Literature DB >> 29528491

Direct detection of male quality can facilitate the evolution of female choosiness and indicators of good genes: Evolution across a continuum of indicator mechanisms.

Sumit Dhole1,2, Caitlin A Stern1,3, Maria R Servedio1.   

Abstract

The evolution of mating displays as indicators of male quality has been the subject of extensive theoretical and empirical research for over four decades. Research has also addressed the evolution of female mate choice favoring such indicators. Yet, much debate still exists about whether displays can evolve through the indirect benefits of female mate choice. Here, we use a population genetic model to investigate how the extent to which females can directly detect male quality influences the evolution of female choosiness and male displays. We use a continuum framework that incorporates indicator mechanisms that are traditionally modeled separately. Counter to intuition, we find that intermediate levels of direct detection of male quality can facilitate, rather than impede, the evolution of female choosiness and male displays in broad regions of this continuum. We examine how this evolution is driven by selective forces on genetic quality and on the display, and find that direct detection of male quality results in stronger indirect selection favoring female choosiness. Our results imply that displays maybe more likely to evolve when female choosiness has already evolved to discriminate perceptible forms of male quality. They also highlight the importance of considering general female choosiness, as well as preference, in studies of "good genes."
© 2018 The Author(s). Evolution © 2018 The Society for the Study of Evolution.

Keywords:  Condition dependence; indirect selection; mate choice; mathematical model; mating displays; sexual selection

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29528491     DOI: 10.1111/evo.13466

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


  4 in total

1.  Grey zones of sexual selection: why is finding a modern definition so hard?

Authors:  Suzanne H Alonzo; Maria R Servedio
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-08-21       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  The evolution of mating preferences for genetic attractiveness and quality in the presence of sensory bias.

Authors:  Jonathan M Henshaw; Lutz Fromhage; Adam G Jones
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-08-08       Impact factor: 12.779

3.  The balance model of honest sexual signaling.

Authors:  Lutz Fromhage; Jonathan M Henshaw
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 4.171

4.  Mutual mate choice and its benefits for both sexes.

Authors:  Alicia Reyes-Ramírez; Iván Antonio Sandoval-García; Maya Rocha-Ortega; Alex Córdoba-Aguilar
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-11-10       Impact factor: 4.379

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.