Evolution of frequency-dependent mate choice: keeping up with fashion trends

The diversity of sexual traits favoured by females is enormous and, curiously, includes preferences for males with rare or novel phenotypes. We modelled the evolution of a preference for rarity that yielded two surprising results. First, a Fisherian ‘sexy son’ effect can boost female preferences to a frequency well above that predicted by mutation–selection balance, even if there are significant mortality costs for females. Preferences do not reach fixation, however, as they are subject to frequency-dependent selection: if choosy females are too common, then rare genotypes in one generation become common, and thus unattractive, in the offspring generation. Nevertheless, even at relatively low frequency, preferences maintain polymorphism in male traits. The second unexpected result is that the preferences can evolve to much higher frequencies if choice is hindered, such that females cannot always express their preferences. Our results emphasize the need to consider feedback where preferences determine the dynamics of male genotypes and vice versa. They also highlight the similarity between the arbitrariness of behavioural norms in models of social evolution with punishment (the so-called ‘folk theorem’) and the diversity of sexual traits that can be preferred simply because deviating from the norm produces unattractive offspring and is, in this sense, ‘punished’.

[1]  J. Croxall,et al.  The influence of parental relatedness on reproductive success , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[2]  R. Boyd,et al.  Reciprocity : you have to think different , 2006 .

[3]  W. Potts,et al.  The Evolution of Mating Preferences and Major Histocompatibility Complex Genes , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[4]  J. A. Farr MALE RARITY OR NOVELTY, FEMALE CHOICE BEHAVIOR, AND SEXUAL SELECTION IN THE GUPPY, POECILIA RETICULATA PETERS (PISCES: POECILIIDAE) , 1977, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[5]  S. Washburn The evolution of man. , 1978, Scientific American.

[6]  A. Houde,et al.  Possible role of female discrimination against ‘redundant’ males in the evolution of colour pattern polymorphism in guppies , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[7]  M. Milinski,et al.  Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism , 2001, Nature.

[8]  Yoh Iwasa,et al.  THE EVOLUTION OF COSTLY MATE PREFERENCES I. FISHER AND BIASED MUTATION , 1991, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[9]  D. W. Zeh,et al.  Toward a New Sexual Selection Paradigm: Polyandry, Conflict and Incompatibility (Invited Article) , 2003 .

[10]  Per Lundberg,et al.  Noise colour and the risk of population extinctions , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[11]  M. Björklund Mate choice for indirect benefits displayed by a large ornament: simulations using a neural network , 2006, Animal Behaviour.

[12]  R. Frankham Introduction to quantitative genetics (4th edn): by Douglas S. Falconer and Trudy F.C. Mackay Longman, 1996. £24.99 pbk (xv and 464 pages) ISBN 0582 24302 5 , 1996 .

[13]  H. Kokko,et al.  Mate choice evolution, dominance effects, and the maintenance of genetic variation. , 2007, Journal of theoretical biology.

[14]  DIRECT AND INDIRECT SEXUAL SELECTION AND QUANTITATIVE GENETICS OF MALE TRAITS IN GUPPIES (POECILIA RETICULATA) , 2001, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[15]  A. Magurran,et al.  Inbreeding depression and genetic load of sexually selected traits: how the guppy lost its spots , 2003, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[16]  B. Sinervo,et al.  The Developmental, Physiological, Neural, and Genetical Causes and Consequences of Frequency-Dependent Selection in the Wild , 2006 .

[17]  J. L. Tomkins,et al.  Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[18]  Ary A. Hoffmann,et al.  A reassessment of genetic limits to evolutionary change , 2005 .

[19]  D. Falconer Introduction to quantitative genetics. 1. ed. , 1984 .

[20]  G. Parker Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview , 2006, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[21]  Timothy A Mousseau,et al.  Female mating bias results in conflicting sex-specific offspring fitness , 2004, Nature.

[22]  D. Rankin,et al.  Can adaptation lead to extinction , 2005 .

[23]  C. Lively,et al.  Parasite adaptation to locally common host genotypes , 2000, Nature.

[24]  S. Chenoweth,et al.  Orientation of the Genetic Variance‐Covariance Matrix and the Fitness Surface for Multiple Male Sexually Selected Traits , 2004, The American Naturalist.

[25]  L. Rowe,et al.  Sexual conflict and indirect benefits , 2003, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[26]  D. McLain FEMALE SOLDIER BEETLES DISPLAY A FLEXIBLE PREFERENCE FOR SELECTIVELY FAVORED MALE PHENOTYPES , 2005, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[27]  T. Pitcher,et al.  Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes , 2004, Molecular ecology.

[28]  Robert Olendorf,et al.  Frequency-dependent survival in natural guppy populations , 2006, Nature.

[29]  Quantifying male attractiveness , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[30]  H. Kokko,et al.  Unifying and Testing Models of Sexual Selection , 2006 .

[31]  D. Rankin,et al.  Species‐level selection reduces selfishness through competitive exclusion , 2007, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[32]  Michael D Greenfield,et al.  Genotype–environment interaction and the reliability of mating signals , 2004, Animal Behaviour.

[33]  T. Tregenza,et al.  Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding , 2002, Nature.

[34]  Linda Partridge,et al.  Mating patterns and mate choice , 1984 .

[35]  J. Travis,et al.  Frequency–dependent numerical dynamics in mosquitofish , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[36]  D. Falconer,et al.  Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. , 1962 .

[37]  B. Sinervo,et al.  The rock–paper–scissors game and the evolution of alternative male strategies , 1996, Nature.

[38]  A. Magurran,et al.  Familiarity breeds contempt in guppies , 1999, Nature.

[39]  Bashisth N. Singh,et al.  Frequency-dependent selection: minority male mating advantage in Drosophila. , 2000 .

[40]  Ulf Dieckmann,et al.  Surprising evolutionary predictions from enhanced ecological realism. , 2006, Theoretical population biology.

[41]  P. Nosil Frequency-Dependent Selection: When Being Different Makes You Not Stand out , 2006, Current Biology.

[42]  M. Wade,et al.  Equal mating success among male reproductive strategies in a marine isopod , 1991, Nature.

[43]  H. Kokko,et al.  Sexy to die for? Sexual selection and the risk of extinction , 2003 .

[44]  G. Ruxton,et al.  Confidence intervals are a more useful complement to nonsignificant tests than are power calculations , 2003 .

[45]  L. Dill,et al.  Predation on females or males: who pays for bright male traits? , 1995, Animal Behaviour.

[46]  Kenichi Aoki,et al.  Runaway sexual selection with paternal transmission of the male trait and gene-culture determination of the female preference. , 2003, Theoretical population biology.

[47]  K. Hughes,et al.  Familiarity leads to female mate preference for novel males in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata , 1999, Animal Behaviour.

[48]  M. Petrie,et al.  VARIATION IN MATE CHOICE AND MATING PREFERENCES: A REVIEW OF CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES , 1997, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[49]  M. Kirkpatrick,et al.  The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek , 1991, Nature.

[50]  S. Merilaita,et al.  Frequency‐dependent predation and maintenance of prey polymorphism , 2006, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[51]  R. Lande Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. , 1981, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[52]  A. Houston,et al.  The sexual selection continuum , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.