Literature DB >> 11729807

How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection?

A P Møller1, M D Jennions.   

Abstract

Females may choose mates based on the expression of secondary sexual characters that signal direct, material fitness benefits or indirect, genetic fitness benefits. Genetic benefits are acquired in the generation subsequent to that in which mate choice is performed, and the maintenance of genetic variation in viability has been considered a theoretical problem. Consequently, the magnitude of indirect benefits has traditionally been considered to be small. Direct fitness benefits can be maintained without consideration of mechanisms sustaining genetic variability, and they have thus been equated with the default benefits acquired by choosy females. There is, however, still debate as to whether or not males should honestly advertise direct benefits such as their willingness to invest in parental care. We use meta-analysis to estimate the magnitude of direct fitness benefits in terms of fertility, fecundity and two measures of paternal care (feeding rate in birds, hatching rate in male guarding ectotherms) based on an extensive literature survey. The mean coefficients of determination weighted by sample size were 6.3%, 2.3%, 1.3% and 23.6%, respectively. This compares to a mean weighted coefficient of determination of 1.5% for genetic viability benefits in studies of sexual selection. Thus, for several fitness components, direct benefits are only slightly more important than indirect ones arising from female choice. Hatching rate in male guarding ectotherms was by far the most important direct fitness component, explaining almost a quarter of the variance. Our analysis also shows that male sexual advertisements do not always reliably signal direct fitness benefits.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11729807     DOI: 10.1007/s001140100255

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Naturwissenschaften        ISSN: 0028-1042


  40 in total

1.  A model of the interaction between 'good genes' and direct benefits in courtship-feeding animals: when do males of high genetic quality invest less?

Authors:  Luc F Bussière
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2002-03-29       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 2.  The evolution of mate choice and mating biases.

Authors:  Hanna Kokko; Robert Brooks; Michael D Jennions; Josephine Morley
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2003-03-22       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 3.  The evolution of female ornaments and weaponry: social selection, sexual selection and ecological competition.

Authors:  Joseph A Tobias; Robert Montgomerie; Bruce E Lyon
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2012-08-19       Impact factor: 6.237

4.  Direct benefits of mate choice: a meta-analysis of plumage colour and offspring feeding rates in birds.

Authors:  Gergely Hegyi; Dóra Kötél; Miklós Laczi
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2015-09-18

5.  Reproductive investment when mate quality varies: differential allocation versus reproductive compensation.

Authors:  W Edwin Harris; Tobias Uller
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2009-04-27       Impact factor: 6.237

6.  Evolution of mate choice and the so-called magic traits in ecological speciation.

Authors:  Xavier Thibert-Plante; Sergey Gavrilets
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2013-06-19       Impact factor: 9.492

Review 7.  Mate choice and sexual selection: what have we learned since Darwin?

Authors:  Adam G Jones; Nicholas L Ratterman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-06-15       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Multiple mating and clutch size in invertebrate brooders versus pregnant vertebrates.

Authors:  John C Avise; Andrey Tatarenkov; Jin-Xian Liu
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-06-27       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Fixed and dilutable benefits: female choice for good genes or fertility.

Authors:  Samuel J Tazzyman; Robert M Seymour; Andrew Pomiankowski
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  Does genetic diversity predict health in humans?

Authors:  Hanne C Lie; Leigh W Simmons; Gillian Rhodes
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-07-27       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.