Literature DB >> 28565675

GOOD GENES AND DIRECT SELECTION IN THE EVOLUTION OF MATING PREFERENCES.

Mark Kirkpatrick1.   

Abstract

A model is used to study quantitatively the impact of a good genes process and direct natural selection on the evolution of a mating preference. The expression of a male display trait is proportional to genetic quality, which is determined by the number of deleterious mutations a male carries throughout his genome. Genetic variances and covariances, including the covariance between the preference and male trait that drives the good genes process, are allowed to evolve under an infinitesimal model. Results suggest that the good genes process generates only weak indirect selection on preferences, with an effective selection intensity of a few percent or less. If preferences are subject to direct natural selection of the intensity observed for other characters, the good genes process alone is not expected to exaggerate the male trait by more than a few phenotypic standard deviations, contrary to what is observed in highly sexually selected species. Good genes can, however, cause substantial exaggeration if preference genes are nearly selectively neutral. Alternatively, direct selection on preference genes, acting on mating behavior itself or on the genes' pleiotropic effects, can cause mating preferences and male display traits to be exaggerated by any degree. Direct selection of preference genes may therefore play an important role in species that show extreme sexual selection. © 1996 The Society for the Study of Evolution.

Keywords:  Deleterious mutation; direct selection; good genes; mate choice; mating preferences; sexual selection

Year:  1996        PMID: 28565675     DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1996.tb03603.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evolution        ISSN: 0014-3820            Impact factor:   3.694


  14 in total

1.  Genetic coupling of signal and preference facilitates sexual isolation during rapid speciation.

Authors:  Mingzi Xu; Kerry L Shaw
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Receiving behaviour is sensitive to risks from eavesdropping predators.

Authors:  Nelika K Hughes; Jennifer L Kelley; Peter B Banks
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2009-04-12       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  High costs of female choice in a lekking lizard.

Authors:  Maren N Vitousek; Mark A Mitchell; Anthony J Woakes; Michael D Niemack; Martin Wikelski
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2007-06-27       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  The indirect benefits of mating with attractive males outweigh the direct costs.

Authors:  Megan L Head; John Hunt; Michael D Jennions; Robert Brooks
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2005-01-25       Impact factor: 8.029

5.  Population-Specific Covariation between Immune Function and Color of Nesting Male Threespine Stickleback.

Authors:  Daniel I Bolnick; Kum Chuan Shim; Matthew Schmerer; Chad D Brock
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Context matters: sexual signaling loss in digital organisms.

Authors:  Emily G Weigel; Nicholas D Testa; Alex Peer; Sara C Garnett
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 2.912

7.  Genetic architecture of sexual selection: QTL mapping of male song and female receiver traits in an acoustic moth.

Authors:  Denis Limousin; Réjane Streiff; Brigitte Courtois; Virginie Dupuy; Sylvain Alem; Michael D Greenfield
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-05       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Female mate preferences for male body size and shape promote sexual isolation in threespine sticklebacks.

Authors:  Megan L Head; Genevieve M Kozak; Janette W Boughman
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2013-06-05       Impact factor: 2.912

9.  Differential allocation by female zebrafish (Danio rerio) to different-sized males--an example in a fish species lacking parental care.

Authors:  Silva Uusi-Heikkilä; Linda Böckenhoff; Christian Wolter; Robert Arlinghaus
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-10-26       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Evolution of female preference for younger males.

Authors:  Christopher W Beck; Daniel E L Promislow
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2007-09-26       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.