surface for multiple male sexually selected traits. Am. Nat. 163: 329-340.
9. Bussiere, L.F., Hunt, J., Stolting, K.N., Jennions, M.D. & Brooks, R. 2008. Mate choice for genetic quality when environments vary: suggestions for empirical progress. Genetica 134: 69-78.
10. Chenoweth, S.F. & Blows, M.W. 2005. Contrasting mutual sexual selection on homologous signal traits in Drosophila serrata. Am Nat 165: 281-289.
11. Chenoweth, S.F., Rundle, H.D. & Blows, M.W. 2008. Genetic constraints and the evolution of display trait sexual dimorphism by natural and sexual selection. Am. Nat. 171: 22-34.
12. Cornwallis, C.K. & Uller, T. 2010. Towards an evolutionary ecology of sexual traits. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25: 145-152.
13. Cotton, S., Small, J. & Pomiankowski, A. 2006. Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr. Biol. 16: R755-R765.
14. Delcourt, M., Blows, M.W. & Rundle, H.D. 2010. Quantitative genetics of female mate preferences in an ancestral and a novel environment. Evolution 64: 2758-2766.
15. van Doorn, G.S., Edelaar, P. & Weissing, F.J. 2009. On the origin of species by natural and sexual selection. Science 326: 1704-1707.
16. Draper, N.R. & John, J.A. 1988. Response-surface designs for quantitative and qualitative variables. Technometrics 30: 423-428.
17. Ferveur, J.F. 2005. Cuticular hydrocarbons: their evolution and roles in Drosophila pheromonal communication. Behav. Genet. 35: 279-295.
18. Ferveur, J.F. & Cobb, M. 2010. Behavioral and evolutionary roles of cuticular hydrocarbons in Diptera. In: Insect Hydrocarbons (G.J. Blomquist, A.G. Bagnères, eds), pp. 325-344. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.
19. Foley, B.R. & Telonis-Scott, M. 2010. Quantitative genetic analysis suggests causal association between cuticular hydrocarbon composition and desiccation survival in Drosophila melanogaster. Heredity 106: 68-77.
20. Frentiu, F.D. & Chenoweth, S.F. 2010. Clines in cuticular hydrocarbons in two Drosophila species with independent population histories. Evolution 64: 1784-1794.
21. Gibbs, A.G., Louie, A.K. & Ayala, J.A. 1998. Effects of temperature on cuticular lipids and water balance in a desert Drosophila: is thermal acclimation beneficial? J. Exp. Biol. 201: 71-80.
22. Gosden, T.P. & Chenoweth, S.F. 2011. On the evolution of heightened condition dependence of male sexual displays. J. Evol. Biol. 24: 685-692.
23. Greenfield, M.D. & Rodríguez, R.L. 2004. Genotype-environment interaction and the reliability of mating signals. Anim. Behav. 68: 1461-1468.
24. Hadfield, J.D. 2010. MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J Stat Software 33: 1-22.
25. Hansen, T.F. & Houle, D. 2008. Measuring and comparing evolvability and constraint in multivariate characters. J. Evol. Biol. 21: 1201-1219.
26. Head, M.L., Wong, B.B.M. & Brooks, R. 2010. Sexual display and mate choice in an energetically costly environment. PLoS ONE 5: e15279.
27. Higginson, A.D. & Reader, T. 2009. Environmental heterogeneity, genotype-by-environment interactions and the reliability of sexual traits as indicators of mate quality. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 276: 1153-1159.
28. Hine, E., Chenoweth, S.F. & Blows, M.W. 2004. Multivariate quantitative genetics and the lek paradox: genetic variance in male sexually selected traits of Drosophila serrata under field conditions. Evolution 58: 2754-2762.
29. Hoffmann, A.A. & Merila, J. 1999. Heritable variation and evolution under favourable and unfavourable conditions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14: 96-101.
30. Hosken, D.J. & House, C.M. 2011. Sexual selection. Curr. Biol. 21: R62-R65.
31. Hosken, D.J., Taylor, M.L., Hoyle, K., Higgins, S. & Wedell, N. 2008. Attractive males have greater success in sperm competition. Curr. Biol. 18: R553-R554.
32. Hunt, J., Bussiere, L.F., Jennions, M.D. & Brooks, R. 2004. What is genetic quality? Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 329-333.
33. Hunt, J., Brooks, R. & Jennions, M.D. 2005. Female mate choice as a condition-dependent life-history trait. Am. Nat. 166: 79-92.
34. Ingleby, F.C., Hunt, J. & Hosken, D.J. 2010. The role of genotype-by-environment interactions in sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 23: 2031-2045.
35. Ingleby, F.C., Hunt, J. & Hosken, D.J. 2013a. Genotype-by-environment interactions for female mate choice of male cuticular hydrocarbons in Drosophila simulans. PLoS ONE 6: e67623.
36. Ingleby, F.C., Hosken, D.J., Flowers, K., Hawkes, M.F., Lane, S.M., Rapkin, J. et al. 2013b. Genotype-by-environment interactions for cuticular hydrocarbon expression in Drosophila simulans. J. Evol. Biol. 26: 94-107.
37. Jia, F.-Y., Greenfield, M.D. & Collins, R.D. 2000. Genetic variance of sexually selected traits in waxmoths: maintenance by genotype x environment interaction. Evolution 54: 953-967.
38. Kingsolver, J.G., Hoekstra, H.E., Hoekstra, J.M., Berrigan, D., Vignieri, S.N., Hill, C.E. et al. 2001. The strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations. Am. Nat. 157: 245-261.
39. Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M.J. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350: 33-38.
40. Kokko, H. & Heubel, K. 2008. Condition-dependence, genotype-by-environment interactions and the lek paradox. Genetica 134: 55-62.
41. Kwan, L. & Rundle, H.D. 2009. Adaptation to desiccations fails to generate pre- and postmating isolation in replicate Drosophila melanogaster laboratory populations. Evolution 64: 710-723.
42. Kyriacou, C.P. & Hall, J.C. 1986. Interspecific genetic control of courtship song production and reception in Drosophila. Science 232: 494-497.
43. Lande, R. 1979. Quantitative genetic analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain size: body size allometry. Evolution 33: 402-416.
44. Lande, R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78: 3721-3725.
45. Lande, R. & Arnold, S.J. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37: 1210-1226.
46. Majerus, M.E.N. 1986. The genetics and evolution of female choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1: 1-7.
47. Markow, T.A. 1996. Evolution of Drosophila mating systems. Evol. Biol. 29: 73-106.
48. Moller, A.P. & Szep, T. 2005. Rapid evolutionary change in a secondary sexual character linked to climatic change. J. Evol. Biol. 18: 481-495.
49. Narraway, C., Hunt, J., Wedell, N. & Hosken, D.J. 2010. Genotype-by-environment interactions for female preference. J. Evol. Biol. 23: 2550-2557.
50. Petfield, D., Chenoweth, S.F., Rundle, H.D. & Blows, M.W. 2005. Genetic variance in female condition predicts indirect genetic variance in male sexual display traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102: 6045-6050.
51. Reynolds, R.J., Childers, D.K. & Pajewski, N.M. 2010. The distribution and hypothesis testing of eigenvalues from the canonical analysis of the gamma matrix of quadratic and correlational selection gradients. Evolution 64: 1076-1085.
52. Ritchie, M.G. 2007. Sexual selection and speciation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 38: 79-102.
53. Ritchie, M.G., Halsey, E.J. & Gleason, J.M. 1999. Drosophila song as a species-specific mating signal and the behavioural importance of Kyriacou and Hall cycles in D. melanogaster. Anim. Behav. 58: 649-657.
54. Robinson, M.R., Wilson, A.J., Pilkington, J.G., Clutton-Brock, T.H., Pemberton, J.M. & Kruuk, L.E.B. 2009. The impact of environmental heterogeneity on genetic architecture in a wild population of Soay sheep. Genetics 181: 1639-1648.
55. 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.
56. Rundle, H.D., Chenoweth, S.F., Doughty, P. & Blows, M.W. 2005. Divergent selection and the evolution of signal traits and mating preferences. PLoS Biol. 3: e368.
57. Rundle, H.D., Chenoweth, S.F. & Blows, M.W. 2009. The diversification of mate preferences by natural and sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 22: 1608-1615.
58. Savarit, F. & Ferveur, J.F. 2002. Temperature affects the ontogeny of sexually dimorphic cuticular hydrocarbons in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Exp. Biol. 205: 3241-3249.
59. Sgro, C.M. & Hoffmann, A.A. 2004. Genetic correlations, tradeoffs and environmental variation. Heredity 93: 241-248.
60. Shackleton, M.A., Jennions, M.D. & Hunt, J. 2005. Fighting success and attractiveness as predictors of male mating success in the black field cricket, Teleogryllus commodus: the effectiveness of no-choice tests. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 58: 1-8.
61. Sharma, M.D., Hunt, J. & Hosken, D.J. 2012. Antagonistic responses to natural and sexual selection and the sex-specific evolution of cuticular hydrocarbons in Drosophila simulans. Evolution 106: 295-306.
62. Speith, H. 1974. Courtship behaviour in Drosophila. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 19: 385-405.
63. Stinchecombe, J.R., Agrawal, A.F., Hohenlohe, S.J., Arnold, S.J. & Blows, M.W. 2008. Estimating nonlinear selection gradients using quadratic regression coefficients: double or nothing? Evolution 62: 2345-2440.
64. Tabachnick, B. & Fidell, L. 1989. Using multivariate statistics. Harper Collins, New York, USA.
65. Taylor, M.L., Wedell, N. & Hosken, D.J. 2007. The heritability of attractiveness. Curr. Biol. 17: R959-R960.
66. Taylor, M.L., Wedell, N. & Hosken, D.J. 2008. Sexual selection and female fitness in Drosophila simulans. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62: 721-728.
67. Thomas, M.L. & Simmons, L.W. 2009. Sexual selection on cuticular hydrocarbons in the Australian field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus. BMC Evol. Biol. 9: 162.
68. Thomas, M.L. & Simmons, L.W. 2011. Short-term phenotypic plasticity in long-chain cuticular hydrocarbons. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 278: 3123-3128.
69. Thomas, M.L., Gray, B. & Simmons, L.W. 2011. Male crickets alter the relative expression of cuticular hydrocarbons when exposed to different acoustic environments. Anim. Behav. 82: 49-53.
70. Van Homrigh, A., Higgie, M., McGuigan, K. & Blows, M.W. 2007. The depletion of genetic variance by sexual selection. Curr. Biol. 17: 528-532.
71. Via, S. & Lande, R. 1985. Genotype-environment interaction and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Evolution 39: 505-522.
72. Weddle, C.B., Mitchell, C., Bay, S.K., Sakaluk, S.K. & Hunt, J. 2012. Sex-specific genotype-by-environment interactions for cuticular hydrocarbon expression in decorated cricket, Gryllodes sigallatus: implications for the evolution of signal reliability. J. Evol. Biol. 25: 2112-2125.
73. 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.