POPULATION GENETIC MODELS OF MALE AND MUTUAL MATE CHOICE
Maria R. Servedio
Department of Biology, CB 3280, Coker Hall, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599
E-mail: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorRussell Lande
Department of Biology 0116, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093–0116
E-mail:[email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorMaria R. Servedio
Department of Biology, CB 3280, Coker Hall, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599
E-mail: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorRussell Lande
Department of Biology 0116, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093–0116
E-mail:[email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Abstract Examples of male choice are becoming increasingly common, even in polygynous species. We create a series of population genetic models to examine the evolutionary equilibria and dynamics resulting from male mate choice during polygyny, alone and in the context of mutual mate choice by both sexes. We find that unless males with a preference are able to increase their overall courtship output, male preference will be lost. This loss can be counteracted if males choose females not based on arbitrary traits, but based on a trait that indicates high fertility or viability. We also conclude that if male and female preferences and traits are all controlled by different loci, the male and female mate choice systems are decoupled; the presence of a male preference then has no influence on the equilibria or dynamics of female mate choice. If male and female traits are coupled by pleiotropy, it becomes possible for a male preference to be maintained, regardless of whether preferences between the sexes are pleiotropic or controlled by separate lolci.
Literature Cited
- Almeida, C. R., and F. V. De Abreu. 2003. Dynamical instabilities lead to sympatric speciation. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5: 739–757.
- Amundsen, T. 2000. Why are female birds ornamented Trends Ecol. Evol. 15: 149–155.
- Amundsen, T., and E. Forsgren. 2001. Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 13155–13160.
- Amundsen, T., E. Forsgren, and L. T. T. Hansen. 1997. On the function of female ornaments: male bluethroats prefer colorful females. Proc. R. Soc. Lond B 264: 1579–1586.
- Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton , NJ .
- Arntzen, J. W. 1999. Sexual selection and male mate choice in the common toad, Bufo bufo. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 11: 407–414.
- Bergstrom, C. T., and L. A. Real. 2000. Towards a theory of mutual mate coice: lessons from two-sided matching. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2: 493–508.
- Berglund, A., G. Rosenqvist, and I. Svensson. 1986a. Reversed sex roles and parental energy investment in zygotes of two pipefish (Sygnathidae) species. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser 29: 209–215.
- Berglund, A., G. Rosenqvist 1986b. Mate choice, fecundity and sexual dimorphism in two pipefish species (Sygnathidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 19: 301–307.
- Bleiweiss, R. 1997. Covariation of sexual dichromatism and plumage colours in lekking and non-lekking birds: a comparative analysis. Evol. Ecol. 11: 217–235.
- Bonduriansky, R. 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol. Rev. 76: 305–339.
- Burley, N. 1981. The evolution of sexual indistinguishabilit. Pp. 121–137 in R. D. Alexander and D. W. Tinkle, eds. Natural selection and social behavior. Chiron Press, New York .
- Burley, N., and C. B. Coopersmith. 1987. Bill color preferences of zebra finches. Ethology 76: 133–151.
- Burns, K. J. 1998. A phylogenetic perspective on the evolution of sexual dichromatism in tanagers (Tharupidae): the role of female versus male plumage. Evolution 52: 1219–1224.
- Cunningham, E. J. A., and T. R. Birkhead. 1998. Sex roles and sexual selection. Anim. Behav. 56: 1311–1321.
- Darwin, C. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. Murray, London .
- Deutsch, J. C., and J. D. Reynolds. 1995. Design and sexual selection; the evolution of sex differences in mate choice. Perspect. Ethol. 11: 297–323.
- Dewsbury, D. A. 1982. Ejaculate cost and male choice. Am. Nat. 119: 297–323.
- Erckmann, W. J. 1983. The evolution of polyandry in shorebirds: an evaluation of hypotheses. Pp. 114–168 in S. K. Waser, ed. Social behavior of female vertebrates. Academic Press, New York .
- Fawcett, T. W., and R. A. Johnstone. 2003. Mate choice in the face of costly competition. Behav. Ecol. 14: 771–779.
-
Fisher, R. A.
1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press,
Oxford
,
U.K
.
10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[1445:SOEFDD]2.0.CO;2 Google Scholar
- Forsberg, J. 1987. A model for male mate discrimination in butterflies. Oikos 49: 46–54.
- Gale, D., and L. S. Shapley. 1962. College admissions and the stability of marriage. Am. Math. Monthly 69: 9–15.
- Halliday, T. R., and S. J. Arnold. 1987. Multiple mating by females: a perspective from quantitative genetics. Anim. Behav. 35: 939–941.
- Hansen, L. T. T., T. Amundsen, and E. Forsgren. 1999. Symmetry: attractive not only to females. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266: 1235–1240.
- Hädling, R., and H. Kokko. 2005. The evolution of prudent choice. Evol. Ecol. Res. 7: 697–715.
- Herdman, E. J. E., C. D. Kelly, and J. G. J. Godin. 2004. Male mate choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): Do males prefer larger females as mates Ethology 110: 97–111.
- Higashi, M., G. Takimoto, and N. Yamamura. 1999. Sympatric speciation by sexual selection. Nature 402: 523–526.
- Hill, G. E. 1993. Male mate choice and the evolution of female plumage coloration in the house finch. Evolution 47: 1515–1525.
- Ihara, Y., and K. Aoki. 1999. Sexual selection by male choice in monogamous and polygynous human populations. Theor. Popul. Biol. 55: 77–93.
- Jawor, J. M., N. Gray, S. M. Beal, and R. Breitwisch. 2004. Multiple ornaments correlate with aspects of condition and behaviour in female northern cardinals, Cardinalis cardinalis. Anim. Behav. 67: 875–882.
- Johnsen, T. S., J. D. Hengeveld, J. L. Blank, K. Yasukawa, and V. Nolan. 1996. Epaulet brightness and condition in female redwinged blackbirds. Auk 113: 356–362.
- Johnstone, R. A. 1997. The tactics of mutual mate choice and competitive search. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 40: 51–59.
- Johnstone, R. A., J. D. Reynolds, and J. C. Deutsch. 1996. Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 50: 1382–1391.
- Jones, I. L., and F. M. Hunter. 1993. Mutual sexual selection in a monogamous seabird. Nature 362: 238–239.
- Jones, K. M., P. Monaghan, and R. G. Nager. 2001. Male mate choice and female fecundity in zebra finches. Anim. Behav. 62: 1021–1026.
- Kimball, R. T., and J. D. Ligon. 1999. Evolution of avian plumage dichromatism from a proximate perspective. Am. Nat. 154: 182–193.
- Kirkpatrick, M. 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36: 1–12.
- Kirkpatrick, M., T. Price, and S. J. Arnold. 1990. The Darwin-Fisher theory of sexual selection in monogamous birds. Evolution 44: 180–193.
- Kokko, H., and P. Monaghan. 2001. Predicting the direction of sexual selection. Ecol. Lett. 4: 159–165.
- Kondrashov, A. S., and F. A. Kondrashov. 1999. Interactions among quantitative traits in the course of sympatric speciation. Nature 400: 351–354.
- Kraaijeveld, K. 2003. Degree of mutual ornamentation in birds is related to divorce rate. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270: 1785–1791.
- Kraaijeveld, K., J. Gregurke, C. Hall, J. Komdeur, and R. A. Mulder. 2004. Mutual ornamentation, sexual selection, and social dominance in the black swan. Behav. Ecol. 15: 380–389.
- Lande, R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34: 292–305.
- Lande, R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78: 3721–3725.
- Lande, R., and S. J. Arnold. 1985. Evolution of mating preference and sexual dimporphism. J. Theor. Biol. 117: 651–664.
- Lande, R., O. Seehausen, and J. J. M. Van Alphen. 2001. Mechanisms of rapid sympatric speciation by sex reversal and sexual selection in cichlid fish. Genetica 112/113: 435–443.
- Lenington, S. 1983. Social preferences for partners carrying ‘good genes’ in wild house mice. Anim. Behav. 31: 325–333.
- Linville, S. U., R. Breitwisch, and A. J. Schilling. 1998. Plumage brightness and an indicator of parental care in northern cardinals. Anim. Behav. 55: 119–127.
- Mock, D. W. 1985. An introduction to the neglected mating system. Ornithol. Monogr. 37: 1–10.
- Monaghan, P., N. B. Metcalfe, and D. C. Houston. 1996. Male finches selectively pair with fecund females. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263: 1183–1186.
- O'Donald, P. 1980. Genetic models of sexual and natural selection in monogamous organisms. Heredity 44: 391–415.
- Olsson, M. 1993. Male-preference for large females and assortative mating for body size in the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis). Behav. Ecol. Soc. 32: 337–341.
- Omland, K. E. 1997. Examining two standard assumptions of ancestral reconstructions: repeated loss of dichromatism in dabbling ducks (Anatini). Evolution 51: 1636–1646.
- Oring, L. W., J. M. Reed, M. A. Colwell, D. B. Lank, and S. J. Maxson. 1991. Factors regulating annual mating success and reproductive success in spotted sandpipers (Actitis macularia). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 28: 433–442.
- Owens, I. P. F., and D. B. A. Thompson. 1994. Sex differences, sex ratios, and sex roles. Proc. R. Soc. of Lond. B 258: 93–99.
- Parker, G. A. 1970. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol. Rev. 45: 525–567.
- Parker, G. A. 1983. Mate quality and mating decisions. Pp. 141–166 in P. Bateson, ed. Mate choice. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York .
- Pomiankowski, A. 1987. The costs of choice in sexual selection. J. Theor. Biol. 128: 195–218.
- Potti, J., and S. Merino. 1996. Decreased levels of blood trypanosome infection correlate with female expression of a male secondary sexual trait: implications for sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263: 1199–1204.
- Price, T., and G. L. Birch. 1996. Repeated evolution of sexual color dimorphism in passerine birds. Auk 113: 842–848.
- Ptacek, M. B., and J. Travis. 1997. Mate choice in the sailfin molly, Peocilia latipinna. Evolution. 51: 1217–1231.
- Ridley, M. 1978. Paternal care. Anim. Behav. 26: 904–932.
- Romero-Pujante, M., H. Hoi, D. Blomqvist, and F. Valera. 2002. Tail length and mutual mate choice in bearded tits (Panarus biarmicus). Ethology 108: 885–895.
- Roulin, A., T. W. Jungi, H. Pfister, and C. Dijkstra. 2000. Female barn owls (Tyto alba) advertise good genes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267: 937–941.
- Roulin, A., C. Riols, C. Dijkstra, and A.-L. Ducrest. 2001. Female plumage spottiness signals parasite resistance in the barn own (Tyto alba). Behav. Ecol. 12: 103–110.
-
Sakei, Y.,
K. C. Kruse, and
P. V. Switzer. 2005. Male preference for large females and female reproductive condition in the Japanese beetle, Popillia japonica Newman (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae).
J. Kans. Entomol. Soc.
78: 13–19.
10.2317/JKES-0312.14.1 Google Scholar
- Seehausen, O., J. J. M. Van Alphen, and R. Lande. 1999. Color polymoprhism and sex ratio distortion in a cichlid fish as an incipient stage in sympatric speciation by sexual selection. Ecol. Lett. 2: 367–378.
- Smith, R. L. 1979a. Paternity assurance and altered roles in the mating behaviour of a giant water bug, Abedus herberti (Heteroptera: Belastomatidae). Anim. Behav. 27: 716–725.
- Smith, R. L. 1979b. Repeated copulation and sperm precedence: paternity assurance for a male brooding water bug. Science 205: 1029–1031.
- Sozou, P. D., and R. M. Seymour. 2005. Costly but worthless gifts facilitate courtship. Proc. R. Soc. B 272: 1877–1884.
- Szykman, M., A. L. Engh, R. C. Van Horn, S. M. Funk, K. T. Scribner, and K. E. Holekamp. 2001. Association patterns among male and female spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) reflect male mate choice. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50: 231–238.
-
Thornhill, R., and
J. Alcock. 1983. The evolution of insect mating systems. Harvard Univ. Press,
Cambridge
,
MA
.
10.4159/harvard.9780674433960 Google Scholar
- Trivers, R. L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. Pp. 136–179 in B. Campbell, ed. Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971. Heinemann, London .
- Trivers, R. L. 1985. Social evolution. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park , CA .
- Verrell, P. A. 1995. Males chose larger female in the salamander Desmognathus santeelah. Ethology 99: 162–171.
- Werner, N. Y., and A. Lotem. 2003. Choosy males in a haplochromine cichlid: first experimental evidence for male mate choice in a lekking species. Anim. Behav. 66: 293–298.
- West-Eberhard, M. J. 1983. Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Q. Rev. Biol. 55: 155–183.
- Wolfram, S. 2004. Mathematica 5.1. Wolfram Research, Inc., Champaign , IL .
- Wong, B. B. M., and M. D. Jennions. 2003. Costs influence male mate choice in a freshwater fish. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270: S36–S38.
- Wynn, S. E., and T. Price. 1993. Male and female choice in zebra finches. Auk 110: 635–638.
- Yamazaki, K., E. A. Boyse, V. Miké, H. T. Thaler, B. J. Mathieson, J. Abbott, J. Boyse, Z. A. Zayas, and L. Thomas. 1976. Control of mating preferences in mice by genes in the major histocompatibility complex. J. Med. 144: 1324–1335.