FEMALE GUPPIES AGREE TO DIFFER: PHENOTYPIC AND GENETIC VARIATION IN MATE-CHOICE BEHAVIOR AND THE CONSEQUENCES FOR SEXUAL SELECTION
Robert Brooks
School of Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, 4811, Queensland, Australia
Present address: School of Biological Science, The University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, New South Wales, Australia; E-mail: [email protected].
Search for more papers by this authorJohn A. Endler
School of Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, 4811, Queensland, Australia
Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, Unversity of California, Santa Barbara 93106
Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, Unversity of California, Santa Barbara 93106. E-mail: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorRobert Brooks
School of Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, 4811, Queensland, Australia
Present address: School of Biological Science, The University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, New South Wales, Australia; E-mail: [email protected].
Search for more papers by this authorJohn A. Endler
School of Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, 4811, Queensland, Australia
Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, Unversity of California, Santa Barbara 93106
Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, Unversity of California, Santa Barbara 93106. E-mail: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Abstract.— Variation among females in mate choice may influence evolution by sexual selection. The genetic basis of this variation is of interest because the elaboration of mating preferences requires additive genetic variation in these traits. Here we measure the repeatability and heritability of two components of female choosiness (responsiveness and discrimination) and of female preference functions for the multiple ornaments borne by male guppies (Poecilia reticulata). We show that there is significant repeatable variation in both components of choosiness and in some preference functions but not in others. There appear to be several male ornaments that females find uniformly attractive and others for which females differ in preference. One consequence is that there is no universally attractive male phenotype. Only responsiveness shows significant additive genetic variation. Variation in responsiveness appears to mask variation in discrimination and some preference functions and may be the most biologically relevant source of phenotypic and genetic variation in mate-choice behavior. To test the potential evolutionary importance of the phenotypic variation in mate choice that we report, we estimated the opportunity for and the intensity of sexual selection under models of mate choice that excluded and that incorporated individual female variation. We then compared these estimates with estimates based on measured mating success. Incorporating individual variation in mate choice generally did not predict the outcome of sexual selection any better than models that ignored such variation.
Literature Cited
- Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton , NJ .
- Arnold, S. J., and M. J. Wade. 1984. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: theory. Evolution 38: 709–719.
- Bakker, T. C. M. 1993. Positive genetic correlation between female preference and preferred male ornament in sticklebacks. Nature 363: 255–257.
- Bakker, T. C. M. 1999. The study of intersexual selection using quantitative genetics. Behavior 136: 1237–1265.
- Bakker, T. C. M., and A. Pomiankowski. 1995. The genetic basis of female mate preferences. J. Evol. Biol. 8: 129–171.
- Basolo, A. L. 1990. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 250: 808–810.
- Becker, W. A. 1992. Manual of quantitative genetics. 5th ed. Academic Enterprises, Pullman , WA .
- Boake, C. R. B. 1989. Repeatability: its role in evolutionary studies of mating behavior. Evol. Ecol. 3: 173–182.
- Brodie, E. D., III, A. J. Moore, and F. J. Janzen. 1995. Visualizing and quantifying natural selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10: 313–318.
- Brooks, R. 1996. Copying and the repeatability of mate choice. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 39: 323–329.
- Brooks, R. 2000. Negative genetic correlation between male sexual attractiveness and survival. Nature 406: 67–70.
- Brooks, R., and N. Caithness. 1995. Female choice in a feral guppy population: Are there multiple cues Anim. Behav. 50: 301–307.
- Brooks, R., and V. Couldridge. 1999. Multiple sexual ornaments coevolve with multiple mating preferences. Am. Nat. 154: 37–45.
- Brooks, R., and J. A. Endler. 2001. Direct and indirect sexual selection and quantitative genetics of male traits in guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Evolution 55: 1002–1015.
- Collins, R. D., and R. T. Cardé. 1989. Heritable variation in pheromone response of the pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). J. Chem. Ecol. 15: 2647–2659.
- Collins, R. D., and R. T. Cardé. 1990. Selection for increased pheromone response in the male pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Behav. Genet. 20: 325–331.
- Draper, N., and H. Smith. 1981. Applied regression analysis. 2d ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York .
- Endler, J. A., and A. Basolo. 1998. Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13: 415–420.
- Endler, J. A., and A. E. Houde. 1995. Geographic variation in female preferences for male traits in Poecilia reticulata. Evolution 49: 456–468.
- Falconer, D. S., and T. F. C. Mackay. 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics. 4th ed. Longman, New York .
- Farr, J. A. 1977. Male rarity or novelty, female choice behavior, and sexual selection in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata Peters (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Evolution 31: 162–168.
- Gilburn, A. S., and T. H. Day. 1999. Female mating behavior, sexual selection and chromosome I inversion karyotype in the seweed fly, Coelopa frigida. Heredity 82: 276–281.
- Godin, J. J., and L. A. Dugatkin. 1995. Variability and repeatability of female mating preference in the guppy. Anim. Behav. 49: 1427–1433.
- Grafen, A. 1990. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol. 144: 517–546.
- Gray, D. A., and W. H. Cade. 1999a. Quantitative genetics of sexual selection in the field cricket, Gryllus integer. Evolution 53: 848–854.
- Gray, D. A., and W. H. Cade. 1999b. Correlated-response-to-selection experiments designed to test for a genetic correlation between female preferences and male traits yeild biased results. Anim. Behav. 58: 1325–1327.
- Hedrick, A., and T. Weber. 1998. Variance in female responses to the fine structure of male song in the field cricket, Gryllus integer. Behav. Ecol. 9: 582–591.
- Hoffmann, A. A. 1999. Is the heritability for courtship and mating speed in Drosophila (fruit fly) low Heredity 82: 158–162.
- Holland, B., and W. R. Rice. 1998. Chase-away selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52: 1–7.
- Houde, A. E. 1994. Effect of artificial selection on male colour patterns on mating preference of female guppies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 256: 125–130.
- Hughes, K. A., L. Du, F. H. Rodd, and D. N. Reznick. 1999. Familiarity leads to female mate preference for novel males in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Anim. Behav. 58: 907–916.
- Iwasa, Y., and A. Pomiankowski. 1995. Continual change in mate preferences. Nature 377: 420–422.
- Jang, Y., and M. D. Greenfield. 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.
- 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.
- Jennions, M. D., P. R. Y. Backwell, and N. I. Passmore. 1995. Repeatability of mate choice: the effect of size in the African painted reed frog, Hyperolius marmoratus. Anim. Behav. 49: 181–186.
- Kirkpatrick, M., and N. H. Barton. 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 94: 1282–1286.
- Kirkpatrick, M., and M. J. Ryan. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350: 33–38.
- Kodric-Brown, A., and P. F. Nicoletto. 1997. Repeatability of female choice in the guppy: response to live and videotaped males. Anim. Behav. 54: 369–376.
- Lande, R., 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 78: 3721–3725.
- Lande, R., and S. J. Arnold. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37: 1210–1226.
- López, S. 1999. Parasitized female guppies do not prefer showy males. Anim. Behav. 57: 1129–1134.
- Lynch, M., and B. Walsh. 1997. Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer, Sunderland , MA .
- Moore, A. J. 1989. Sexual selection in Nauphoeta cinerea: inherited mating preference Behav. Genet. 19: 717–724.
- Murphy, C. G., and H. C. Gerhardt. 2000. Mating preference functions of individual female barking treefrogs, Hyla gratiosa, for two properties of male advertisement calls. Evolution 54: 660–669.
- Partridge, L. 1988. The rare-male effect; what is its evolutionary significance Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 319: 525–539.
- Partridge, L., and W. G. Hill. 1984. Mechanisms for frequency-dependent mating success. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 23: 113–132.
- Pomiankowski, A. 1988. The evolution of female mate preferences for male genetic quality. Oxf. Surv. Evol. Biol. 5: 136–184.
- Pomiankowski, A., and Y. Iwasa. 1998. Runaway ornament diversity caused by Fisherian sexual selection. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 95: 5106–5111.
- Pomiankowski, A., and A. P. Møller. 1995. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 260: 21–29.
- Ritchie, M. G. 1992. Variation in male song and female preferences within a population of Ephippiger ephippiger (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Anim. Behav. 43: 845–855.
- Roelofs, W., T. Glover, X.-H. Tang, I. Sreng, P. Robbins, C. Eckenrode, C. Löfstedt, B. S. Hansson, and B. O. Bengtsson. 1987. Sex pheromone production and perception in European corn borer moths is determined by both autosomal and sex-linked genes. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 84: 7585–7589.
-
Roff, D. A.
1997. Evolutionary quantitative genetics. Chapman and Hall,
New York
.
10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb01726.x Google Scholar
- Rowland, W. J., K. J. Bolyard, J. J. Jenkins, and J. Fowler. 1995. Video playback experiments on stickleback mate choice: female motivation and attentiveness to male colour cues. Anim. Behav. 49: 1559–1567.
- Schluter, D. 1988. Estimating the form of natural selection on a quantitative trait. Evolution 42: 849–861.
- Singer, M. C., C. Vasco, C. Parmesan, C. D. Thomas, and D. Ng. 1992. Distinguishing between ‘preference’ and ‘motivation’ in food choice: an example from insect oviposition. Anim. Behav. 44: 463–471.
- Wagner, W. E., A. Murray, and W. H. Cade. 1995. Phenotypic variation in the mating preferences of female field crickets, Gryllus integer. Anim. Behav. 49: 1269–1281.
- Widemo, F., and S. A. Saether. 1999. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: causes and consequences of variation in mating preferences. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14: 26–31.
- Wilkinson, G. S., and P. R. Reillo. 1994. Female choice response to artificial selection on an exaggerated male trait in a stalkeyed fly. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 255: 1–6.