Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection

  • Published:
Experientia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection have disporven some of the central tenets of both the handicap mechanism and the ‘sexy son’ hypothesis. These results suggest that the “good genes’ approach to sexual selection may generally lead to erroneous results.

Runaway sexual selection seems possible under a wide variety of circumstances. Quantittive genetic models have revealed runaway processes for sexually selected attributes expressed in both sexes and for attributes of parental care. Furthermore, the runaway could occur simultaneously in a series of populations that straddle an environmental gradient. While the models support the feasibility of runaway processes, empirical studies are needed to evaluate whether runaways actually happen. Estimates of critical genetic parameters are particularly needed, as well as measures of natural and sexual selection acting on the same population.

The models also show that sexual selection has tremendous potential to produce population differentiation, particularly in epigamic traits. Differentiation is promoted by indeterminancy of evolutionary outcome, transient differences among populations during the final slow approach to equilibrium, sampling drift among equilibrium populations, and the tendency of sexual selection to amplify geographic variation arising from spatial differences in natural selection. Recent work with two- and three-locus models of sexual selection has produced results that parallel the results of the polygenic models36–38,58. Thus the feature of indeterminate equilibria (outcome dependent on initial conditions) is common to both types of model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Andersson, M., Sexual selection, natural selection and quality advertisement. Biol. J. Linn. Soc.17 (1982) 375–393.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arnold, S.J., Sexual behavior, sexual interference and sexual defense in the salamandersAmbystoma maculatum, Ambystoma tigrimum andPlethodon jordani. Z. Tierpsychol.42 (1976) 247–300.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arnold, S.J., Sexual selection: the interface of theory and empiricism, in: Mate Choice, pp. 67–107. Ed. P. Bateson, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Arnold, S.J., and Wade, M.J., On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: theory. Evolution38 (1984) 709–719.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bell, G., The handicap principle in sexual selection. Evolution32 (1978) 872–885.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boake, C.R.B., Male display and female preferences in the courtship of a gregarious cricket. Anim. Behav.32 (1984) 690–697.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Boake, C.R.B., Genetic consequences of male choice: a quantitative genetic method for testing sexual selection theory. Science227 (1985) 1061–1063.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Borgia, G., Sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems, in: Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects, pp. 19–80. Eds M.S. Blum and N.A. Blum. Academic Press, New York 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bremermann, H.J., The adaptive significance of sexuality. This review.

  10. Bulmer, M.G., The Mathematical Theory of Quantitative Genetics. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cheverud, J.M., Evolution by kin selection: a quantitative genetic model illustrated by maternal performance in mice. Evolution38 (1984) 766–777.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Crow, J.F., and Kimua, M., An Introduction to Population Genetics Theory, Harper and Row, New York 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Darwin, C., The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. John Murray, London 1859.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Darwin, C., The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2nd ed. John Murray, London 1874.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dodson, C.H., Coevolution of orchids and bees, in: Coevolution of Animals and Plants, pp. 91–99. Eds L. Gilbert and P. Raven. Univ. Texas Press, Austin 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dominey, W.J., Sexual selection, additive genetic variance and the ‘phenotypic handicap’. J. theor. Biol.101 (1983) 495–502.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Downhower, J.F., and Armitage, K.B., The yellow-bellied marmot and the evolution of polygyny. Am. Nat.105 (1971) 355–370.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dressler, R.L., Pollination by euglossine bees. Evolution22 (1968) 202–210.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dressler, R.L., The Orchida. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dressler, R.L., Biology of the orchid bees (Euglossini). A. Rev. Ecol. Syst.13 (1982) 373–394.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Eshel, I., On the handicap principle—a critical defense. J. theor. biol.70 (1978) 245–250.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Falconer, D.S., Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 2nd ed. Longman, New York 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fisher, R.A., The evolution of sexual preference. Eugenics Rev.7 (1915) 184–192.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fisher, R.A., The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1930.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fisher, R.A., The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, 2nd edn. Dover, New York 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Frankham, R., Sex and selection for a quantitative character inDrosophila. I. Single-sex selection. Aust. J. biol. Sci.21 (1968) 1215–1223.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ghiselin, M.T., The Economy of Nature and the Evolution of Sex. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Harvey, P.H., and Arnold, S.J., Female male choice and runaway sexual selection. Nature297 (1982) 533–534.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Heisler, I.L., Offspring quality and the polygyny threshold: a new model for the ‘sexy son’ hypothesis. Am. Nat.117 (1981) 316–328.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Heisler, I.L., A quantitative genetic model for the origin of mating preferences. Evolution38 (1984) 1283–1295.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Houck, L.D., Arnold, S.J., and Thisted, R.A., A statistical study of mate choice: sexual selection in a plethodontid salamander, (Desmognathus ochrophaeus). Evolution39 (1985) 370–386.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Huxley, J.S., The courtship-habits of the great-crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus), with an addition to the theory of sexual selection. Proc. zool. Soc. London35 (1914) 491–562.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Huxley, J.S., Darwin's theory of sexual selection and the data subsumed by it, in the light of recent research. Am. Nat.72 (1938) 416–433.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kiester, A.R., Lande, R., and Schemske, D.W., Models of coevolution and speciation in plants and their pollinators. Am. Nat.124 (1984) 220–243.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kirkpatrick, M., Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution36 (1982) 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kirkpatrick, M., Evolution of female choice and male parental investment in polygynous species: the demise of the ‘sexy son’. Am. Nat.125 (1985) 788–810.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kirkpatrick, M., The handicap mechanism of sexual selection does not function. Am. Nat., in review (1985).

  38. Kodric-Brown, A., and Brown, J.H., Truth in advertising: the kinds of traits favored by sexual selection. Am. Nat.124 (1984) 309–323.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lande, R., The maintenance of genetic variability by mutation in a polygenic character with linked loci. Genet. Res.26 (1975) 221–235.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lande, R., Natural selection and random genetic drift in phenotypic evolution. Evolution30 (1976) 314–334.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lande, R., Quantitative genetic analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain: body size allometry. Evolution33 (1979) 402–416.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lande, R., Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution34 (1980) 292–305.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lande, R., The genetic covariance between characters maintained by pleiotropic mutation. Genetics94 (1980) 203–215.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Lande, R., Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. USA78 (1981) 3721–3725.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Lande, R., Rapid origin of sexual isolation and character divergence in a cline. Evolution36 (1982) 213–223.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lande, R., and Arnold, S.J., The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution37 (1983) 1210–1226.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Lande, R., and Arnold, S.J., Evolution of mating preference and sexual dimorphism. J. theor. Biol., in press (1985).

  48. Lush, J.L., Animal Breeding Plans, 3rd ed. Iowa State College Press, Ames 1945.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Maynard Smith, J., Sexual selection and the handicap principle. J. theor. Biol.57 (1976) 239–242.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Maynard Smith, J., Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Mayr, E.: Animal Species and Evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Nur, N., and Hasson, O., Phenotypic plasticity and the handicap principle. J. theor. Biol.110 (1984) 275–297.

    Google Scholar 

  53. O'Donald, P., Genetic models of sexual selection. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  54. O'Donald, D., Sexual selection by female choice, in: Mate Choice, pp. 53–66. Ed. P. Bateson. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Roughgarden, J., Theory of Population Genetics and Evolutionary Ecology: An Introduction. MacMillan Publ. Co., New York 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Schemske, D.W., and Lande, R., Fragrance collection and territorial display by male orchid bees. Anim. Behav. (1985).

  57. Seger, J., A genetic model of female choice with neutrally unstable equilibria. Evolution, accepted pending revision (1985).

  58. Slatkin, M., Spatial patterns in the distribution of polygenic characters. J. theor. Biol.70 (1978) 213–228.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Slatkin, M., Ecological causes of sexual dimorphism. Evolution38 (1984) 622–630.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Thornhill, R.,Panorpa (Mecoptera: Panorpidae) scorpionflies: systems for understanding resource0defense polygyny and alternative male reproductive efforts. A. Rev. Ecol. Syst.12 (1981) 335–386.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Thornhill, R., and Alcock, J., The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems. Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Turelli, M., Heritable genetic variation via mutation-selection balance: Lerch's zeta meets the abdominal bristle. Theor. Pop. Biol.25 (1984) 138–193.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Twitty, V.C., Second generation hybrids of the species ofTaricha. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. USA47 (1961) 1461–1486.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Wade, M.J., and Arnold, S.J., The intensity of sexual selection in relation to male sexual behavior, female choice, and sperm precedence. Anim. Behav.28 (1980) 446–461.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Weatherhead, P.J., and Robertson, R.H., Offspring quality and the polygyny threshold: the ‘sexy son’ hypothesis. Am. Nat.113 (1979) 201–208.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Weatherhead, P.J., and Robertson, R.H., In defense of the ‘sexy son’ hypothesis. Am. Nat.117 (1981) 349–356.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Wright, S., Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, vol. 1. Genetic and Biometric Foundations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Wright, S., Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, vol. 2. The Theory of Gene Frequencies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Zahavi, A., Mate selection—a selection for a handicap. J. theor. Biol.53 (1975) 205–214.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Zahavi, A., The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). J. theor. Biol.67 (1977) 603–605.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, The University of Chicago, 940 East 57th Street, 60637, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    S. J. Arnold

Authors
  1. S. J. Arnold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Arnold, S.J. Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection. Experientia 41, 1296–1310 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01952072

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01952072

Key words

Search

Navigation