Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Runaway Selection

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior

Synonyms

Fisherian selection

Definition

Runaway selection is a mechanism whereby a secondary sexual trait expressed in one sex becomes genetically correlated with a preference for the trait in the other sex. The genetic coupling of the trait and the preference leads to self-reinforcing loops of coevolution between the trait and preference for the trait. This process is known as runaway selection and can lead to accelerated evolution of exaggerated traits and preferences.

Introduction

One of the greatest challenges to Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection was the presence of exaggerated male traits (Darwin 1859). Such traits encompass a wide variety of elaborate visual, acoustic, chemical, and behavioral characteristics (e.g., tail of the peacock or courtship song in birds). These traits appear to contradict Darwin’s idea that selection acts on traits that increase survival. Elaborate ornaments and displays seem maladaptive to their bearer as they are costly to maintain...

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Andersson, M. B. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnqvist, G., & Nilsson, T. (2000). The evolution of polyandry: Multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Animal Behaviour, 60(2), 145–164.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, T. C. M. (1993). Positive genetic correlation between female preference and preferred male ornament in sticklebacks. Nature, 363, 1237–1266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, T. C. M. (1999). The study of intersexual selection using quantitative genetics. Behaviour, 136(9), 1237–1266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, T., & Pomiankowski, A. (1995). The genetic basis of female mate preferences. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 8(2), 129–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtsinger, J. W. (1991). Sperm competition and the evolution of multiple mating. American Naturalist, 138, 93–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection: A complete variorum edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Folstad, I., & Karter, A. J. (1992). Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. The American Naturalist, 139(3), 603–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grafen, A. (1990). Sexual selection unhandicapped by the fisher process. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 144(4), 473–516.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greenfield, M. D., Alem, S., Limousin, D., & Bailey, N. W. (2014). The dilemma of Fisherian sexual selection: Mate choice for indirect benefits despite rarity and overall weakness of trait-preference genetic correlation. Evolution, 68(12), 3524–3536.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Houde, A. E. (1994). Effect of artificial selection on male colour patterns on mating preference of female guppies. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 256(1346), 125–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennions, M. D., & Petrie, M. (2000). Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biological Reviews, 75(1), 21–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, L., & Reeve, H. K. (1995). Why do females mate with multiple males? The sexually selected sperm hypothesis. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 24, 291–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, M. (1982). Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution, 36(1), 1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, M., & Barton, N. H. (1997). The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94(4), 1282–1286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, M., & Ryan, M. J. (1991). The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature, 350(6313), 33–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lande, R. (1981). Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 78(6), 3721–3725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lüpold, S., Manier, M. K., Puniamoorthy, N., Schoff, C., Starmer, W. T., Buckley Luepold, S. H., Belote, J. M., & Pitnick, S. (2016). How sexual selection can drive the evolution of costly sperm ornamentation. Nature, 533(7604), 535–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, L. S., & Arnold, S. J. (2004). Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19(5), 264–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G. A. (1970). Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biological Reviews, 45(4), 525–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prokop, Z. M., & Drobniak, S. M. (2016). Genetic variation in male attractiveness: It is time to see the forest for the trees. Evolution, 70(4), 913–921.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Qvarnström, A., Brommer, J. E., & Gustafsson, L. (2006). Testing the genetics underlying the co-evolution of mate choice and ornament in the wild. Nature, 441(7089), 84–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, M. G., Saarikettu, M., & Hoikkala, A. (2005). Variation, but no covariance, in female preference functions and male song in a natural population of Drosophila montana. Animal Behaviour, 70(4), 849–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, M. D., Wilson, A. J., & Hosken, D. J. (2016). Fisher’s sons’ effect in sexual selection: Absent, intermittent or just low experimental power? Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 29(12), 2464–2470.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, L. W. (2001). Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, L. W., & Kotiaho, J. S. (2007). Quantitative genetic correlation between trait and preference supports a sexually selected sperm process. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(42), 16604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. D., & Williams, G. C. (1982). The lek paradox is not resolved. Theoretical Population Biology, 22(3), 392–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. L., Wedell, N., & Hosken, D. J. (2007). The heritability of attractiveness. Current Biology, 17(22), 959–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Travers, L. M., Simmons, L. W., & Garcia-Gonzalez, F. (2016). Additive genetic variance in polyandry enables its evolution but polyandry is unlikely to evolve through sexy or good sperm processes. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 29(5), 918–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection—A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53(1), 205–214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Ecology and Evolution, University of Exeter, Cornwall, UK

    Laura M. Travers

Authors
  1. Laura M. Travers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura M. Travers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Oakland University , Rochester, Michigan, USA

    Jennifer Vonk

  2. Department of Psychology, Oakland University Department of Psychology, Rochester, Michigan, USA

    Todd Shackelford

Section Editor information

  1. Averett University, Danville, VA, USA

    David Hanbury

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry

Travers, L.M. (2017). Runaway Selection. In: Vonk, J., Shackelford, T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_430-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_430-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47829-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47829-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation