Predicting the direction of sexual selection

Our current understanding of the operation of sexual selection is predicated on a sex difference in parental investment, which favours one sex becoming limiting and choosy over mates, the other competitive and nonchoosy. This difference is reflected in the operational sex ratio (OSR), the ratio of sexually receptive males to females, considered to be of fundamental importance in predicting the direction of sexual selection. Difficulties in measuring OSR directly have led to the use of the potential reproductive rates (PRR) as a measure of the level of investment in offspring of males and females. Several recent studies have emphasized that other factors, such as variation in mate quality and sex differences in mortality patterns, also influence the direction of sexual selection. However, as yet there has been no attempt to form a comprehensive theory of sex roles. Here we show that neither OSR nor PRR is the most fundamentally important determinant of sex roles, and that they are not interchangeable. Instead, the cost of a single breeding attempt has a strong direct effect on competition and choosiness as well as consistent relationships to both OSR and PRR. Our life history based approach to mate choice also yields simple, testable predictions on lack of choice in either sex and on mutual mate choice.     

Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios

Conventional sex roles imply caring females and competitive males. The evolution of sex role divergence is widely attributed to anisogamy initiating a self‐reinforcing process. The initial asymmetry in pre‐mating parental investment (eggs vs. sperm) is assumed to promote even greater divergence in post‐mating parental investment (parental care). But do we really understand the process? Trivers [Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871–1971 (1972), Aldine Press, Chicago] introduced two arguments with a female and male perspective on whether to care for offspring that try to link pre‐mating and post‐mating investment. Here we review their merits and subsequent theoretical developments. The first argument is that females are more committed than males to providing care because they stand to lose a greater initial investment. This, however, commits the ‘Concorde Fallacy’ as optimal decisions should depend on future pay‐offs not past costs. Although the argument can be rephrased in terms of residual reproductive value when past investment affects future pay‐offs, it remains weak. The factors likely to change future pay‐offs seem to work against females providing more care than males. The second argument takes the reasonable premise that anisogamy produces a male‐biased operational sex ratio (OSR) leading to males competing for mates. Male care is then predicted to be less likely to evolve as it consumes resources that could otherwise be used to increase competitiveness. However, given each offspring has precisely two genetic parents (the Fisher condition), a biased OSR generates frequency‐dependent selection, analogous to Fisherian sex ratio selection, that favours increased parental investment by whichever sex faces more intense competition. Sex role divergence is therefore still an evolutionary conundrum. Here we review some possible solutions. Factors that promote conventional sex roles are sexual selection on males (but non‐random variance in male mating success must be high to override the Fisher condition), loss of paternity because of female multiple mating or group spawning and patterns of mortality that generate female‐biased adult sex ratios (ASR). We present an integrative model that shows how these factors interact to generate sex roles. We emphasize the need to distinguish between the ASR and the operational sex ratio (OSR). If mortality is higher when caring than competing this diminishes the likelihood of sex role divergence because this strongly limits the mating success of the earlier deserting sex. We illustrate this in a model where a change in relative mortality rates while caring and competing generates a shift from a mammalian type breeding system (female‐only care, male‐biased OSR and female‐biased ASR) to an avian type system (biparental care and a male‐biased OSR and ASR).     

Sexual selection favours male parental care, when females can choose

Explaining the evolution of male care has proved difficult. Recent theory predicts that female promiscuity and sexual selection on males inherently disfavour male care. In sharp contrast to these expectations, male-only care is often found in species with high extra-pair paternity and striking variation in mating success, where current theory predicts female-only care. Using a model that examines the coevolution of male care, female care and female choice; I show that inter-sexual selection can drive the evolution of male care when females are able to bias mating or paternity towards parental males. Surprisingly, female choice for parental males allows male care to evolve despite low relatedness between the male and the offspring in his care. These results imply that predicting how sexual selection affects parental care evolution will require further understanding of why females, in many species, either do not prefer or cannot favour males that provide care.     

The opportunity to be misled in studies of sexual selection

It is a challenge to measure sexual selection because both stochastic events (chance) and deterministic factors (selection) generate variation in individuals' reproductive success. Most researchers realize that random events ('noise') make it difficult to detect a relationship between a trait and mating success (i.e. the presence of sexual selection). There is, however, less appreciation of the dangers that arise if stochastic events vary systematically. Systematic variation makes variance-based approaches to measuring the role of selection problematic. This is why measuring the opportunity for sexual selection (I(s) and I(mates)) is so vulnerable to misinterpretation. Although I(s) does not measure actual sexual selection (because it includes stochastic variation in mating/fertilization success) it is often implicitly assumed that it will be correlated with the actual strength of sexual selection. The hidden assumption is that random noise is randomly distributed across populations, species or the sexes. Here we present a simple numerical example showing why this practice is worrisome. Specifically, we show that chance variation in mating success is higher when there are fewer potential mates per individual of the focal sex [i.e. when the operational sex ratio (OSR), is more biased]. This will lead to the OSR covarying with I(s) even when the strength of sexual selection is unaffected by the OSR. This can generate false confidence in identifying factors that determine variation in the strength of sexual selection. We emphasize that in nature, even when sexual selection is strong, chance variation in mating success is still inevitable because the number of mates per individual is a discrete number. We hope that our worked example will clarify a recent debate about how best to measure sexual selection.     

Polyandry as a mediator of sexual selection before and after mating

The Darwin–Bateman paradigm recognizes competition among males for access to multiple mates as the main driver of sexual selection. Increasingly, however, females are also being found to benefit from multiple mating so that polyandry can generate competition among females for access to multiple males, and impose sexual selection on female traits that influence their mating success. Polyandry can reduce a male''s ability to monopolize females, and thus weaken male focused sexual selection. Perhaps the most important effect of polyandry on males arises because of sperm competition and cryptic female choice. Polyandry favours increased male ejaculate expenditure that can affect sexual selection on males by reducing their potential reproductive rate. Moreover, sexual selection after mating can ameliorate or exaggerate sexual selection before mating. Currently, estimates of sexual selection intensity rely heavily on measures of male mating success, but polyandry now raises serious questions over the validity of such approaches. Future work must take into account both pre- and post-copulatory episodes of selection. A change in focus from the products of sexual selection expected in males, to less obvious traits in females, such as sensory perception, is likely to reveal a greater role of sexual selection in female evolution.     

The mismeasurement of sexual selection

Sexual selection can explain major micro‐ and macro‐evolutionary patterns. Much of current theory predicts that the strength of sexual selection (i) is driven by the relative abundance of males and females prepared to mate (i.e. the operational sex ratio, OSR) and (ii) can be generally estimated by calculating intra‐sexual variation in mating success (e.g. the opportunity for sexual selection, I_s). Here, we demonstrate the problematic nature of these predictions. The OSR and I_s only accurately predict sexual selection under a limited set of circumstances, and more specifically, only when mate monopolization is extremely strong. If mate monopolization is not strong, using OSR or I_s as proxies or measures of sexual selection is expected to produce spurious results that lead to the false conclusion that sexual selection is strong when it is actually weak. These findings call into question the validity of empirical conclusions based on these measures of sexual selection.     

The role of maternal and paternal effects in the evolution of parental quality by sexual selection

Genetic models of maternal effects and models of mate choice have focused on the evolutionary effects of variation in parental quality. There have been, however, few attempts to combine these into a single model for the evolution of sexually selected traits. We present a quantitative genetic model that considers how male and female parental quality (together or separately) affect the expression of a sexually selected offspring trait. We allow female choice of males based on this parentally affected trait and examine the evolution of mate choice, parental quality and the indicator trait. Our model reveals a number of consequences of maternal and paternal effects. (1) The force of sexual selection owing to adaptive mate choice can displace parental quality from its natural selection optimum. (2) The force of sexual selection can displace female parental quality from its natural selection optimum even when nonadaptive mate choice occurs (e.g. runaway sexual selection), because females of higher parental quality produce more attractive sons and these sons counterbalance the loss in fitness owing to over-investment in each offspring. (3) Maternal and paternal effects can provide a source of genetic variation for offspring traits, allowing evolution by sexual selection even when those traits do not show direct genetic variation (i.e. are not heritable). (4) The correlation between paternal investment and the offspring trait influenced by the parental effects can result in adaptive mate choice and lead to the elaboration of both female preference and the male sexually selected trait. When parental effects exist, sexual selection can drive the evolution of parental quality when investment increases the attractiveness of offspring, leading to the elaboration of indicator traits and higher than expected levels of parental investment.     

A bibliography and categorization of bony fishes exhibiting parental care

Parental care occurs in a diversity of fishes, but predominantly among freshwater groups. Among the approximately 422 families of bony fishes (Osteichthyes), 89 are presently known to exhibit parental care. Grouping these families into eight categories, based on the sex of the care-giver(s), reveals male parental care is as common or more common than female parental care. Although unusual among vertebrates, parental care by males alone is very common among bony fishes. Lists of families, the forms of parental care exhibited, the modes of fertilization, the environments in which reproduction occurs, and the sources of documentation are presented. An extensive bibliography and index are provided.     

Nest building, sexual selection and parental investment

Avian nest building has traditionally been viewed as resulting in natural selection advantages, but it is also been associated with courtship and pair formation. We hypothesize that nest-building activity could be used as a sexually selected display, allowing each sex to obtain reliable information on the condition of the other. In this paper, we test the ‘good parent’ process in a scenario where nest size is a sexually selected trait. Thus, individuals with more extreme displays (larger nests) might obtain benefits in terms of either parental investment or differential parental investment by the partner. We predicted that: (1) species in which both sexes contribute to nest building have larger nests than those in which the nest is built only by one sex, because both sexes are using the nest-building process as a signal of their quality; (2) species in which both sexes work together in the nest-building process invest more in reproduction, because each can assess the other more reliably than in species where only one sex participates in nest building; and (3) in light of the two preceding predictions, nest size should be positively related to investment in parental care. A comparative analysis of 76 passerine species confirmed that nest size, relative to the species' body size, is larger when both sexes build the nest and that species with a larger nest relative to their body size invest more in reproduction. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

The parental investment model and minimum mate choice criteria in humans

Trivers' parental investment model states that individuals facinghigher levels of parental investment will become increasinglychoosy in their choice of mates. For humans, this leads to twopredictions. First, both males and females will be choosierin relationships more likely to lead to the production of children.Second, females will be choosier than are males, because theirminimum risk of parental investment is higher. Previous studiesof human mate choice found support for these predictions, withone curious exception: male choosiness was lower for short-termsexual relationships involving no relationship commitment (one-nightstands) than for short-term relationships involving no sexualactivity (single dates). Because the risk of parental investmentwould be higher in a one-night stand, this suggests that truerisk of parental investment was not the underlying factor governingchoosiness levels, either because study subjects assigned differentlevels of sexual activity to the relationships than were intendedby the investigators of the study or because perceived riskis more important in human mate choice than real risk. To confirmthat male/female differences in choosiness criteria exist inhumans, and to evaluate the effect that different expected levelsof real or perceived parental investment may have on choosiness,we studied mate choosiness in the context of five types of relationshipsthat reflected explicitly defined, increasing levels of riskof parental investment for both males and females. The subjectswere 468 undergraduate students, mostly between the ages of18–24. By using questionnaires, male and female participantsrated their minimum requirements in a potential mate for 29personal characteristics with respect to level of relationship.Our results confirm the major predictions of the parental investmentmodel for humans but suggest that sex differences in choosinessare better explained by perceived rather than real risk of parentalinvestment.     

Contrasting sexual selection on males and females in a role-reversed swarming dance fly, Rhamphomyia longicauda Loew (Diptera: Empididae)

Although there are several hypotheses for sex-specific ornamentation, few studies have measured selection in both sexes. We compare sexual selection in male and female dance flies, Rhamphomyia longicauda (Diptera: Empididae). Swarming females display size-enhancing abdominal sacs, enlarged wings and decorated tibiae, and compete for nuptial gifts provided by males. Males preferentially approach large females, but the nature of selection and whether it is sex-specific are unknown. We found contrasting sexual selection for mating success on structures shared by males and females. In females, long wings and short tibiae were favoured, whereas males with short wings and long tibiae had a mating advantage. There was no assortative mating. Females occupying potentially advantageous swarm positions were large and, in contrast to selection for mating success, tended to have larger tibiae than those of rivals. We discuss our findings in the context of both the mating biology of dance flies, and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in general.     

Sexual Selection and Mate Choice

After a long period of dormancy, Darwin's theory of sexual selection in general, and mate choice in particular, now represents one of the most active fields in evolutionary research. After a brief overview of the history of ideas and a short introduction into the main mechanisms of sexual selection, I discuss some recent theoretical developments and empirical findings in the study of mate choice and review the various current models of mate choice, which can be grossly divided into adaptive models and nonadaptive models. I also examine whether available primate evidence supports various hypotheses concerning mate choice. Although primatologists were long aware that nonhuman primates have preferences for certain mating partners, until recently the functions and evolutionary consequences of their preferences remained obscure. Now there is growing evidence that mate choice decisions provide primates with important direct or indirect benefits. For example, several observations are consistent with the hypothesis that by direct or indirect mate choice female primates lower the risk of infanticide or enhance the chance of producing viable offspring. Nevertheless, there are also significant holes in our knowledge. How the male mandrill, one of Darwin's famous examples, got his brightly colored face, is still unknown.     

The role of genotype‐by‐environment interactions in sexual selection

Genotype‐by‐environment interactions (GxEs) in naturally selected traits have been extensively studied, but the impact of GxEs on sexual selection has only recently begun to receive attention. Here, we review recent models and consider how GxEs might affect the evolution of sexual traits through influencing sexual signal reliability and also how GxEs may influence variation in sexually selected traits and the process of reproductive isolation. We then assess the current empirical literature on GxEs in sexual selection and conclude by highlighting areas that need additional work. Research on GxEs and sexual selection is an important new area of study for the discipline, which has largely focused on relatively simple mate choice/competition scenarios to date. Investigators now need to apply this knowledge to more complex, but realistic, situations, to more fully explore the evolution of sexual traits, and in this review we suggest potentially useful directions for future research.     

Sexual selection in an isopod with Wolbachia‐induced sex reversal: males prefer real females

A variety of genetic elements encode traits beneficial to their own transmission. Despite their ‘selfish’ behaviour, most of these elements are often found at relatively low frequencies in host populations. This is the case of intracytoplasmic Wolbachia bacteria hosted by the isopod Armadillidium vulgare that distort the host sex ratio towards females by feminizing the genetic males they infect. Here we tested the hypothesis that sexual selection against Wolbachia‐infected females could maintain a polymorphism of the infection in populations. The infected neo‐females (feminized males) have lower mating rates and received less sperm relative to uninfected females. Males exhibited an active choice: they interacted more with uninfected females and made more mating attempts. A female behavioural difference was also observed in response to male mating attempts: infected neo‐females more often exhibited behaviours that stop the mating sequence. The difference in mating rate was significant only when males could choose between the two female types. This process could maintain a polymorphism of the infection in populations. Genetic females experimentally infected with Wolbachia are not exposed to the same sexual selection pressure, so the infection alone cannot explain these differences.     

Effects of breeding site density on competition and sexual selection in the European lobster

The availability of breeding sites has been predicted to affectthe intensity of sexual selection, including mate competition,mate choice and ultimately, variation in mating success. Wetested the hypothesis that reduced density of shelters wouldcause an increase in the intensity of sexual selection in Europeanlobsters, Homarus gammarus. However, we found little supportfor our predictions. For example, within-sex competition bymales and by females was not more intense when shelters werescarce. Indeed, females attempted to evict one another fromshelters significantly more often when shelters were common.When shelters were abundant, shelter-holding males had greatermating success than males without shelters, yet females didnot show more interest towards these males during courtshipencounters. Mate attraction was more strongly related to largemale body size when shelters were scarce. Overall, the resultssuggest that reduced shelter density does not lead to more overtwithin-sex aggression in this species. Instead, we suggest thatimpacts of breeding resource availability on sexual selectionmay depend on the range over which resources are measured, withextreme scarcity of shelters rendering overt competition uneconomical.Furthermore, females may become more selective of male traitssuch as large size, which enhance male control of breeding sitesand hence protection of females.