Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 63, Issue 3, pp 339–344 | Cite as

Condition dependence of sexual attractiveness in the bank vole

  • Sylwia Łopuch
  • Jacek Radwan
Original Paper

Abstract

The capture of genetic variation by sexual traits due to their condition dependence is hypothesized to underlie the genetic benefits of mate choice. Here, we investigate condition dependence of sexual attractiveness of bank vole Myodes glareolus males by manipulating their diet during the period of maturation. We find that reducing diet quality negatively affected both male mating success and development of preputial glands used in sexual signaling. Preputial glands showed stronger condition dependence than other organs measured (testes, heart, intestines). In contrast to mating success, male dominance was not significantly affected by diet manipulation and was not correlated with male mating success. Thus, our results support condition dependence of sexual attractiveness but not of intrasexual competitiveness.

Keywords

Good genes Mate choice Rodent Dominance Sexual selection 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Pawel Koteja for his advice and support and Joe Tomkins and anonymous referees for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. This work was supported from a grant 447/P04/2004/27 from the Ministry of Science.

References

  1. Andersson M (1986) Evolution of condition dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution 40:804–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson M, Simmons LW (2006) Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol 21:296–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnqvist G, Thornhill R (1998) Evolution of animal genitalia: patterns of phenotypic and genotypic variation and condition dependence of genital and non-genital morphology in water strider (Heteroptera: Gerridae: Insecta). Genet Res 71:193–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateman AJ (1948) Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borgia G (1979) Sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. In: Blum MS, Blum NA (eds) Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Cotton S, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A (2004) Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis? Proc R Soc B 271:771–783PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. David P, Bjorksten T, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A (2000) Condition-dependent signaling of genetic variation in stalk-eyes flies. Nature 406:186–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferkin MH, Sorokin ES, Johnston RE, Lee CJ (1997) Attractiveness of scents varies with protein content of the diet in meadow voles. Anim Behav 53:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Garcia-Berthou E (2001) On the misuse of residuals in ecology: testing regression residuals vs. the analysis of covariance. J Anim Ecol 70:708–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gosling LM, Roberts SC (2001) Scent-marking by male mammals: cheat-proof signals to competitors and mates. Adv Study Behav 30:169–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gosling LM, Roberts SC, Thornton EA, Andrew MJ (2000) Life history costs of olfactory status signalling in mice. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48:328–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hill GE (2000) Energetic constraints on expression of carotenoid-based plumage coloration. J Avian Biol 31:559–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horne TJ, Ylönen H (1996) Female bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus) prefer dominant males; but what if there is no choice? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:401–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Horne TJ, Ylönen H (1998) Heritabilities of dominance-related traits in male bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus). Evolution 52:894–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klemme I, Eccard JA, Gerlach G, Horne TJ, Ylönen H (2006) Does it pay to be a dominant male in a promiscuous species? Ann Zool Fenn 43:248–257Google Scholar
  19. Kokko H, Jennions MD, Brooks R (2006) Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 37:43–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koteja P (1996) Limits to energy budgets in a rodent, Peromyscus maniculatus: does gut capacity set the limit. Physiol Zool 69:994–1020Google Scholar
  21. Kotiaho JS (2000) Testing the assumptions of conditional handicap theory: costs and condition dependence of a sexually selected trait. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48:188–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kotiaho JS, Puurtinen M (2007) Mate choice for indirect genetic benefits: scrutiny of the current paradigm. Funct Ecol 21:638–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kotiaho JS, Lebas NR, Puurtinen M, Tomkins JL (2008) On the resolution of the lek paradox. Trends Ecol Evol 23:1–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kruczek M (1997) Male rank and female choice in the bank vole, Clethrionomys glareolus. Behav Processes 40:171–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Labocha MK, Sadowska ET, Baliga K, Semer AK, Koteja P (2004) Individual variation and repeatability of basal metabolism in the bank vole, Clethrionomys glareolus. Proc R Soc B 271:367–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Łopuch S, Matuła B (2008) Is there a relationship between dominance rank and condition in captive male bank voles, Clethrionomys glareolus? Acta Ethol 11:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McGlothlin JW, Duffy DL, Henry-Freeman JL, Ketterson ED (2007) Diet quality affects an attractive white plumage pattern in dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1391–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mills SC, Alatalo RV, Koskela E, Mappes J, Mappes T, Oksanen TA (2007) Signal reliability compromised by genotype-by-environment interaction and potential mechanisms for its preservation. Evolution 61:1748–1757PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Neff BD, Pitcher TE (2005) Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Mol Ecol 14:19–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Penn D, Potts WK (1998) Chemical signals and parasite-mediated sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 13:391–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Radwan J (2008) Maintenance of genetic variation in sexual ornaments: a review of the mechanisms. Genetica 134:113–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Radwan J, Kruczek M, Labocha M, Grabiec K, Koteja P (2004) Contest winning and metabolic competence in male bank voles Clethrionomys glareolus. Behaviour 141:343–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Radwan J, Chadzinska M, Cichon M, Mills SC, Matula B, Sadowska ET, Baliga K, Stanisz A, Lopuch S, Koteja P (2006) Metabolic costs of sexual advertisement in the bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus). Evol Ecol Res 8:859–869Google Scholar
  34. Reid JM, Arcese P, Cassidy ALEV, Marr AB, Smith JNM, Keller LF (2005) Hamilton and Zuk meet heterozygosity? Song repertoire size indicates inbreeding and immunity in song sparrows (Melospiza melodia). Proc R Soc Lond B 272:481–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rowe L, Houle D (1996) The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1415–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scheuber H, Jacot A, Brinkhof MWG (2003) Condition dependence of a multicomponent sexual signal in the field cricket Gryllus campestris. Anim Behav 65:721–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schulte-Hostedde AI, Millar JS, Hickling GJ (2005) Condition dependence of testis size in small mammals. Evol Ecol Res 7:143–149Google Scholar
  38. Sheridan L, Pomiankowski A (1997) Fluctuating asymmetry, spot asymmetry and inbreeding depression in the sexual coloration of male guppy fish. Heredity 79:515–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shuster SM, Wade MJ (2003) Mating systems and strategies. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  40. Stockley P, Purvis A (1993) Sperm competition in mammals: a comparative study of male roles and relative investment in sperm production. Funct Ecol 7:560–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Suttie JM, Kay RNB (1983) Influence of nutrition and photoperiod on the growth of antlers of young red deer. In: Brown RD (ed) Antler development in Cervidae. Caesar Kleinberg Wildlife Research Institute, Kingsville, pp 61–71Google Scholar
  42. Tomkins JL, Radwan J, Kotiaho JS, Tregenza T (2004) Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol Evol 19:323–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van Oosterhout C, Trigg RE, Carvalho GR, Magurran AE, Hauser L, Shaw PW (2003) Inbreeding depression and genetic load of sexually selected traits: how the guppy lost its spots. J Evol Biol 16:273–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ylönen H, Horne T (2002) Infanticide and effectiveness of pup protection in bank voles: does the mother recognise a killer? Acta Ethol 4:97–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection—a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Environmental SciencesJagiellonian UniversityKrakowPoland

Personalised recommendations