Advertisement

Intersexuelle Selektion: was Weibchen wollen

  • Peter KappelerEmail author
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Im Unterschied zu Männchen können Weibchen in der Regel ihren Fortpflanzungserfolg nicht durch zusätzliche Verpaarungen erhöhen. Stattdessen können sie zur Maximierung ihres Fortpflanzungserfolgs die Qualität und Überlebenschancen ihrer Nachkommen verbessern. Dies ist grundsätzlich auf zwei Arten möglich.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Able DJ (1996) The contagion indicator hypothesis for parasite-mediated sexual selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:2229−2233Google Scholar
  2. Adler M (2010) Sexual conflict in waterfowl: why do females resist extrapair copulations? Behav Ecol 21:182−192Google Scholar
  3. Aeschlimann PB, Häberli MA, Reusch TBH, Boehm T, Milinski M (2003) Female sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus use self-reference to optimize MHC allele number during mate selection. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:119−126Google Scholar
  4. Alberts SA (1999) Paternal kin discrimination in wild baboons. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1501−1506Google Scholar
  5. Altmann J (1990) Primate males go where the females are. Anim Behav 39:193−195Google Scholar
  6. Amundsen T (2000) Why are female birds ornamented? Trends Ecol Evol 15:149−155Google Scholar
  7. Amundsen T, Forsgren E (2001) Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:13155−13160Google Scholar
  8. Amundsen T, Forsgren E, Hansen LTT (1997) On the function of female ornaments: male bluethroats prefer colourful females. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:1579−1586Google Scholar
  9. Andersson M (1982) Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature 299:818−820Google Scholar
  10. Andersson J, Borg-Karlson A-K, Wiklund C (2000) Sexual cooperation and conflict in butterflies: a male-transferred anti-aphrodisiac reduces harassment of recently mated females. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:1271−1275Google Scholar
  11. Anthes N (2010) Mate choice and reproductive conflict in simultaneous hermaphrodites. In: Kappeler PM (ed) Animal Behaviour: Evolution and Mechanisms. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 329−358Google Scholar
  12. Arnqvist G (1998) Comparative evidence for the evolution of genitalia by sexual selection. Nature 393:784−786Google Scholar
  13. Arnqvist G (2004) Sexual conflict and sexual selection: lost in the chase. Evolution 58:1383−1388Google Scholar
  14. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav 60:145−164Google Scholar
  15. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2002) Antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415:787−789Google Scholar
  16. Arnqvist G, Edvardsson M, Friberg U, Nilsson T (2000) Sexual conflict promotes speciation in insects. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:10460−10464Google Scholar
  17. Arnqvist G, Jones TM, Elgar MA (2003) Insect behaviour: reversal of sex roles in nuptial feeding. Nature 424:387Google Scholar
  18. Bakker TCM (1993) Positive genetic correlation between female preference and preferred male ornament in sticklebacks. Nature 363:255−257Google Scholar
  19. Bakker TCM, Pomiankowski A (1995) The genetic basis of female mate preferences. J Evol Biol 8:129−171Google Scholar
  20. Barber I, Arnott SA, Braithwaite VA, Andrew J, Huntingford FA (2001) Indirect fitness consequences of mate choice in sticklebacks: offspring of brighter males grow slowly but resist parasitic infections. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:71−76Google Scholar
  21. Basolo AL (1990) Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 250:808−810Google Scholar
  22. Beecher MD (1991) Successes and failures of parent-offspring recognition in animals. In: Hepper PG (ed) Kin Recognition. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, pp 94−127Google Scholar
  23. Bellemain E, Zedrosser A, Manel S, Waits LP, Taberlet P, Swenson JE (2006) The dilemma of female mate selection in the brown bear, a species with sexually selected infanticide. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:283−291Google Scholar
  24. Birkhead TR, Pizzari T (2002) Postcopulatory sexual selection. Nat Rev Genet 3:262−273Google Scholar
  25. Blanckenhorn WU, Hosken DJ, Martin OY, Reim C, Teuschl Y, Ward PI (2002) The costs of copulating in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Behav Ecol 13:353−358Google Scholar
  26. Blomqvist D, Andersson M, Küpper C, Cuthill IC, Kis J, Lanctot RB, Sandercock BK, Szekely T, Wallander J, Kempenaers B (2002) Genetic similarity between mates and extra-pair parentage in three species of shorebirds. Nature 419:613−615Google Scholar
  27. Blows MW (2002) Interaction between natural and sexual selection during the evolution of mate recognition. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1113−1118Google Scholar
  28. Bonduriansky R, Chenoweth SF (2009) Intralocus sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol 24:280−288Google Scholar
  29. Boughman JW (2001) Divergent sexual selection enhances reproductive isolation in sticklebacks. Nature 411:944−948Google Scholar
  30. Boul KE, Funk WC, Darst CR, Cannatella DC, Ryan MJ (2007) Sexual selection drives speciation in an Amazonian frog. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:399−406Google Scholar
  31. Briggs SE, Godin JGJ, Dugatkin LA (1996) Mate-choice copying under predation risk in the Trinidadian guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Behav Ecol 7:151−157Google Scholar
  32. Brooks R (2000) Negative genetic correlation between male sexual attractiveness and survival. Nature 406:67−70Google Scholar
  33. Buchanan KL, Catchpole CK (2000) Song as an indicator of male parental effort in the sedge warbler. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:321−326Google Scholar
  34. Buchanan KL, Spencer KA, Goldsmith AR, Catchpole CK (2003) Song as an honest signal of past developmental stress in the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1149−1156Google Scholar
  35. Burley N (1986) Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care. Am Nat 127:415−445Google Scholar
  36. Bussière LF, Basit HA, Gwynne DT (2005) Preferred males are not always good providers: female choice and male investment in tree crickets. Behav Ecol 16:223−231Google Scholar
  37. Byers BE, Kroodsma DE (2009) Female mate choice and songbird song repertoires. Anim Behav 77:13−22Google Scholar
  38. Candolin U (2003) The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev 78:575−595Google Scholar
  39. Candolin U, Reynolds JD (2001) Sexual signaling in the European bitterling: females learn the truth by direct inspection of the resource. Behav Ecol 12:407−411Google Scholar
  40. Cant M, English S, Reeve H, Field J (2006) Escalated conflict in a social hierarchy. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:2977−2984Google Scholar
  41. Cant MA, Hodge SJ, Bell MBV, Gilchrist JS, Nichols HJ (2010) Reproductive control via eviction (but not the threat of eviction) in banded mongooses. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:2219−2226Google Scholar
  42. Chaine AS, Lyon BE (2008) Adaptive plasticity in female mate choice dampens sexual selection on male ornaments in the lark bunting. Science 319:459−462Google Scholar
  43. Chapman T, Liddle LF, Kalb JM, Wolfner MF, Partridge L (1995) Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 373:241−244Google Scholar
  44. Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol 18:41−47Google Scholar
  45. Chippindale AK, Gibson JR, Rice WR (2001) Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1671−1675Google Scholar
  46. Clarke FM, Miethe GH, Bennett NC (2001) Reproductive suppression in female Damaraland mole-rats Cryptomys damarensis: dominant control or selfrestraint? Proc R Soc Lond B 268:899−909Google Scholar
  47. Clutton-Brock TH (1989) Female transfer and inbreeding avoidance in social mammals. Nature 337:70−72Google Scholar
  48. Clutton-Brock TH (1998) Reproductive skew, concessions and limited control. Trends Ecol Evol 13:288−292Google Scholar
  49. Clutton-Brock TH (2002) Breeding together: kin selection and mutualism in cooperative vertebrates. Science 296:69−72Google Scholar
  50. Clutton-Brock TH, Hodge SJ, Spong G, Russell AF, Jordan NR, Bennett NC, Sharpe LL, Manser MB (2006) Intrasexual competition and sexual selection in cooperative mammals. Nature 444:1065−1068Google Scholar
  51. Cockburn A, Osmond HL, Mulder RA, Green DJ, Double MC (2003) Divorce, dispersal and incest avoidance in the cooperatively breeding superb fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus. J Anim Ecol 72:189−202Google Scholar
  52. Cooley JR, Marshall DC (2004) Threshold or comparisons: mate choice criteria and sexual selection in a periodical cicada, Magicicada septendecim (Hemiptera: Cicadidae). Behaviour 141:647−673Google Scholar
  53. Cooney R, Bennett NC (2000) Inbreeding avoidance and reproductive skew in a cooperative mammal. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:801−806Google Scholar
  54. Cordero C, Eberhard WG (2003) Female choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptations: a critical review of some current research. J Evol Biol 16:1−6Google Scholar
  55. Cummings ME, Larkins-Ford J, Reilly CRL, Wong RY, Ramsey M, Hofmann HA (2008) Sexual and social stimuli elicit rapid and contrasting genomic responses. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:393−402Google Scholar
  56. Cunningham EJA, Birkhead TR (1998) Sex roles and sexual selection. Anim Behav 56:1311−1322Google Scholar
  57. Cunningham EJA, Russell AF (2000) Egg investment is influenced by male attractiveness in the mallard. Nature 404:74−77Google Scholar
  58. Darden SK, Croft DP (2008) Male harassment drives females to alter habitat use and leads to segregation of the sexes. Biol Lett 4:449−451Google Scholar
  59. Darwin C (1871) The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  60. David P, Bjorksten T, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A (2000) Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyed flies. Nature 406:186−188Google Scholar
  61. Davies NB (2000) Multi-male breeding groups in birds: ecological causes and social conflict. In: Kappeler PM (ed) Primate Males: Causes and Consequences of Variation in Group Composition. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, pp 11−20Google Scholar
  62. Davies NB, Hartley IR, Hatchwell BJ, Langmore NE (1996) Female control of copulations to maximize male help: a comparison of polygynandrous alpine accentors, Prunella collaris, and dunnocks, P. modularis. Anim Behav 51:27−47Google Scholar
  63. Dijkstra PD, Seehausen O, Groothuis TGG (2008) Intrasexual competition among females and the stabilization of a conspicuous colour polymorphism in a Lake Victoria cichlid fish. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:519−526Google Scholar
  64. Duarte LC, Bouteiller C, Fontanillas IP, Petit E, Perrin N (2003) Inbreeding in the greater white-toothed shrew, Crocidura russula. Evolution 57:638−645Google Scholar
  65. Dugatkin LA (1992) Sexual selection and imitation: females copy the mate choice of others. Am Nat 139:1384−1389Google Scholar
  66. Dugatkin LA, Godin JG (1992) Reversal of female mate choice by copying in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Proc R Soc Lond B 249:179−184Google Scholar
  67. East ML, Burke T, Wilhelm K, Greig C, Hofer H (2003) Sexual conflicts in spotted hyenas: male and female mating tactics and their reproductive outcome with respect to age, social status and tenure. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1247−1254Google Scholar
  68. Eberhard WG (1990) Animal genitalia and female choice. Am Sci 78:134−141Google Scholar
  69. Eberhard WG (1996) Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice. Princeton Univ Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  70. Eberle M, Kappeler PM (2004) Selected polyandry: female choice and intersexual conflict in a small nocturnal solitary primate (Microcebus murinus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:91−100Google Scholar
  71. Edvardsson M, Tregenza T (2005) Why do male Callosobruchus maculatus harm their mates? Behav Ecol 16:788−793Google Scholar
  72. Evans JP, Zane L, Francescato S, Pilastro A (2003) Directional postcopulatory sexual selection revealed by artificial insemination. Nature 421:360−363Google Scholar
  73. Fawcett TW, Bleay C (2009) Previous experiences shape adaptive mate preferences. Behav Ecol 20:68−78Google Scholar
  74. Fedorka KM, Mousseau TA (2002) Material and genetic benefits of female multiple mating and polyandry. Anim Behav 64:361−367Google Scholar
  75. Fisher RA (1930) The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  76. Fisher DO, Double MC, Blomberg SP, Jennions MD, Cockburn A (2006) Postmating sexual selection increases lifetime fitness of polyandrous females in the wild. Nature 444:89−92Google Scholar
  77. Foerster K, Delhey K, Johnsen A, Lifjeld JT, Kempenaers B (2003) Females increase offspring heterozygosity and fitness through extra-pair matings. Nature 425:714−717Google Scholar
  78. Foerster K, Coulson T, Sheldon BC, Pemberton JM, Clutton-Brock TH, Kruuk LEB (2007) Sexually antagonistic genetic variation for fitness in red deer. Nature 447:1107−1110Google Scholar
  79. Forstmeier W, Kempenaers B, Meyer A, Leisler B (2002) A novel song parameter correlates with extra-pair paternity and reflects male longevity. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1479−1485Google Scholar
  80. Forstmeier W, Martin K, Bolund E, Schielzeth H, Kempenaers B (2011) Female extrapair mating behavior can evolve via indirect selection on males. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:10608−10613Google Scholar
  81. Fox EA (2002) Female tactics to reduce sexual harassment in the Sumatran orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus abelii). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:93−101Google Scholar
  82. Fox CW, Rauter CM (2003) Bet-hedging and the evolution of multiple mating. Evol Ecol Res 5:273−286Google Scholar
  83. Friberg M, Vongvanich N, Borg-Karlson A-K, Kemp DJ, Merilaita S, Wiklund C (2008) Female mate choice determines reproductive isolation between sympatric butterflies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:873−886Google Scholar
  84. Gavrilets S, Arnqvist G, Friberg U (2001) The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:531−539Google Scholar
  85. Gibson RM, Langen TA (1996) How do animals choose their mates? Trends Ecol Evol 11:468−470Google Scholar
  86. Gil D, Gahr M (2002) The honesty of bird song: multiple constraints for multiple traits. Trends Ecol Evol 17:133−141Google Scholar
  87. Gilchrist JS (2006) Female eviction, abortion, and infanticide in banded mongooses (Mungos mungo): implications for social control of reproduction and synchronized parturition. Behav Ecol 17:664−669Google Scholar
  88. González A, Rossini C, Eisner M, Eisner T (1999) Sexually transmitted chemical defense in a moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:5570−5574Google Scholar
  89. Grafen A (1990) Biological signals as handicaps. J theoret Biol 144:517−546Google Scholar
  90. Grant BR, Grant PR (2010) Songs of Darwin's finches diverge when a new species enters the community. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:20156−20163Google Scholar
  91. Greeff JM, Parker GA (2000) Spermicide by females: what should males do? Proc R Soc Lond B 267:1759−1763Google Scholar
  92. Greenwood PJ (1980) Mating systems, philopatry and dispersal in birds and mammals. Anim Behav 28:1140−1162Google Scholar
  93. Gross MR, Suk HY, Robertson CT (2007) Courtship and genetic quality: asymmetric males show their best side. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:2115−2122Google Scholar
  94. Gwynne DT (2008) Sexual conflict over nuptial gifts in insects. Annu Rev Entomol 53:83−101Google Scholar
  95. Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218:384−387Google Scholar
  96. Hamilton WD, Axelrod R, Tanese R (1990) Sexual reproduction as an adaptation to resist parasites (a review). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87:3566−3573Google Scholar
  97. Hankison SJ, Morris MR (2003) Avoiding a compromise between sexual selection and species recognition: female swordtail fish assess multiple species-specific cues. Behav Ecol 14:282−287Google Scholar
  98. Hansen BT, Johannessen LE, Slagsvold T (2007) No cultural transmission of species recognition between parents and offspring in free-living great tits and blue tits. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1203−1209Google Scholar
  99. Hauber ME, Sherman PW (2001) Self-referent phenotype matching: theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Trends Neurosci 24:609−616Google Scholar
  100. Heinze J, Keller L (2000) Alternative reproductive strategies: a queen perspective in ants. Trends Ecol Evol 15:508−512Google Scholar
  101. Higgie M, Chenoweth S, Blows MW (2000) Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science 290:519−521Google Scholar
  102. Hine E, McGuigan K, Blows MW (2011) Natural selection stops the evolution of male attractiveness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:3659−3664Google Scholar
  103. Hodge SJ, Bell MBV, Cant MA (2011) Reproductive competition and the evolution of extreme birth synchrony in a cooperative mammal. Biol Lett 7:54−56Google Scholar
  104. Hoffman JI, Forcada J, Trathan PN, Amos W (2007) Female fur seals show active choice for males that are heterozygous and unrelated. Nature 445:912−914Google Scholar
  105. Holland B, Rice WR (1998) Chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52:1−7Google Scholar
  106. Holland B, Rice WR (1999) Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:5083−5088Google Scholar
  107. Hosken DJ, Taylor ML, Hoyle K, Higgins S, Wedell N (2008) Attractive males have greater success in sperm competition. Curr Biol 18:R553−R554Google Scholar
  108. Hosken DJ, Stockley P, Tregenza T, Wedell N (2009a) Monogamy and the battle of the sexes. Annu Rev Entomol 54:361−378Google Scholar
  109. Hosken DJ, Martin OY, Wigby S, Chapman T, Hodgson DJ (2009b) Sexual conflict and reproductive isolation in flies. Biol Lett 5:697−699Google Scholar
  110. Hotzy C, Arnqvist G (2009) Sperm competition favors harmful males in seed beetles. Curr Biol 19:404−407Google Scholar
  111. Huchard E, Raymond M, Benavides J, Marshall H, Knapp L, Cowlishaw G (2010) A female signal reflects MHC genotype in a social primate. BMC Evol Biol 10:e96, doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-10-96
  112. Immelmann K (1972) Sexual and other long-term aspects of imprinting in birds and other species. Adv Stud Behav 4:147−174Google Scholar
  113. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A, Nee S (1991) The evolution of costly mate preferences: the handicap principle. Evolution 45:1431−1442Google Scholar
  114. Janetos AC (1980) Strategies of female mate choice: a theoretical analysis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:107−112Google Scholar
  115. Jennions MD, Petrie M (1997) Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev 72:283−327Google Scholar
  116. Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21−64Google Scholar
  117. Jiggins CD, Mallet J (2000) Bimodal hybrid zones and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 15:250−255Google Scholar
  118. Johnsen A, Andersen V, Sunding C, Lifjeld JT (2000) Female bluethroats enhance offspring immunocompetence through extra-pair copulations. Nature 406:296−299Google Scholar
  119. Johnstone RA (2000) Models of reproductive skew: a review and synthesis. Ethology 106:5−26Google Scholar
  120. Johnstone RA, Cant MA (1999) Reproductive skew and the threat of eviction: a new perspective. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:275−279Google Scholar
  121. Johnstone RA, Cant MA (2000) Power struggles, dominance testing, and reproductive skew. Am Nat 155:406−417Google Scholar
  122. Johnstone RA, Keller L (2000) How males can gain by harming their mates: sexual conflict, seminal toxins, and the cost of mating. Am Nat 156:368−377Google Scholar
  123. Jones IL, Hunter FM (1999) Experimental evidence for mutual inter- and intrasexual selection favouring a crested auklet ornament. Anim Behav 57:521−528Google Scholar
  124. Jones AG, Walker D, Avise JC (2001) Genetic evidence for extreme polyandry and extraordinary sex-role reversal in a pipefish. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:2531−2535Google Scholar
  125. Kavaliers M, Fudge MA, Colwell DD, Choleris E (2003) Aversive avoidance responses of female mice to the odors of males infected with an ectoparasite and the effects of prior familiarity. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:423−430Google Scholar
  126. Keller L, Fournier D (2002) Lack of inbreeding avoidance in the Argentine ant Linepithema humile. Behav Ecol 13:28−31Google Scholar
  127. Keller L, Reeve HK (1994) Partitioning of reproduction in animal societies. Trends Ecol Evol 9:98−102Google Scholar
  128. Keller L, Waller DM (2002) Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends Ecol Evol 17:230−241Google Scholar
  129. Kempenaers B, Schlicht E (2010) Extra-pair behaviour. In: Kappeler PM (ed) Animal Behaviour: Evolution and Mechanisms. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 359−411Google Scholar
  130. Keyser AJ, Hill GE (2000) Structurally based plumage coloration is an honest signal of male quality in male blue grosbeaks. Behav Ecol 11:202−209Google Scholar
  131. Kilner RM, Noble DG, Davies NB (1999) Signals of need in parent-offspring communication and their exploitation by the common cuckoo. Nature 397:667−672Google Scholar
  132. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ (1991) The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33−38Google Scholar
  133. Kokko H (2001) Fisherian and ‘good genes’ benefits of mate choice: how (not) to distinguish between them. Ecol Lett 4:322−326Google Scholar
  134. Kokko H, Johnstone RA (1999) Social queuing in animal societies: a dynamic model of reproductive skew. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:571−578Google Scholar
  135. Kokko H, Brooks R, McNamara JM, Houston AI (2002) The sexual selection continuum. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1331−1340Google Scholar
  136. Kotiaho JS, LeBas NR, Puurtinen M, Tomkins JL (2008) On the resolution of the lek paradox. Trends Ecol Evol 23:1−3Google Scholar
  137. Künzler R, Bakker TCM (2000) Pectoral fins and paternal quality in sticklebacks. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:999−1004Google Scholar
  138. Lande R (1980) Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34:292−305Google Scholar
  139. Lebigre C, Alatalo RV, Siitari H (2010) Female-biased dispersal alone can reduce the occurrence of inbreeding in black grouse (Tetrao tetrix). Mol Ecol 19:1929−1939Google Scholar
  140. Lehmann L, Perrin N (2003) Inbreeding avoidance through kin recognition: choosy females boost male dispersal. Am Nat 162:638−652Google Scholar
  141. Leinders-Zufall T, Brennan P, Widmayer P, Chandramani SP, Maul-Pavicic A, Jäger M, Li X-H, Breer H, Zufall F, Boehm T (2004) MHC class I peptides as chemosensory signals in the vomeronasal organ. Science 306:1033−1037Google Scholar
  142. Lihoreau M, Zimmer C, Rivault C (2007) Kin recognition and incest avoidance in a group-living insect. Behav Ecol 18:880−887Google Scholar
  143. Linsenmair KE (1987) Kin recognition in subsocial arthropods, in particular in the desert isopod Hemilepistus reaumuri. In: Fletcher DJC, Michener CD (eds) Kin Recognition in Animals. John Wiley, New York, pp 121−208Google Scholar
  144. Lorenz K (1941) Vergleichende Bewegungsstudien an Anatiden. J Ornithol 89:194−293Google Scholar
  145. Loyau A, Saint Jalme M, Mauget R, Sorci G (2007) Male sexual attractiveness affects the investment of maternal resources into the eggs in peafowl (Pavo cristatus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1043−1052Google Scholar
  146. Maan ME, Seehausen O, Söderberg L, Johnson L, Ripmeester EA, Mrosso HD, Taylor MI, van Dooren TJ, van Alphen JJ (2004) Intraspecific sexual selection on a speciation trait, male coloration, in the Lake Victoria cichlid, Pundamilia nyererei. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:2445−2452Google Scholar
  147. Machnik P, Kramer B (2008) Female choice by electric pulse duration: attractiveness of the males’ communication signal assessed by female bulldog fish, Marcusenius pongolensis (Mormyridae, Teleostei). J Exp Biol 211:1969−1977Google Scholar
  148. Markow TA (1997) Assortative fertilizations in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:7756−7760Google Scholar
  149. Martín J, Civantos E, Amo L, López P (2007) Chemical ornaments of male lizards Psammodromus algirus may reveal their parasite load and health state to females. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:173−179Google Scholar
  150. Mateo JM, Johnston RE (2000) Kin recognition and the ‘armpit effect’: evidence of self-referent phenotype matching. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:695−700Google Scholar
  151. Mays HL Jr, Hill GE (2004) Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol Evol 19:554−559Google Scholar
  152. Mays HL Jr, Albrecht T, Liu M, Hill G (2008) Female choice for genetic complementarity in birds: a review. Genetica 134:147−158Google Scholar
  153. McComb KE (1991) Female choice for high roaring rates in red deer, Cervus elaphus. Anim Behav 41:79−88Google Scholar
  154. Mendelson TC, Shaw KL (2005) Rapid speciation in an arthropod. Nature 433:375−376Google Scholar
  155. Milinski M, Bakker TCM (1990) Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males. Nature 344:330−333Google Scholar
  156. Milinski M, Bakker TCM (1992) Costs influence sequential mate choice in sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Proc R Soc Lond B 250:229−233Google Scholar
  157. Milinski M, Griffiths S, Wegner KM, Reusch TBH, Haas-Assenbaum A, Boehm T (2005) Mate choice decisions of stickleback females predictably modified by MHC peptide ligands. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:4414−4416Google Scholar
  158. Miller GT, Pitnick S (2002) Sperm-female coevolution in Drosophila. Science 298:1230−1233Google Scholar
  159. Møller AP (1992) Female swallow preference for symmetrical male sexual ornaments. Nature 357:238−240Google Scholar
  160. Møller AP, Jennions MD (2001) How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection? Naturwissenschaften 88:401−415Google Scholar
  161. Morrow EH, Arnqvist G, Pitnick S (2003) Adaptation versus pleiotropy: why do males harm their mates? Behav Ecol 14:802−806Google Scholar
  162. Muller MN, Kahlenberg SM, Emery Thompson M, Wrangham RW (2007) Male coercion and the costs of promiscuous mating for female chimpanzees. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:1009−1014Google Scholar
  163. Nonacs P, Hager R (2011) The past, present and future of reproductive skew theory and experiments. Biol Rev 86:271−298Google Scholar
  164. Oetting S, Pröve E, Bischof H-J (1995) Sexual imprinting as a two-stage process: mechanisms of information storage and stabilization. Anim Behav 50:393−403Google Scholar
  165. Owens IP (2002) Male-only care and classical polyandry in birds: phylogeny, ecology and sex differences in remating opportunities. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 357:283−293Google Scholar
  166. Panhuis TM, Butlin R, Zuk M, Tregenza T (2001) Sexual selection and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 16:364−371Google Scholar
  167. Parker GA (1979) Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Blum M, Blum N (eds) Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects. Academic Press, New York, pp 123−166Google Scholar
  168. Parker GA, Partridge L (1998) Sexual conflict and speciation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 353:261−274Google Scholar
  169. Penn DJ (2002) The scent of genetic compatibility: sexual selection and the major histocompatibility complex. Ethology 108:1−21Google Scholar
  170. Penn DJ, Frommen JG (2010) Kin recognition: an overview of conceptual issues, mechanisms and evolutionary theory. In: Kappeler PM (ed) Animal Behaviour: Evolution and Mechanisms. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 55−85Google Scholar
  171. Penn DJ, Potts WK (1998a) Chemical signals and parasite-mediated sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 13:391−396Google Scholar
  172. Penn DJ, Potts WK (1998b) MHC-disassortative mating preferences reversed by cross-fostering. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1299−1306Google Scholar
  173. Penn DJ, Potts WK (1999) The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility genes. Am Nat 153:145−164Google Scholar
  174. Pfennig KS (2007) Facultative mate choice drives adaptive hybridization. Science 318:965−967Google Scholar
  175. Pilastro A, Benetton S, Bisazza A (2003) Female aggregation and male competition reduce costs of sexual harassment in the mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki. Anim Behav 65:1161−1167Google Scholar
  176. Pillay N (2002) Father-daughter recognition and inbreeding avoidance in the striped mouse, Rhabdomys pumilio. Mammal Biol 67:212−218Google Scholar
  177. Pischedda A, Stewart AD, Little MK, Rice WR (2011) Male genotype influences female reproductive investment in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc R Soc Lond B 278:2165−2172Google Scholar
  178. Pitnick S, Miller GT, Reagan J, Holland B (2001) Males’ evolutionary responses to experimental removal of sexual selection. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1071−1080Google Scholar
  179. Pizzari T (2003) Food, vigilance, and sperm: the role of male direct benefits in the evolution of female preference in a polygamous bird. Behav Ecol 14:593−601Google Scholar
  180. Pizzari T, Birkhead TR (2000) Female feral fowl eject sperm of subdominant males. Nature 405:787−789Google Scholar
  181. Price T, Birch GL (1996) Repeated evolution of sexual color dimorphism in passerine birds. Auk 113:842−848Google Scholar
  182. Pryke SR, Andersson S (2002) A generalized female bias for long tails in a shorttailed widowbird. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2141−2146Google Scholar
  183. Qvarnström A, Pärt T, Sheldon BC (2000) Adaptive plasticity in mate preference linked to differences in reproductive effort. Nature 405:344−347Google Scholar
  184. Randler C (2002) Avian hybridization, mixed pairing and female choice. Anim Behav 63:103−119Google Scholar
  185. Real L (1990) Search theory and mate choice. I. Models of single-sex discrimination. Am Nat 136:376−404Google Scholar
  186. Reeve HK, Keller L (1996) Relatedness asymmetry and reproductive sharing in animal societies. Am Nat 148:764−769Google Scholar
  187. Reeve HK, Keller L (2001) Test of reproductive-skew models in social insects. Annu Rev Entomol 46:347−385Google Scholar
  188. Reeve HK, Shen S-F (2006) A missing model in reproductive skew theory: the bordered tug-of-war. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:8430−8434Google Scholar
  189. Reeve HK, Emlen ST, Keller L (1998) Reproductive sharing in animal societies: reproductive incentives or incomplete control by dominant breeders? Behav Ecol 9:267−278Google Scholar
  190. Rendall D (2004) ‘Recognizing’ kin: mechanisms, media, minds, modules, and muddles. In: Chapais B, Berman C (eds) Kinship and Behavior in Primates. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, pp 295−316Google Scholar
  191. Reusch TB, Häberli MA, Aeschlimann PB, Milinski M (2001) Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism. Nature 414:300−302Google Scholar
  192. Rice WR (1996) Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 381:232−234Google Scholar
  193. Rice WR (2000) Dangerous liaisons. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:12953−12955Google Scholar
  194. Robertson JGM (1990) Female choice increases fertilization success in the Australian frog, Uperolia laevigata. Anim Behav 39:639−645Google Scholar
  195. Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A (1992) Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am Nat 139:S4−S35Google Scholar
  196. Ryan MJ, Rand AS (1993) Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution 47:647−657Google Scholar
  197. Sæther SA, Sætre G-P, Borge T, Wiley C, Svedin N, Andersson G, Veen T, Haavie J, Servedio MR, Bureš S, Král M, Hjernquist MB, Gustafsson L, Träff J, Qvarnström A (2007) Sex chromosome–linked species recognition and evolution of reproductive isolation in flycatchers. Science 318:95−97Google Scholar
  198. Sakaluk SK (2000) Sensory exploitation as an evolutionary origin to nuptial food gifts in insects. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:339−343Google Scholar
  199. Saltzman W, Schultz-Darken NJ, Abbott DH (1996) Behavioural and endocrine predictors of dominance and tolerance in female common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus. Anim Behav 51:657−674Google Scholar
  200. Sauer KP, Lubjuhn T, Sindern J, Kullmann H, Kurtz J, Epplen C, Epplen JT (1998) Mating system and sexual selection in the scorpionfly Panorpa vulgaris (Mecoptera: Panorpidae). Naturwissenschaften 85:219−228Google Scholar
  201. Sauter A, Brown MJ, Baer B, Schmid-Hempel P (2001) Males of social insects can prevent queens from multiple mating. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1449−1454Google Scholar
  202. Scheuber H, Jacot A, Brinkhof MWG (2003) Condition dependence of a multicomponent sexual signal in the field cricket Gryllus campestris. Anim Behav 65:721−727Google Scholar
  203. Scheuber H, Jacot A, Brinkhof MWG (2004) Female preference for multiple condition-dependent components of a sexually selected signal. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:2453−2457Google Scholar
  204. Schlupp I (2005) The evolutionary ecology of gynogenesis. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:399−417Google Scholar
  205. Schlupp I, Marler C, Ryan MJ (1994) Benefit to male sailfin mollies of mating with heterospecific females. Science 263:373−374Google Scholar
  206. Schneider J, Fromhage L (2010) Monogynous mating strategies in spiders. In: Kappeler PM (ed) Animal Behaviour: Evolution and Mechanisms. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 441−464Google Scholar
  207. Seehausen O, Terai Y, Magalhaes IS, Carleton KL, Mrosso HDJ, Miyagi R, van der Sluijs I, Schneider MV, Maan ME, Tachida H, Imai H, Okada N (2008) Speciation through sensory drive in cichlid fish. Nature 455:620−626Google Scholar
  208. Simmons LW (1990) Nuptial feeding in tettigonids: male costs and the rates of fecundity increase. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:43−47Google Scholar
  209. Slagsvold T, Hansen BT, Johannessen LE, Lifjeld JT (2002) Mate choice and imprinting in birds studied by cross-fostering in the wild. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1449−1455Google Scholar
  210. Slatyer RA, Mautz BS, Backwell PRY, Jennions MD (2012) Estimating genetic benefits of polyandry from experimental studies: a meta-analysis. Biol Rev 87:1–33Google Scholar
  211. Smadja C, Ganem G (2002) Subspecies recognition in the house mouse: a study of two populations from the border of a hybrid zone. Behav Ecol 13:312−320Google Scholar
  212. Smuts BB, Smuts RW (1993) Male aggression and sexual coercion of females in nonhuman primates and other mammals: evidence and theoretical implications. Adv Stud Behav 22:1−63Google Scholar
  213. Stockley P (1997) Sexual conflict resulting from adaptations to sperm competition. Trends Ecol Evol 12:154−159Google Scholar
  214. Stockley P (2003) Female multiple mating behaviour, early reproductive failure and litter size variation in mammals. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:271−278Google Scholar
  215. Stockley P, Bro-Jørgensen J (2010) Female competition and its evolutionary consequences in mammals. Biol Rev 86:341−366Google Scholar
  216. Stumpf RM, Martinez-Mota R, Milich KM, Righini N, Shattuck MR (2011) Sexual conflict in primates. Evol Anthropol: 20:62−75Google Scholar
  217. Stumpner A, von Helversen O (1994) Song production and song recognition in a group of sibling grasshopper species (Chorthippus dorsatus, Ch. dichrous and Ch. loratus: Orthoptera, Acrididae). Bioacoustics 6:1−23Google Scholar
  218. Sullivan BK (1989) Passive and active female choice: a comment. Anim Behav 37:692−694Google Scholar
  219. Swaddle JP, Cuthill IC (1994) Preference for symmetric males by female zebra finches. Nature 367:165−166Google Scholar
  220. ten Cate C, Vos DR (1999) Sexual imprinting and evolutionary processes in birds: a reassessment. Adv Stud Behav 28:1−31Google Scholar
  221. Thornhill R (1983) Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps. Am Nat 122:765−788Google Scholar
  222. Thornhill R, Møller AP (1998) The relative importance of size and symmetry in sexual selection. Behav Ecol 9: 546−551Google Scholar
  223. Tibbetts EA, Dale J (2004) A socially enforced signal of quality in a paper wasp. Nature 432:218−222Google Scholar
  224. Tramm NA, Servedio MR (2008) Evolution of mate-choice imprinting: competing strategies. Evolution 62:1991−2003Google Scholar
  225. Tregenza T, Wedell N (2000) Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol Ecol 9:1013−1027Google Scholar
  226. Tregenza T, Wedell N (2002) Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature 415:71−73Google Scholar
  227. Trillmich F (1983) The mating system of the marine iguana Amblyrhynchus cristatus. Z Tierpsychol 63:141−172Google Scholar
  228. Uy JA, Patricelli GL, Borgia G (2000) Dynamic mate-searching tactic allows female satin bowerbirds Ptilonorhynchus violaceus to reduce searching. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:251−256Google Scholar
  229. van Doorn GS, Edelaar P, Weissing FJ (2009) On the origin of species by natural and sexual selection. Science 326:1704−1707Google Scholar
  230. Vedenina VY, von Helversen O (2003) Complex courtship in a bimodal grasshopper hybrid zone. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:44−54Google Scholar
  231. Veiga JP (2004) Replacement female house sparrows regularly commit infanticide: gaining time or signaling status? Behav Ecol 15:219−222Google Scholar
  232. Wagner W (2011) Direct benefits and the evolution of female mating preferences: conceptual problems, potential solutions, and a field cricket. Adv Stud Behav 43:273−319Google Scholar
  233. Waser PM, De Woody JA (2006) Multiple paternity in a philopatric rodent: the interaction of competition and choice. Behav Ecol 17:971−978Google Scholar
  234. Wegner KM, Kalbe M, Kurtz J, Reusch TB, Milinski M (2003) Parasite selection for immunogenetic optimality. Science 301:1343Google Scholar
  235. Welch AM, Semlitsch RD, Gerhardt HC (1998) Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280:1928−1930Google Scholar
  236. West-Eberhard MJ (1983) Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Q Rev Biol 58:155−183Google Scholar
  237. Westneat DF, Walters A, McCarthy TM, Hatch MI, Hein WK (2000) Alternative mechanisms of nonindependent mate choice. Anim Behav 59:467−476Google Scholar
  238. Widemo F, Sæther SA (1999) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: causes and consequences of variation in mating preferences. Trends Ecol Evol 14:26−31Google Scholar
  239. Wikelski M, Carbone C, Bednekoff PA, Choudhury S, Tebbich S (2001) Why is female choice not unanimous? Insights from costly mate sampling in marine iguanas. Ethology 107:623−638Google Scholar
  240. Wilkinson G, Reillo P (1994) Female choice response to artificial selection on an exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proc R Soc Lond B 255:1−6Google Scholar
  241. Wilson N, Tubman SC, Eady PA, Robertson GW (1997) Female genotype affects male success in sperm competition. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:1491−1495Google Scholar
  242. Wilson AB, Ahnesjö I, Vincent ACJ, Meyer A (2003) The dynamics of male brooding, mating patterns, and sex roles in pipefishes and seahorses (Family Syngnathidae). Evolution 57:1374−1386Google Scholar
  243. Wirtz P (1999) Mother species – father species: unidirectional hybridisation in animals with female choice. Anim Behav 58:1−12Google Scholar
  244. Witte K, Curio E (1999) Sexes of a monomorphic species differ in preference for mates with a novel trait. Behav Ecol 10:15−21Google Scholar
  245. Witte C, Ueding K (2003) Sailfin molly females (Poecilia latipinna) copy the rejection of a male. Behav Ecol 14:389−395Google Scholar
  246. Wolff JO, Macdonald DW (2004) Promiscuous females protect their offspring. Trends Ecol Evol 19:127−134Google Scholar
  247. Won Y-J, Sivasundar A, Wang Y, Hey J (2005) On the origin of Lake Malawi cichlid species: a population genetic analysis of divergence. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:6581−6586Google Scholar
  248. Yamazaki K, Boyse EA, Mike V, Thaler HT, Mathieson BJ, Abbott J, Boyse J, Zayas ZA, Thomas L (1976) Control of mating preferences in mice by genes in the major histocompatibility complex. J Exp Med 144:1324−1335Google Scholar
  249. Young AJ, Carlson AA, Monfort SL, Russell AF, Bennett NC, Clutton-Brock TH (2006) Stress and the suppression of subordinate reproduction in cooperatively breeding meerkats. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:12005−12010Google Scholar
  250. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection – a selection for handicap. J theoret Biol 53:205−214Google Scholar
  251. Zala SM, Potts WK, Penn DJ (2004) Scent-marking displays provide honest signals of health and infection. Behav Ecol 15:338−344Google Scholar
  252. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (2003) Toward a new sexual selection paradigm: polyandry, conflict and incompatibility. Ethology 109:929−950Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SoziobiologieDeutsches Primatenzentrum und Universität GöttingenGöttingenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations