• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of procbhomepageaboutsubmitalertseditorial board
Proc Biol Sci. Mar 22, 2003; 270(1515): 653–664.
PMCID: PMC1691281

The evolution of mate choice and mating biases.

Abstract

We review the current status of three well-established models (direct benefits, indirect benefits and sensory drive) and one newcomer (antagonistic chase-away) of the evolution of mate choice and the biases that are expressed during choice. We highlight the differences and commonalities in the underlying genetics and evolutionary dynamics of these models. We then argue that progress in understanding the evolution of mate choice is currently hampered by spurious distinctions among models and a misguided tendency to test the processes underlying each model as mutually exclusive alternatives. Finally, we suggest potentially fruitful directions for future theoretical and empirical research.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (287K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Agrawal AF. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature. 2001 Jun 7;411(6838):692–695. [PubMed]
  • Arak A, Enquist M. Conflict, receiver bias and the evolution of signal form. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1995 Sep 29;349(1330):337–344. [PubMed]
  • Arnqvist G, Nilsson T. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav. 2000 Aug;60(2):145–164. [PubMed]
  • Barton NH, Turelli M. Evolutionary quantitative genetics: how little do we know? Annu Rev Genet. 1989;23:337–370. [PubMed]
  • Blows MW. Evolution of the genetic covariance between male and female components of mate recognition: an experimental test. Proc Biol Sci. 1999 Nov 7;266(1434):2169–2174. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Blows Mark W. Interaction between natural and sexual selection during the evolution of mate recognition. Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Jun 7;269(1496):1113–1118. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Boake CR. Genetic consequences of mate choice: a quantitative genetic method for testing sexual selection theory. Science. 1985 Mar 1;227(4690):1061–1063. [PubMed]
  • Brooks R. Negative genetic correlation between male sexual attractiveness and survival. Nature. 2000 Jul 6;406(6791):67–70. [PubMed]
  • Brooks R, Endler JA. Direct and indirect sexual selection and quantitative genetics of male traits in guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Evolution. 2001 May;55(5):1002–1015. [PubMed]
  • Brooks R, Kemp DJ. Can older males deliver the good genes? Trends Ecol Evol. 2001 Jun 1;16(6):308–313. [PubMed]
  • Bulmer M. Structural instability of models of sexual selection. Theor Popul Biol. 1989 Apr;35(2):195–206. [PubMed]
  • Candolin U. Changes in expression and honesty of sexual signalling over the reproductive lifetime of sticklebacks. Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Dec 7;267(1460):2425–2430. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Chapman T, Liddle LF, Kalb JM, Wolfner MF, Partridge L. Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature. 1995 Jan 19;373(6511):241–244. [PubMed]
  • Chippindale AK, Gibson JR, Rice WR. Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Feb 13;98(4):1671–1675. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Cordero C, Eberhard WG. Female choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptations: a critical review of some current research. J Evol Biol. 2003 Jan;16(1):1–6. [PubMed]
  • Crudgington HS, Siva-Jothy MT. Genital damage, kicking and early death. Nature. 2000 Oct 19;407(6806):855–856. [PubMed]
  • Gavrilets S, Arnqvist G, Friberg U. The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Mar 7;268(1466):531–539. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Gilburn AS, Day TH. Female mating behaviour, sexual selection and chromosome I inversion karyotype in the seaweed fly, coelopa frigida . Heredity (Edinb) 1999 Apr;82(Pt 3):276–281. [PubMed]
  • Grafen A. Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol. 1990 Jun 21;144(4):517–546. [PubMed]
  • Hall DW, Kirkpatrick M, West B. Runaway sexual selection when female preferences are directly selected. Evolution. 2000 Dec;54(6):1862–1869. [PubMed]
  • Hamilton WD, Zuk M. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science. 1982 Oct 22;218(4570):384–387. [PubMed]
  • Hine Emma, Lachish Shelly, Higgie Megan, Blows Mark W. Positive genetic correlation between female preference and offspring fitness. Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Nov 7;269(1506):2215–2219. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Holland B, Rice WR. Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Apr 27;96(9):5083–5088. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Houle David, Kondrashov Alexey S. Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Jan 7;269(1486):97–104. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A. Continual change in mate preferences. Nature. 1995 Oct 5;377(6548):420–422. [PubMed]
  • Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A. Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. J Theor Biol. 1999 Sep 7;200(1):97–109. [PubMed]
  • Iyengar VK, Eisner T. Heritability of body mass, a sexually selected trait, in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Aug 3;96(16):9169–9171. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Iyengar Vikram K, Reeve H Kern, Eisner Thomas. Paternal inheritance of a female moth's mating preference. Nature. 2002 Oct 24;419(6909):830–832. [PubMed]
  • Jennions MD, Møller AP, Petrie M. Sexually selected traits and adult survival: a meta-analysis. Q Rev Biol. 2001 Mar;76(1):3–36. [PubMed]
  • Jones TM, Quinnell RJ, Balmford A. Fisherian flies: benefits of female choice in a lekking sandfly. Proc Biol Sci. 1998 Sep 7;265(1406):1651–1657. [PMC free article]
  • Kirkpatrick M, Barton NH. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Feb 18;94(4):1282–1286. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Kokko H. Should advertising parental care be honest? Proc Biol Sci. 1998 Oct 7;265(1408):1871–1878. [PMC free article]
  • Kokko Hanna, Brooks Robert, McNamara John M, Houston Alasdair I. The sexual selection continuum. Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Jul 7;269(1498):1331–1340. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Kotiaho JS, Simmons LW, Tomkins JL. Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature. 2001 Apr 5;410(6829):684–686. [PubMed]
  • Kruuk LE, Clutton-Brock TH, Slate J, Pemberton JM, Brotherstone S, Guinness FE. Heritability of fitness in a wild mammal population. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jan 18;97(2):698–703. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Lande R. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981 Jun;78(6):3721–3725. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Merilä J, Sheldon BC. Lifetime Reproductive Success and Heritability in Nature. Am Nat. 2000 Mar;155(3):301–310. [PubMed]
  • Møller AP, Jennions MD. How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection? Naturwissenschaften. 2001 Oct;88(10):401–415. [PubMed]
  • Moore Sarah L, Wilson Kenneth. Parasites as a viability cost of sexual selection in natural populations of mammals. Science. 2002 Sep 20;297(5589):2015–2018. [PubMed]
  • Pitnick Scott, García-González Francisco. Harm to females increases with male body size in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Sep 7;269(1502):1821–1828. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Qvarnström A, Pärt T, Sheldon BC. Adaptive plasticity in mate preference linked to differences in reproductive effort. Nature. 2000 May 18;405(6784):344–347. [PubMed]
  • Rhen T. Sex-limited mutations and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Evolution. 2000 Feb;54(1):37–43. [PubMed]
  • Rice WR. Sexually antagonistic genes: experimental evidence. Science. 1992 Jun 5;256(5062):1436–1439. [PubMed]
  • Rice WR. Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature. 1996 May 16;381(6579):232–234. [PubMed]
  • Rodd F Helen, Hughes Kimberly A, Grether Gregory F, Baril Colette T. A possible non-sexual origin of mate preference: are male guppies mimicking fruit? Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Mar 7;269(1490):475–481. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Semple S. The function of Barbary macaque copulation calls. Proc Biol Sci. 1998 Feb 22;265(1393):287–291. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Sheldon BC, Merila J, Qvarnström A, Gustafsson L, Ellegren H. Paternal genetic contribution to offspring condition predicted by size of male secondary sexual character. Proc Biol Sci. 1997 Mar 22;264(1380):297–302. [PMC free article]
  • Siller S. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex. Nature. 2001 Jun 7;411(6838):689–692. [PubMed]
  • Welch AM, Semlitsch RD, Gerhardt HC. Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science. 1998 Jun 19;280(5371):1928–1930. [PubMed]
  • Whitlock MC. Fixation of new alleles and the extinction of small populations: drift load, beneficial alleles, and sexual selection. Evolution. 2000 Dec;54(6):1855–1861. [PubMed]
  • Wilkinson GS, Taper M. Evolution of genetic variation for condition-dependent traits in stalk-eyed flies. Proc Biol Sci. 1999 Aug 22;266(1429):1685–1685. [PMC free article]
  • Zahavi A. Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol. 1975 Sep;53(1):205–214. [PubMed]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

  • Cited in Books
    Cited in Books
    PubMed Central articles cited in books
  • PubMed
    PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...