Contrasting Mutual Sexual Selection on Homologous Signal Traits in Drosophila serrata

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. The evolution of female mating preferences has received considerable attention in sexual selection theory (Andersson 1994), but the importance of male mating preferences and how they differ from female mating preferences remain unclear. In some species both males and females are choosy, indicating potential for each sex to gain direct and/ or indirect benefits from their choice of mating partner.There are now many species in which mutual mate choice has been demonstrated (Hill 1993;Jones and Hunter 1993;Monaghan et al. 1996;Hunt et al. 1999;Sandvik et al. 2000;Velando et al. 2001;Chenoweth and Blows 2003). When mutual mate choice occurs on homologous signal traits, any intersexual differences in the strength or form of sexual selection generated by mate choice will have consequences for the expected level of sexual dimorphism. A net selection differential among the sexes is a prerequisite for the evolution of sexual dimorphism (Lande 1980). This net selection differential is often thought to be a result of directional sexual selection acting on males. However, in species in which male choice also occurs on the same trait, the opportunity for sexual selection on female as well as male traits means that the net selection differential among the sexes cannot be fully understood without an analysis of sexual selection on each of the sexes. Importantly, the link between choosiness per se and the type of sexual selection that it generates (directional, stabilizing, or disruptive) needs to be quantified.The presence of male mating preferences for female signal traits in species with conventional sex roles provides a challenge for sexual selection theory (Amundsen 2000) because of the limited conditions under which such behavior might evolve (Kokko and Johnstone 2002). Theoretically, male choice may be adaptive when male parental investment is high and/or the cost of searching for a mate is low and/or the variance in female quality is high (Burley 1977;Parker 1983;Owens and Thompson 1994;Johnstone et al. 1996;Kokko and Monaghan 2001). In insects, male choice has been found to be strongly associated with female traits that are indicators of fecundity such as body mass or body size (Bonduriansky 2001), although there is less evidence for sexual selection on female signal traits.The impact of mating preferences on trait values in the opposite sex can be investigated in two ways (Wagner 1998). First, the distribution of individual preference functions in one sex can be measured and compared to the distribution of trait values in the other sex (Ritchie 1996). This approach provides information on whether different types of mating preferences exist within a population (Wagner 1998). Second, a ...

Predictors of male insemination success in the mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki)

“…2014). To test the overall contribution of linear and nonlinear effects in our models, we used partial F ‐tests (Chenoweth and Blows 2005). We also calculated phenotypic correlations between male traits.…”

Genetic Analysis of Female Preference Functions as Function‐Valued Traits

“…Although the phenotypic con-sequences of female preference are well described (Jennions and Petrie 1997), much less is known about the genetic basis of female preferences and, subsequently, how female preferences evolve. A number of studies have demonstrated that female preference is heritable (Bakker and Pomiankowski 1995;Jennions and Petrie 1997;Chenoweth and Blows 2006), but the inherent difficulties in quantifying mating preferences (Wagner 1998;Chenoweth and Blows 2006) have limited the application and scope of quantitative genetic experiments on such traits.…”

“…First, by determining which males in a population do and which do not gain mates, a population-level preference can be determined. This type of measure of female preferences is particularly useful in estimating the strength of sexual selection operating on male display traits (Kingsolver et al 2001a;Chenoweth and Blows 2006). However, such measures are not informative about variation among females in their preferences for male traits (Wagner 1998) and are therefore not amenable to genetic analyses.…”

“…For example, this situation arises in species in which female preference can be inferred only by allowing pairs to copulate, thereby changing the motivation of females in subsequent choice tests. As a consequence of these experimental difficulties, genetic analyses of female preference functions are rare (Chenoweth and Blows 2006) and have tended to rely on approximate analyses to demonstrate genetic variance in preference functions, such as family mean approaches (Ritchie et al 2005), segregation among wide crosses (Ritchie Genetic Variance in Female Preference Functions 195 2000), or the genetic analysis of regression slopes (Brooks and Endler 2001b).…”

“…A convenient attribute of such models is the ability to consider multiple male traits simultaneously when testing the distribution of genetic variance in female preferences for those traits. This may be particularly useful, given that males typically employ multiple sexual signals (Candolin 2003;Chenoweth and Blows 2006) In this article, we detail how the random-coefficient approach to the analysis of functional-valued traits can be applied to the genetic analysis of female preference functions in an experimental design that does not require the estimation of the preference functions of individual females. We present a genetic experiment based on simple two-stimulus choice tests (Wagner 1998; a female makes a choice between two males), which are typically used only to estimate population-level measures of the strength of preference and sexual selection (Chenoweth and Blows 2006).…”