Sexual selection is influenced by both developmental and adult environments

Evolution

Volumn 68, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 3421-3432

  Gillespie, Stephanie R ^a,b   Scarlett Tudor, M ^a,c   Moore, Allen J ^d,e   Miller, Christine W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MAINE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^e University of Georgia   (United States)

Author keywords

Condition dependence; Context dependence; Coreidae; Hemiptera; Selection analysis; Selection gradient

Indexed keywords

COREIDAE; HEMIPTERA;

ANIMAL; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETICS; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; HETEROPTERA; MALE; MATE CHOICE; PHYSIOLOGY;

ANIMALS; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; HETEROPTERA; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; SELECTION, GENETIC;

EID: 84914171569     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/evo.12526     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Addesso, K. M., K. A. Short, A. J. Moore, and C. W. Miller . 2014. Male attractiveness to females is dependent on both current environmental context and early development in leaf-footed cactus bugs. Behaviour 151:479-492.
2. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
3. Anholt, B. R. 1991. Measuring selection on a population of damselflies with a manipulated phenotype. Evolution 45:1091-1106.
4. Arnold, S. J., and M. J. Wade . 1984. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection-theory. Evolution 38:709-719.
5. Baranowski, R. M., and J. A. Slater . 1986. Narnia femorata. Pp. 27-29 in Coreidae of Florida (Hemiptera, Heteroptera). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Gainesville, FL.
6. Bateman, P. W., and P. A. Fleming . 2006. Males are selective too: mating, but not courtship, with sequential females influences choosiness in male field crickets (Gryllus bimaculatus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 59:577-581.
7. Bel-Venner, M. C., S. Dray, D. Allaine, F. Menu, and S. Venner . 2008. Unexpected male choosiness for mates in a spider. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 275:77-82.
8. Bell, G. 2010. Fluctuating selection: the perpetual renewal of adaptation in variable environments. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365:87-97.
9. Blumstein, D. T., and J. C. Daniel . 2007. Quantifying behavior the Jwatcher way. Sinaeur Associates, Inc.Sunderland, MA.
10. Bonduriansky, R. 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol. Rev. 76:305-339.
11. Brodie, E. D., and F. J. Janzen . 1996. On the assignment of fitness values in statistical analyses of selection. Evolution 50:437-442.
12. Brodie, E. D., A. J. Moore, and F. J. Janzen . 1995. Visualizing and quantifying natural selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10:313-318.
13. Bussière, L. F., D. T. Gwynne, and R. Brooks . 2008. Contrasting sexual selection on males and females in a role-reversed swarming dance fly, Rhamphomyia longicauda Loew (Diptera: Empididae). J. Evol. Biol. 21:1683-1691.
14. Chaine, A. S., and B. E. Lyon . 2008. Adaptive plasticity in female mate choice dampens sexual selection on male ornaments in the lark bunting. Science 319:459-462.
15. Chenoweth, S. F., and M. W. Blows . 2005. Contrasting mutual sexual selection on homologous signal traits in Drosophila serrata. Am. Nat. 165:281-289.
16. Chenoweth, S. F., D. Petfield, P. Doughty, and M. W. Blows . 2007. Male choice generates stabilizing sexual selection on a female fecundity correlate. J. Evol. Biol. 20:1745-1750.
17. Clark, D. C., S. J. DeBano, and A. J. Moore . 1997. The influence of environmental quality on sexual selection in Nauphoeta cinerea (Dictyoptera: Blaberidae). Behav. Ecol. 6:46-53.
18. Clutton-Brock, T. 2007. Sexual selection in males and females. Science 318:1882-1885.
19. Cornwallis, C. K., and T. Uller . 2010. Towards an evolutionary ecology of sexual traits. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25:145-152.
20. Cotton, S., J. Small, and A. Pomiankowski . 2006. Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr. Biol. 16:R755-R7-65.
21. Cunningham, E., and T. Birkhead . 1998. Sex roles and sexual selection. Anim. Behav. 56:1311-1321.
22. Edward, D. A., and T. Chapman . 2011. The evolution and significance of male mate choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26:647-654.
23. Ellner, S., and N. G. Hairston . 1994. Role of overlapping generations in maintaining genetic variation in a fluctuating environment. Am. Nat. 143:403-417.
24. Fairbairn, D. J., and R. F. Preziosi . 1996. Sexual selection and the evolution of sexual size dimorphism in the water strider, Aquarius remigis. Evolution 50:1549-1559.
25. Fawcett, T. W., and R. A. Johnstone . 2003. Mate choice in the face of costly competition. Behav. Ecol. 14:771-779.
26. Fritzsche, K., and I. Booksmythe . 2013. The measurement of sexual selection on females and males. Curr. Zool. 59:558-563.
27. Godin, J. G. J., and S. E. Briggs . 1996. Female mate choice under predation risk in the guppy. Anim. Behav. 51:117-130.
28. Gonzalez-Espinosa, M., and P. Quintana-Ascencio . 1986. Seed predation and dispersal in a dominant desert plant: Opuntia, ants, birds and mammals. Tasks Veg. Sci. 15:273-284.
29. Gosden, T. P., and E. I. Svensson . 2008. Spatial and temporal dynamics in a sexual selection mosaic. Evolution 62:845-856.
30. Gwynne, D. T. 1981. Sexual difference theory: Mormon crickets show role reversal in mate choice. Science 213:779-780.
31. Härdling, R., and H. Kokko . 2005. The evolution of prudent choice. Evol. Ecol. Res. 7:697-715.
32. Hardy, I. C., and S. A. Field . 1998. Logistic analysis of animal contests. Anim. Behav. 56:787-792.
33. Hebets, E. A., J. Wesson, and P. S. Shamble . 2008. Diet influences mate choice selectivity in adult female wolf spiders. Anim. Behav. 76:355-363.
34. Hellgren, E. C. 1994. Prickly-pear cactus (Opuntia spp.) and its use by wildlife. Pp. 87-93 in P. Felker and J. R. Moss, eds. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Prickly Pear Council, August 12, Kingsville, TX.
35. Heubel, K. U., and I. Schlupp . 2008. Seasonal plasticity in male mating preferences in sailfin mollies. Behav. Ecol. 19:1080-1086.
36. Honěk, A. 1993. Intraspecific variation in body size and fecundity in insects: a general relationship. Oikos 66:483-492.
37. Hunt, J., R. Brooks, and M. D. Jennions . 2005. Female mate choice as a condition-dependent life-history trait. Am. Nat. 166:79-92.
38. Hunt, J., C. J. Breuker, J. A. Sadowski, and A. J. Moore . 2009. Male-male competition, female mate choice and their interaction: determining total sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 22:13-26.
39. Itzkowitz, M., and M. Haley . 1999. Are males with more attractive resources more selective in their mate preferences? A test in a polygynous species. Behav. Ecol. 10:366-371.
40. Janzen, F. J., and H. S. Stern . 1998. Logistic regression for empirical studies of multivariate selection. Evolution 52:1564-1571.
41. Jennions, M. D., and M. Petrie . 1997. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 72:283-327.
42. Jordan, L. A., and R. C. Brooks . 2012. Recent social history alters male courtship preferences. Evolution 66:280-287.
43. Kasumovic, M. M., and M. C. B. Andrade . 2009. A change in competitive context reverses sexual selection on male size. J. Evol. Biol. 22:324-333.
44. Kasumovic, M. M., M. J. Bruce, M. C. B. Andrade, and M. E. Herberstein . 2008. Spatial and temporal demographic variation drives within-season fluctuations in sexual selection. Evolution 62:2316-2325.
45. Kelly, C. D. 2008a. Identifying a causal agent of sexual selection on weaponry in an insect. Behav. Ecol. 19:184-192.
46. Kelly, C. D . 2008b. The interrelationships between resource-holding potential, resource-value and reproductive success in territorial males: how much variation can we explain? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62:855-871.
47. Kelly, C. D., and M. D. Jennions . 2011. Sexual selection and sperm quantity: meta-analyses of strategic ejaculation. Biol. Rev. 86:863-884.
48. Kingsolver, J. G., H. E. Hoekstra, J. M. Hoekstra, D. Berrigan, S. N. Vignieri, C. Hill, A. Hoang, P. Gibert, and P. Beerli . 2001. The strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations. Am. Nat. 157:245-261.
49. Lande, R., and S. J. Arnold . 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37:1210-1226.
50. LeBas, N. R., L. R. Hockham, and M. G. Ritchie . 2003. Nonlinear and correlational sexual selection on 'honest' female ornamentation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270:2159-2165.
51. Lorch, P. D., L. Bussière, and D. T. Gwynne . 2008. Quantifying the potential for sexual dimorphism using upper limits on Bateman gradients. Behaviour 145:1-24.
52. Losos, J. B., T. W. Schoener, R. B. Langerhans, and D. A. Spiller . 2006. Rapid temporal reversal in predator-driven natural selection. Science 314:1111.
53. McLain, D. K. 1992. Population density and the intensity of sexual selection on body length in spatially or temporally restricted natural populations of a seed bug. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 30:347-356.
54. Miller, C. W., R. J. Fletcher, and S. R. Gillespie . 2013. Conspecific and heterospecific cues override resource quality to influence offspring production. PLoS One 8:e70268.
55. Miller, C. W., and E. Svensson . 2014. Sexual selection in complex environments. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 59:427-445.
56. Milner, R. N. C., T. Detto, M. D. Jennions, and P. R. Y. Backwell . 2010. Experimental evidence for a seasonal shift in the strength of a female mating preference. Behav. Ecol. 21:311-316.
57. Mitchell-Olds, T., and R. G. Shaw . 1987. Regression analysis of natural selection: statistical inference and biological interpretation. Evolution 41:1149-1161.
58. Moskalik, B., and G. W. Uetz . 2011. Female hunger state affects mate choice of a sexually selected trait in a wolf spider. Anim. Behav. 81:715-722.
59. Nageon de Lestang, F., and C. W. Miller . 2009. Effects of diet on the development and survivorship of Narnia femorata nymphs (Hemiptera: Coreidae). Fla. Entomol. 92:511-512.
60. Oh, K. P., and A. V. Badyaev . 2006. Adaptive genetic complementarity in mate choice coexists with selection for elaborate sexual traits. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 273:1913-1919.
61. Procter, D. S., A. J. Moore, and C. W. Miller . 2012. The form of sexual selection arising from male-male competition depends on the presence of females in the social environment. J. Evol. Biol. 25:803-812.
62. Prudic, K. L., C. Jeon, H. Cao, and A. Monteiro . 2011. Developmental plasticity in sexual roles of butterfly species drives mutual sexual ornamentation. Science 331:73-75.
63. Punzalan, D., F. H. Rodd, and L. Rowe . 2010. Temporally variable multivariate sexual selection on sexually dimorphic traits in a wild insect population. Am. Nat. 175:401-414.
64. Qvarnström, A. 2001. Context-dependent genetic benefits from mate choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16:5-7.
65. Radwan, J. 2008. Maintenance of genetic variation in sexual ornaments: a review of the mechanisms. Genetica 134:113-127.
66. Rasband, W. 2009. ImageJ. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. Available at http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/download/.
67. Robson, L. J., and D. T. Gwynne . 2010. Measuring sexual selection on females in sex-role-reversed Mormon crickets (Anabrus simplex, Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). J. Evol. Biol. 23:1528-1537.
68. Schluter, D. 1988. Estimating the form of natural selection on a quantitative trait. Evolution 42:849-861.
69. Shine, R., D. O'Connor, M. P. Lemaster, and R. T. Mason . 2001. Pick on someone your own size: ontogenetic shifts in mate choice by male garter snakes result in size-assortative mating. Anim. Behav. 61:1133-1141.
70. Shine, R., B. Phillips, H. Waye, M. LeMaster, and R. T. Mason . 2003. The lexicon of love: what cues cause size-assortative courtship by male garter snakes? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 53:234-237.
71. Siepielski, A. M., J. D. DiBattista, J. A. Evans, and S. M. Carlson . 2011. Differences in the temporal dynamics of phenotypic selection among fitness components in the wild. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 278:1572-1580.
72. Simcox, H., N. Colegrave, A. Heenan, C. Howard, and V. A. Braithwaite . 2005. Context-dependent male mating preferences for unfamiliar females. Anim. Behav. 70:1429-1437.
73. Steele, D. B., A. M. Siepielski, and M. A. McPeek . 2011. Sexual selection and temporal phenotypic variation in a damselfly population. J. Evol. Biol. 24:1517-1532.
74. Takahashi, Y., and M. Watanabe . 2011. Male mate choice based on ontogenetic colour changes of females in the damselfly Ischnura senegalensis. J. Ethol. 29:293-299.
75. Valone, T. J., and J. J. Templeton . 2002. Public information for the assessment of quality: a widespread social phenomenon. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 357:1549-1557.
76. Venner, S., C. Bernstein, S. Dray, and M.-C. Bel-Venner . 2010. Make love not war: when should less competitive males choose low-quality but defendable females? Am. Nat. 175:650-661.
77. Wade, M. J., and S. Kalisz . 1990. The causes of natural selection. Evolution 44:1947-1955.
78. Wade, M. J., and S. G. Pruett-Jones . 1990. Female copying increases the variance in male mating success. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87:5749-5753.
79. Wheeler, J., D. T. Gwynne, and L. F. Bussiere . 2012. Stabilizing sexual selection for female ornaments in a dance fly. J. Evol. Biol. 25:1233-1242.