Literature DB >> 17987390

Mate choice for genetic quality when environments vary: suggestions for empirical progress.

Luc F Bussière1, John Hunt, Kai N Stölting, Michael D Jennions, Robert Brooks.   

Abstract

Mate choice for good-genes remains one of the most controversial evolutionary processes ever proposed. This is partly because strong directional choice should theoretically deplete the genetic variation that explains the evolution of this type of female mating preference (the so-called lek paradox). Moreover, good-genes benefits are generally assumed to be too small to outweigh opposing direct selection on females. Here, we review recent progress in the study of mate choice for genetic quality, focussing particularly on the potential for genotype by environment interactions (GEIs) to rescue additive genetic variation for quality, and thereby resolve the lek paradox. We raise five questions that we think will stimulate empirical progress in this field, and suggest directions for research in each area: (1) How is condition-dependence affected by environmental variation? (2) How important are GEIs for maintaining additive genetic variance in condition? (3) How much do GEIs reduce the signalling value of male condition? (4) How does GEI affect the multivariate version of the lek paradox? (5) Have mating biases for high-condition males evolved because of indirect benefits?

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17987390     DOI: 10.1007/s10709-007-9220-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genetica        ISSN: 0016-6707            Impact factor:   1.082


  72 in total

1.  Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyed flies.

Authors:  P David; T Bjorksten; K Fowler; A Pomiankowski
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2000-07-13       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  The sexual selection continuum.

Authors:  Hanna Kokko; Robert Brooks; John M McNamara; Alasdair I Houston
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2002-07-07       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Sexual selection, genetic architecture, and the condition dependence of body shape in the sexually dimorphic fly Prochyliza xanthostoma (Piophilidae).

Authors:  Russell Bonduriansky; Locke Rowe
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.694

4.  The evolution of condition-dependent sexual dimorphism.

Authors:  Russell Bonduriansky
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2006-11-21       Impact factor: 3.926

5.  The evolution of infidelity in socially monogamous passerines: neglected components of direct and indirect selection.

Authors:  Simon C Griffith
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2007-01-11       Impact factor: 3.926

6.  Evolutionary trade-off between weapons and testes.

Authors:  Leigh W Simmons; Douglas J Emlen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-10-19       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 7.  The evolution of trade-offs: where are we?

Authors:  D A Roff; D J Fairbairn
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.411

Review 8.  Maintenance of genetic variation in sexual ornaments: a review of the mechanisms.

Authors:  Jacek Radwan
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  2007-09-15       Impact factor: 1.082

9.  Condition-dependence, genotype-by-environment interactions and the lek paradox.

Authors:  Hanna Kokko; Katja Heubel
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  2007-07-07       Impact factor: 1.082

10.  Live fast, die young: trade-offs between fitness components and sexually antagonistic selection on weaponry in Soay sheep.

Authors:  Matthew R Robinson; Jill G Pilkington; Tim H Clutton-Brock; Josephine M Pemberton; Loeske E B Kruuk
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 3.694

View more
  19 in total

1.  Darker eumelanic barn owls better withstand food depletion through resistance to food deprivation and lower appetite.

Authors:  Amélie Dreiss; Isabelle Henry; Charlène Ruppli; Bettina Almasi; Alexandre Roulin
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2010-06-13       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 2.  Maintenance of genetic variation in sexual ornaments: a review of the mechanisms.

Authors:  Jacek Radwan
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  2007-09-15       Impact factor: 1.082

3.  An introduction to genetic quality in the context of sexual selection.

Authors:  Trevor E Pitcher; Herman L Mays
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  2008-06-07       Impact factor: 1.082

4.  The ecological stage changes benefits of mate choice and drives preference divergence.

Authors:  Robin M Tinghitella; Alycia C R Lackey; Catherine Durso; Jennifer A H Koop; Janette W Boughman
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2020-07-13       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  Genotype × environment interaction is weaker in genitalia than in mating signals and body traits in Enchenopa treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae).

Authors:  Rafael L Rodríguez; Nooria Al-Wathiqui
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  2011-06-22       Impact factor: 1.082

6.  The sex lives of parasites: investigating the mating system and mechanisms of sexual selection of the human pathogen Schistosoma mansoni.

Authors:  Michelle L Steinauer
Journal:  Int J Parasitol       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 3.981

7.  Breeding experience and the heritability of female mate choice in collared flycatchers.

Authors:  Gergely Hegyi; Márton Herényi; Alastair J Wilson; László Zsolt Garamszegi; Balázs Rosivall; Marcel Eens; János Török
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-11-04       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Complex genotype by environment interactions and changing genetic architectures across thermal environments in the Australian field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus.

Authors:  Magdalena Nystrand; Damian K Dowling; Leigh W Simmons
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 3.260

9.  Sex-specific effects of developmental environment on reproductive trait expression in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Dominic A Edward; Tracey Chapman
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 2.912

10.  The juvenile social environment introduces variation in the choice and expression of sexually selected traits.

Authors:  Michael M Kasumovic; Matthew D Hall; Robert C Brooks
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.912

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.