Abstract
Females often choose their mates, instead of mating at random, even when a father contributes nothing but genes to his offspring. Costly female preferences for males with exaggerated traits that reduce viability, such as the peacock's tail, are particularly puzzling. Such preferences can evolve if directly favoured by natural selection or when the exaggerated trait, although maladaptive per se, indicates high overall quality of the male's genotype. Two recent analyses suggested that the advantage to mate choice based on genetic quality is too weak to explain extreme cases of exaggeration of display traits and the corresponding preferences. We studied coevolution of a female mate-preference function and a genotype-dependent male display function where mutation supplies variation in genotype quality and mate preference is costly. Preference readily evolves, often causing extreme exaggeration of the display. Mate choice and trait expression can approach an equilibrium, or a limit cycle, or exaggeration can proceed forever, eventually causing extinction.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (323.8 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Agrawal A. F. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature. 2001 Jun 7;411(6838):692–695. doi: 10.1038/35079590. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hamilton W. D., Zuk M. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science. 1982 Oct 22;218(4570):384–387. doi: 10.1126/science.7123238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Houle D. Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics. 1992 Jan;130(1):195–204. doi: 10.1093/genetics/130.1.195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Iwasa Y., Pomiankowski A. Continual change in mate preferences. Nature. 1995 Oct 5;377(6548):420–422. doi: 10.1038/377420a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Iwasa Y., Pomiankowski A. Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. J Theor Biol. 1999 Sep 7;200(1):97–109. doi: 10.1006/jtbi.1999.0979. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kimura M., Maruyama T. The mutational load with epistatic gene interactions in fitness. Genetics. 1966 Dec;54(6):1337–1351. doi: 10.1093/genetics/54.6.1337. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kirkpatrick M., Barton N. H. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Feb 18;94(4):1282–1286. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.4.1282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kondrashov A. S. Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction. Nature. 1988 Dec 1;336(6198):435–440. doi: 10.1038/336435a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kondrashov A. S. Deleterious mutations as an evolutionary factor. III. Mating preference and some general remarks. J Theor Biol. 1988 Apr 21;131(4):487–496. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5193(88)80043-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kondrashov A. S. Selection against harmful mutations in large sexual and asexual populations. Genet Res. 1982 Dec;40(3):325–332. doi: 10.1017/s0016672300019194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- MULLER H. J. Our load of mutations. Am J Hum Genet. 1950 Jun;2(2):111–176. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Siller S., Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, UK. steven.siller@zoo.ox.ac.uk Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex. Nature. 2001 Jun 7;411(6838):689–692. doi: 10.1038/35079578. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zahavi A. Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol. 1975 Sep;53(1):205–214. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zahavi A. The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). J Theor Biol. 1977 Aug 7;67(3):603–605. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(77)90061-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]