Direct detection of male quality can facilitate the evolution of female choosiness and indicators of good genes: Evolution across a continuum of indicator mechanisms

The contributions of direct and indirect selection to the evolution of mating preferences

Many influential mathematical models of sexual selection have stressed that mating preferences evolve due to correlations that build between mating preferences and preferred display traits-that is, through indirect selection. Nevertheless, there is a perception that indirect selection should generally be overwhelmed by direct selection, for example, in the form of search costs. Recent work by Fry has used quantitative genetic models to argue that in many cases, including when there are direct benefits (a fecundity advantage to mating with the preferred male), direct and indirect selection may be of similar magnitude. Here, I use population genetic models, in which the strength of the genetic correlation is an emergent property of evolution at mating preference and display trait loci, to assess the relative contributions of direct and indirect selection to the evolution of mating preferences. For the cases of direct benefits and of indirect benefits with fixed and frequency-dependent search costs, I outline parameter values of fecundity benefits, preference strengths, and search costs for which indirect selection on female preferences can potentially predominate. I also analyze male mate choice under polygyny, showing that direct selection will always outweigh indirect selection except when there are direct benefits.

The evolution of mating preferences for genetic attractiveness and quality in the presence of sensory bias

The aesthetic preferences of potential mates have driven the evolution of a baffling diversity of elaborate ornaments. Which fitness benefit-if any-choosers gain from expressing such preferences is controversial, however. Here, we simulate the evolution of preferences for multiple ornament types (e.g., "Fisherian," "handicap," and "indicator" ornaments) that differ in their associations with genes for attractiveness and other components of fitness. We model the costs of preference expression in a biologically plausible way, which decouples costly mate search from cost-free preferences. Ornaments of all types evolved in our model, but their occurrence was far from random. Females typically preferred ornaments that carried information about a male's quality, defined here as his ability to acquire and metabolize resources. Highly salient ornaments, which key into preexisting perceptual biases, were also more likely to evolve. When males expressed quality-dependent ornaments, females invested readily in costly mate search to locate preferred males. In contrast, the genetic benefits associated with purely arbitrary ornaments were insufficient to sustain highly costly mate search. Arbitrary ornaments could nonetheless "piggyback" on mate-search effort favored by other, quality-dependent ornaments. We further show that the potential to produce attractive male offspring ("sexy sons") can be as important as producing offspring of high general quality ("good genes") in shaping female preferences, even when preferred ornaments are quality dependent. Our model highlights the importance of mate-search effort as a driver of aesthetic coevolution.

Selection for male stamina can help explain costly displays with cost-minimizing female choice

Abstract

In many species, male lifespan is shorter than that of females, often attributed to sexual selection favouring costly expression of traits preferred by females. Coevolutionary models of female preferences and male traits predict that males can be selected to have such life histories; however, this typically requires that females also pay some costs to express their preferences. Here we show that this problem diminishes when we link coevolutionary models of costly mate choice with the idea of stamina. In our model, the most successful males are those who can combine high attendance time on a lek — or, more generally, tenacious effort in their display time budgets — with high viability such that they are not too strongly compromised in terms of lifespan. We find that an opportunistic female strategy, that minimizes its costs by mating with highly visible (displaying) males, often beats other alternatives. It typically resists invasion attempts of genotypes that mate randomly in the population genetic sense, as well as invasion of stricter ways of being choosy (which are potentially costly if choice requires e.g. active rejection of all males who do not presently display, or risky travel to lekking sites). Our model can produce a wide range of male time budgets (display vs. self-maintenance). This includes cases of alternative mating tactics where males in good condition spend much time displaying, while those in poor condition never display yet, importantly, gain some mating success due to females not engaging in rejection behaviours should these be very costly to express.

Significance statement

In many species, males spend much time and energy on displaying to attract females, but it is not always clear what females gain from paying attention to male displays. The tradition in mathematical models attempting to understand the situation is to assume that random mating is the least costly option for females. However, random mating in the population genetic sense requires females to behave in a manner that equalizes mating success between displaying and non-displaying males, and here we point out that this is biologically unlikely. Opportunistically mating females can cause males to spend much of their time budgets displaying and will shorten male lifespans in a quality-dependent manner.

The balance model of honest sexual signaling

Costly signaling theory is based on the idea that individuals may signal their quality to potential mates and that the signal's costliness plays a crucial role in maintaining information content ("honesty") over evolutionary time. Although costly signals have traditionally been described as "handicaps," here we present mathematical results that motivate an alternative interpretation. We show that under broad conditions, the multiplicative nature of fitness selects for roughly balanced investments in mating success and viability, thereby generating a positive correlation between signal size and quality. This balancing tendency occurs because selection for increased investment in a fitness component diminishes with the absolute level of investment in that component, such that excessively biased investments are penalized. The resulting interpretation of costly signals as balanced (albeit not necessarily equal) investments may be a widely applicable alternative to the traditional "handicap" metaphor, which has been criticized for its non-Darwinian connotation of selection for "waste" rather than efficiency. We predict that accelerating returns on viability are necessary to undermine honesty. This prediction depends crucially on the assumption that mating success and viability contribute multiplicatively (rather than additively) to an individual's fitness.

Juvenile Experience with Male Cues Triggers Cryptic Choice Mechanisms in Adult Female Redback Spiders

Simple Summary

Females of many species vary in their receptivity to male mating attempts. When many males are present in the habitat, the theory predicts that females should be choosy and discriminate among potential mates. When few males are available, females should mate readily with the first male who courts, and thus avoid the risk of remaining unmated. We predicted that cues perceived as juveniles that indicate male availability would affect the mating behaviour of adult females. In our first experiment, juvenile females were exposed to airborne chemicals produced by males at high or low densities. In our second experiment, we mimicked a natural situation where males or other juveniles live on the webs of females shortly before they become sexually mature, and compared this to females developing in isolation. As was consistent with our predictions, we found that the adult females changed their behaviour after exposure to cues of high male availability during development. When the females perceived many males nearby (high density airborne cues or living with males) they more often interrupted copulation, or cannibalized the males before the mating was complete as adults. In comparison, when the cues indicated low male availability, the adult females were more likely to allow the males to complete mating, and cannibalism was less common.

Abstract

Female choice may be linked to population density if the expected encounter rates with potential mates affects choosiness (the energy and risk engaged to express mate preferences). Choosiness should covary with male availability, which could be assessed using the social cues available during development. We tested whether the exposure of juvenile females to cues of male density affected the mechanisms of choosiness of adult Latrodectus hasselti spiders in two experiments simulating natural contexts. The juvenile females were exposed to (1) volatile chemicals from two densities of adult males (airborne cues), and (2) tactile, vibrational and chemical cues from adult males or other females (cohabitation cues). As adults, the females mated readily, regardless of the treatment, but there was strong evidence for post-copulatory mechanisms of choosiness in females exposed to cues of high male availability. These included abbreviated matings (in both experiments), cannibalism of the males before the mating was complete (cohabitation), and, remarkably, a reduction in the successful placement of internal sperm plugs (cohabitation). These shifts decrease the likelihood that the first mate would monopolize paternity if the female chose to mate again. We conclude that female choosiness may impose a strong selection on males despite the high mating rates, and these effects can hinge on the cues of male availability detected by juveniles.

Good, bad and ugly genes? Science matters, also in terms of terminology and word usage

Our words shape our thinking, our thinking creates action. Scientific terms can be particularly influential when used in everyday language in terms of allegedly scientific arguments that back certain views or actions. Such use can be especially toxic when the terms refer to concepts that are ill-defined, outdated or questionable themselves. The term “good genes” represents an exemplary case in this regard. It refers to the belief system of eugenics and implies a moral perspective. The latest political debates demonstrate how easily such terms and concepts are employed to induce racist thinking and action; in the end it may even result in specific medication, selective investment in medical treatment, and so ultimately impacting the life and death of patients. Science has the obligation to explicitly opt-out from such lines of argument, and to routinely check and re-think its theories, concepts and vocabulary.

Mutual mate choice and its benefits for both sexes

In mating interactions, it is common in nature for both sexes to choose simultaneously. However, this mutual mate choice and its consequences for progeny has received relatively little study; an approach where both male and female condition is manipulated is thus desirable. We compared both sexes' preferences in Tenebrio molitor beetles when individual condition varied (healthy vs infected with a fungus), and observed the direct benefits of those preferences. We predicted that: (a) females and males in good condition would prefer high quality mates; (b) preferences would be weaker when the choosing individual is in poor condition (and thus less selective given, for example, time and energetic constrains); and, (c) high quality mates would lay a larger number of total eggs and/or viable eggs than low quality mates. We found that both males and females in good condition were not more likely to choose mates that were also in good condition. However, poor-condition animals were more likely to prefer similar quality animals, while high-condition animals did not necessarily prefer mates of similar condition. Choosing sick males or females had a negative impact on egg number and viability. Our results suggest a non-adaptive mate choice in this species. Possibly, a deteriorated condition may drive individuals to invest more in attracting mates, because their chances of surviving the infection are very low. However, we do not discount the possibility that the fungus is manipulating individuals to increase its transmission during mating.

Fisher's lost model of runaway sexual selection

The bizarre elaboration of sexually selected traits such as the peacock's tail was a puzzle to Charles Darwin and his 19th century followers. Ronald A. Fisher crafted an ingenious solution in the 1930s, positing that female preferences would become genetically correlated with preferred traits due to nonrandom mating. These genetic correlations would translate selection for preferred traits into selection for stronger preferences, leading to a self-reinforcing process of ever-elaborating traits and preferences. It is widely believed that Fisher provided only a verbal model of this "runaway" process. However, in correspondence with Charles Galton Darwin, Fisher also laid out a simple mathematical model that purportedly confirms his verbal prediction of runaway sexual selection. Unfortunately, Fisher's model contains inconsistencies that render his quantitative conclusions inaccurate. Here, we correct Fisher's model and show that it contains all the ingredients of a working runaway process. We derive quantitative predictions of his model using numerical techniques that were unavailable in Fisher's time. Depending on parameter values, mean traits and preferences may increase until genetic variance is depleted by selection, exaggerate exponentially while their variances remain stable, or both means and variances may increase super-exponentially. We thus present the earliest mathematical model of runaway sexual selection.

Grey zones of sexual selection: why is finding a modern definition so hard?

Sexual selection has long been acknowledged as an important evolutionary force, capable of shaping phenotypes ranging from fascinating and unusual displays to cryptic traits whose function is only uncovered by careful study. Yet, despite decades of research, reaching a consensus definition of the term 'sexual selection' has proved difficult. Here we explore why arriving at a unifying definition of sexual selection is so hard. While some researchers have argued about whether sexual selection should be considered a form of natural selection, we concentrate on where the line between sexual selection and other forms of selection falls. We focus on identifying the 'grey zones' of sexual selection by illustrating cases in which application of the term 'sexual selection' would be considered controversial or ambiguous. We believe that clarifying why sexual selection is so difficult to define is an essential first step forward towards greater clarity, and if possible towards reaching a consensus definition. We suggest that a more nuanced perspective may be necessary, particularly one that specifies for cases of 'sexual selection' why the term is used or whether they fall into a grey zone.