Literature DB >> 19853448

Testing for direct and indirect effects of mate choice by manipulating female choosiness.

Alexei A Maklakov1, Göran Arnqvist.   

Abstract

Despite a massive research effort, our understanding of the evolution of female mate choice remains incomplete [1, 2]. A central problem is that the predominating empirical research tradition has focused on male traits, yet the key question is whether female choice traits are maintained because of direct effects on female fitness or because of indirect genetic effects in offspring that may be associated with such traits. Here, we address this question by using a novel research strategy that employs experimental phenotypic manipulation of a female choice trait in an insect model system, the seed beetle Callosobruchus chinensis (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). We show that females with increased efficiency of choice enjoy strongly elevated fitness compared to females with reduced choice efficiency. In contrast, we found no effects of female choice efficiency on offspring fitness. Our results show that female choice is maintained by direct selection in females in this system, whereas indirect selection is relatively weak at most. We suggest that phenotypic engineering of female choice traits can greatly advance our ability to elucidate the relative importance of direct and indirect selection for the maintenance of female choice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19853448     DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.08.058

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Biol        ISSN: 0960-9822            Impact factor:   10.834


  21 in total

1.  Estimation of heritability, evolvability and genetic correlations of two pollen and pistil traits involved in a sexual conflict over timing of stigma receptivity in Collinsia heterophylla (Plantaginaceae).

Authors:  Josefin A Madjidian; Stefan Andersson; Asa Lankinen
Journal:  Ann Bot       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 4.357

Review 2.  The limits of sexual conflict in the narrow sense: new insights from waterfowl biology.

Authors:  Patricia L R Brennan; Richard O Prum
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2012-08-19       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 3.  The evolution of sexually antagonistic phenotypes.

Authors:  Jennifer C Perry; Locke Rowe
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol       Date:  2015-06-01       Impact factor: 10.005

Review 4.  Choosiness, a neglected aspect of preference functions: a review of methods, challenges and statistical approaches.

Authors:  Klaus Reinhold; Holger Schielzeth
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2014-11-15       Impact factor: 1.836

5.  Phenotypic engineering of sperm-production rate confirms evolutionary predictions of sperm competition theory.

Authors:  Kiyono Sekii; Dita B Vizoso; Georg Kuales; Katrien De Mulder; Peter Ladurner; Lukas Schärer
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-02-27       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Does mating experience of male house crickets affect their behavior to subsequent females and female choice?

Authors:  Paweł Ręk
Journal:  Behav Ecol Sociobiol       Date:  2012-09-23       Impact factor: 2.980

7.  Sexes suffer from suboptimal lifespan because of genetic conflict in a seed beetle.

Authors:  Elena C Berg; Alexei A Maklakov
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2012-08-22       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Immune-mediated change in the expression of a sexual trait predicts offspring survival in the wild.

Authors:  Rémi Chargé; Gabriele Sorci; Yves Hingrat; Frédéric Lacroix; Michel Saint Jalme
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-10-03       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Direct and indirect effects of male genital elaboration in female seed beetles.

Authors:  Göran Arnqvist; Karl Grieshop; Cosima Hotzy; Johanna Rönn; Michal Polak; Locke Rowe
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2021-07-07       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  Comparative analyses of reproductive structures in harvestmen (opiliones) reveal multiple transitions from courtship to precopulatory antagonism.

Authors:  Mercedes M Burns; Marshal Hedin; Jeffrey W Shultz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-10       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.