Genetica

, 134:69

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

  • Luc F. Bussière
  • John Hunt
  • Kai N. Stölting
  • Michael D. Jennions
  • Robert Brooks
Article

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?

Keywords

Condition dependence Environmental heterogeneity Female preference Fluctuating selection Good-genes Indirect benefits Lek paradox Resource acquisition Resource allocation Sexual selection 

Abbreviations

GEI

Genotype-by-environment interaction

References

  1. Andersson M (1982) Sexual selection, natural selection and quality advertisement. Biol J Linn Soc 17:375–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson M, Simmons LW (2006) Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol 21:296–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersson S, Pryke SR, Ornborg J, Lawes MJ, Andersson M (2002) Multiple receivers, multiple ornaments, and a trade-off between agonistic and epigamic signaling in a widowbird. Am Nat 160:683–691CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnqvist G, Kirkpatrick M (2005) The evolution of infidelity in socially monogamous passerines: the strength of direct and indirect selection on extrapair copulation behavior in females. Am Nat 165:S27–S36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  7. Bentsen CL, Hunt J, Jennions MD, Brooks R (2006) Complex multivariate sexual selection on male acoustic signaling in a wild population of Teleogryllus commodus. Am Nat 167:E102–E116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blows MW (2007) A tale of two matrices: multivariate approaches in evolutionary biology. J Evol Biol 20:1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blows MW, Hoffmann AA (2005) A reassessment of genetic limits to evolutionary change. Ecology 86:1371–1384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonduriansky R (2007) The evolution of condition-dependent sexual dimorphism. Am Nat 169:9–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonduriansky R, Rowe L (2003) Interactions among mechanisms of sexual selection on male body size and head shape in a sexually dimorphic fly. Evolution 57:2046–2053PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bonduriansky R, Rowe L (2005) Sexual selection, genetic architecture, and the condition dependence of body shape in the sexually dimorphic fly Prochyliza xanthostoma (Piophilidae). Evolution 59:138–151PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Brandt LSE, Greenfield MD (2004) Condition-dependent traits and the capture of genetic variance in male advertisement song. J Evol Biol 17:821–828PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brcic-Kostic K (2005) Neutral mutation as the source of genetic variation in life history traits. Genet Res 86:53–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brooks R (2000) Negative genetic correlation between male sexual attractiveness and survival. Nature 406:67–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brooks R, Hunt J, Blows MW, Smith MJ, Bussière LF, Jennions MD (2005) Experimental evidence for multivariate stabilizing sexual selection. Evolution 59:871–880PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Bürger R, Gimelfarb A (2002) Fluctuating environments and the role of mutation in maintaining quantitative genetic variation. Genet Res 80:31–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Byers DL (2005) Evolution in heterogeneous environments and the potential of maintenance of genetic variation in traits of adaptive significance. Genetica 123:107–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Candolin U (2004) Opposing selection on a sexually dimorphic trait through female choice and male competition in a water boatman. Evolution 58:1861–1864PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Charmantier A, Garant D (2005) Environmental quality and evolutionary potential: lessons from wild populations. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:1415–1425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Charmantier A, Perrins C, McCleery RH, Sheldon BC (2006) Quantitative genetics of age at reproduction in wild swans: support for antagonistic pleiotropy models of senescence. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:6587–6592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cotton S, Small J, Pomiankowski A (2006) Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr Biol 16:R755–R765PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Danielson-Francois AM, Kelly JK, Greenfield MD (2006) Genotype x environment interaction for male attractiveness in an acoustic moth: evidence for plasticity and canalization. J Evol Biol 19:532–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. David P, Bjorksten T, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A (2000) Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyes flies. Nature 406:186–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dykhuizen D, Hartl DL (1980) Selective neutrality of 6PGD allozymes in Escherichia coli and the effects of genetic background. Genetics 96:801–817PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Ellner S, Hairston NG (1994) Role of overlapping generations in maintaining genetic variation in a fluctuating environment. Am Nat 143:403–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Emlen DJ (1996) Artificial selection on horn length body-size allometry in the horned beetle Onthophagus acuminatus (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Evolution 50:1219–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Etges WJ, de Oliveira CC, Gragg E, Ortiz-Barrientos D, Noor MAF, Ritchie MG (2007) Genetics of incipient speciation in Drosophila mojavensis. I. Male courtship song, mating success, and genotype x environment interactions. Evolution 61:1106–1119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Felsenstein J (1976) The theoretical population genetics of variable selection and migration. Ann Rev Genet 10:253–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Forslund P (2003) An experimental investigation into status dependent male dimorphism in the European earwig, Forficula auricularia. Anim Behav 65:309–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Frank SA, Slatkin M (1990) Evolution in a variable environment. Am Nat 136:244–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Frankino WA, Zwaan BJ, Stern DL, Brakefield PM (2005) Natural selection and developmental constraints in the evolution of allometries. Science 307:718–720PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gebhardt-Henrich SG, van Noordwijk AJ (1991) Nestling growth in the Great Tit. I. Heritability estimates under different environmental conditions. J Evol Biol 3:341–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gibson G, Dworkin I (2004) Uncovering cryptic genetic variation Nature Reviews. Genetics 5:681–U11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Glazier DS (1999) Trade-offs between reproductive and somatic (storage) investments in animals: a comparative test of the van Noordwijk and de Jong model. Evol Ecol 13:539–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Glazier DS (2002) Resource-allocation rules and the heritability of traits. Evolution 56:1696–1700PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Greenfield MD, Rodriguez RL (2004) Genotype-environment interactions and the reliability of mating signals. Anim Behav 68:1461–1468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Griffith SC (2007) The evolution of infidelity in socially monogamous passerines: neglected components of direct and indirect selection. Am Nat 169:274–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Haldane JBS, Jayakar SD (1963) Polymorphism due to selection of varying direction. Heredity 58:237–242Google Scholar
  40. Hall M, Lindholm AK, Brooks R (2004) Direct selection on male attractiveness and female preference fails to produce a response. BMC Evol Biol 4:1Google Scholar
  41. Head ML, Hunt J, Jennions MD, Brooks R (2005) The indirect benefits of mating with attractive males outweigh the direct costs. PLoS Biol 3:289–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hedrick PW (1986) Genetic polymorphism in heterogeneous environments: a decade later. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 17:535–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hedrick PW, Ginevan ME, Ewing EP (1976) Genetic polymorphism in heterogeneous environments. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 7:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hegyi G, Rosivall B, Torok J (2006) Paternal age and offspring growth: separating the intrinsic quality of young from rearing effects. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:672–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Henderson CR (1982) Analysis of covariance in the mixed model: higher-level, non-homogeneous, and random regressions. Biometrics 38:623–640PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hine E, Chenoweth SF, Blows MW (2004) Multivariate quantitative genetics and the lek paradox: genetic variance in male sexually selected traits of Drosophila serrata under field conditions. Evolution 58:2754–2762PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Houle D (1989) The maintenance of polygenic variation in finite populations. Evolution 43:1767–1780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hunt J, Blows MW, Zajitschek F, Jennions MD, Brooks R (2007) Reconciling strong stabilizing selection with the maintenance of genetic variation in a natural population of black field crickets (Teleogryllus commodus). Genetics 177:875–880PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hunt J, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Smith MJ, Bentsen CL, Bussière LF (2004a) High-quality male field crickets invest heavily in sexual display but die young. Nature 432:1024–1027PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hunt J, Bussière LF, Jennions MD, Brooks R (2004b) What is genetic quality? Trends Ecol Evol. 19:329–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hunt J, Jennions MD, Spyrou N, Brooks R (2006) Artificial selection on male longevity influences age-dependent reproductive effort in the black field cricket Teleogryllus commodus. Am Nat 168:E72–E86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hunt J, Simmons LW (2001) Status-dependent selection in the dimorphic beetle Onthophagus taurus. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:2409–2414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jia FY, Greenfield MD, Collins RD (2000) Genetic variance of sexually selected traits in waxmoths: maintenance by genotype x environment interaction. Evolution 54:953–967PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Kemp DJ, Rutowski RL (2007) Condition dependence, quantitative genetics, and the potential signal content of iridescent ultraviolet butterfly coloration. Evolution 61:168–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan M (1991) The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kirzhner VM, Korol AB, Ronin YI, Nevo E (1994) Cyclical behavior of genotype frequencies in a 2–locus population under fluctuating haploid selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:11432–11436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kirzhner VM, Korol AB, Ronin YI, Nevo E (1995) Genetic supercycles caused by cyclical selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:7130–7133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Klingenberg CP (2003) Quantitative genetics of geometric shape: heritability and the pitfalls of the univariate approach. Evolution 57:191–195PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Kokko H (1998) Good genes, old age and life-history trade-offs. Evol Ecol 12:739–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kokko H, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Morley J (2003) The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:653–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kokko H, Brooks R, McNamara JM, Houston AI (2002) The sexual selection continuum. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1331–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kokko H, Heubel K (2007) Condition-dependence, genotype-by-environment interactions, and the lek paradox. Genetica. doi:10.1007/s10709-007-9166-1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Kondrashov AS, Yampolsky LY (1996) High genetic variability under the balance between symmetric mutation and fluctuating stabilizing selection. Genet Res 68:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kotiaho JS, Simmons LW, Tomkins JL (2001) Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410:684–686PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kruuk LEB (2004) Estimating genetic parameters in natural populations using the ‘animal model’. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 359:873–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lailvaux SP, Irschick DJ (2006) A functional perspective on sexual selection: insights and future prospects. Anim Behav 72:263–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. LeBas NR, Hockham LR, Ritchie MG (2004) Sexual selection in the gift-giving dance fly, Rhamphomyia sulcata, favors small males carrying small gifts. Evolution 58:1763–1772PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Merila J (1996) Genetic variation in offspring condition: an experiment. Funct Ecol 10:465–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Merila J, Przybylo R, Sheldon BC (1999) Genetic variation and natural selection on blue tit body condition in different environments. Genet Res 73:165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Miller LK, Brooks R (2005) The effects of genotype, age, and social environment on male ornamentation, mating behavior, and attractiveness. Evolution 59:2414–2425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Mills SC, Alatalo RV, Koskela E, Mappes J, Mappes T, Oksanen TA (2007) Signal reliability compromised by genotype-by-environment interactions and potential mechanisms for its preservation. Evolution 61:1748–1757PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Moore AJ, Moore PJ (1999) Balancing sexual selection through opposing mate choice and male competition. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:711–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Nussey DH, Wilson AJ, Brommer JE (2007) The evolutionary ecology of individual phenotypic plasticity in wild populations. J Evol Biol 20:831–844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. O’Brien EL, Dawson RD (2007) Context-dependent genetic benefits of extra-pair mate choice in a socially monogamous passerine. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:775–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pischedda A, Chippindale AK (2006) Intralocus sexual conflict diminishes the benefits of sexual selection. PLoS Biol 4:2099–2103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Postma E (2006) Implications of the difference between true and predicted breeding values for the study of natural selection and micro-evolution. J Evol Biol 19:309–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Qvarnstrom A (1999) Genotype-by-environment interactions in the determination of the size of a secondary sexual character in the collared flycatcher (Ficedula albicollis). Evolution 53:1564–1572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Radwan J (2007) Maintenance of genetic variation in sexual ornaments: a review of the mechanisms. Genetica. doi:10.1007/s10709-007-9203-0 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Radwan J, Unrug J, Tomkins JL (2002) Status-dependence and morphological trade-offs in the expression of a sexually selected character in the mite, Sancassania berlesei. J Evol Biol 15:744–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Robinson MR, Pilkington JG, Clutton-Brock TH, Pemberton JM, Kruuk LEB (2006) Live fast, die young: trade-offs between fitness components and sexually antagonistic selection on weaponry in Soay sheep. Evolution 60:2168–2181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Rodriguez RL, Greenfield MD (2003) Genetic variance and phenotypic plasticity in a component of female mate choice in an ultrasonic moth. Evolution 57:1304–1313PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Roff DA (1997) Evolutionary quantitative genetics. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  83. Roff DA, Fairbairn DJ (2007) The evolution of trade-offs: where are we? J Evol Biol 20:433–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 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
  85. Schaeffer LR (2004) Application of random regression models in animal breeding. Livest Prod Sci 86:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Schmoll T, Dietrich V, Winkel W, Epplen JT, Schurr F, Lubjuhn T (2005) Paternal genetic effects on offspring fitness are context dependent within the extrapair mating system of a socially monogamous passerine. Evolution 59:645–657PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Sgrò CM, Hoffmann AA (2004) Genetic correlations, tradeoffs and environmental variation. Heredity 93:241–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sheldon BC, Arponen H, Laurila A, Crochet PA, Merila J (2003) Sire coloration influences offspring survival under predation risk in the moorfrog. J Evol Biol 16:1288–1295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Shuster SM, Wade MJ (2003) Mating systems and strategies. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  90. Simmons LW, Emlen DJ (2006) Evolutionary trade-off between weapons and testes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:16346–16351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Takahata N (1981) Genetic variability and rate of gene substitution in a finite population under mutation and fluctuating selection. Genetics 98:427–440PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Tallamy DW, Darlington MB, Pesek JD, Powell BE (2003) Copulatory courtship signals male genetic quality in cucumber beetles. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:77–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Tomkins JL, Radwan J, Kotiaho JS, Tregenza T (2004) Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol Evol 19:323–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Van Homrigh A, Higgie M, McGuigan K, Blows MW (2007) The depletion of genetic variance by sexual selection. Curr Biol 17:528–532PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. van Noordwijk AJ, de Jong G (1986) Acquisition and allocation of resources: their influence on variation in life-history tactics. Am Nat 128:137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Welch AM (2003) Genetic benefits of a female mating preference in gray tree frogs are context-dependent. Evolution 57:883–893PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Welch AM, Semlitsch RD, Gerhardt HC (1998) Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280:1928–1930PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wilson AJ, Pemberton JM, Pilkington JG, Coltman DW, Mifsud DV, Clutton-Brock TH, Kruuk LEB (2006) Environmental coupling of selection and heritability limits evolution. PLoS Biol 4:1270–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Zeng ZB, Cockerham CC (1993) Mutation models and quantitative genetic-variation. Genetics 133:729–736PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Zhang XS, Hill WG (2005) Genetic variability under mutation selection balance. Trends Ecol Evol 20:468–470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luc F. Bussière
    • 1
    • 2
  • John Hunt
    • 3
  • Kai N. Stölting
    • 1
  • Michael D. Jennions
    • 4
  • Robert Brooks
    • 5
  1. 1.Zoologisches Museum der Universität ZürichZürichSwitzerland
  2. 2.School of Biological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of StirlingStirlingUK
  3. 3.Centre for Ecology and Conservation, School of BiosciencesThe University of Exeter in CornwallPenrynUK
  4. 4.School of Botany and ZoologyAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  5. 5.Evolution & Ecology Research Centre and School of Biological, Earth and Environmental SciencesThe University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations