1932

Abstract

Sexual selection plays several intricate and complex roles in the related processes of local adaptation and speciation. In some cases sexual selection can promote these processes, but in others it can be inhibitory. We present theoretical and empirical evidence supporting these dual effects of sexual selection during local adaptation, allopatric speciation, and speciation with gene flow. Much of the empirical evidence for sexual selection promoting speciation is suggestive rather than conclusive; we present what would constitute strong evidence for sexual selection driving speciation. We conclude that although there is ample evidence that sexual selection contributes to the speciation process, it is very likely to do so only in concert with natural selection.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022905
2017-11-02
2024-06-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ecolsys/48/1/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022905.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022905&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Agrawal AF. 2001. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature 411:692–95 [Google Scholar]
  2. Allender CJ, Seehausen O, Knight ME, Turner GF, Maclean N. 2011. Divergent selection during speciation of Lake Malawi cichlid fishes inferred from parallel radiations in nuptial coloration. PNAS 100:2414074–79 [Google Scholar]
  3. Almbro M, Simmons LW. 2013. Sexual selection can remove an experimentally induced mutation load. Evolution 68:1295–300 [Google Scholar]
  4. Andersson M, Simmons LW. 2006. Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21:6296–302 [Google Scholar]
  5. Arbuthnott D, Rundle HD. 2012. Sexual selection is ineffectual or inhibits the purging of deleterious mutations in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 66:72127–37 [Google Scholar]
  6. Arnegard ME, Kondrashov AS. 2004. Sympatric speciation by sexual selection alone is unlikely. Evolution 58:222–37 [Google Scholar]
  7. Arnegard ME, McIntyre PB, Harmon LJ, Zelditch ML, Crampton WGR. et al. 2010. Sexual signal evolution outpaces ecological divergence during electric fish species radiation. Am. Nat. 176:3335–56 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bank C, Hermisson J, Kirkpatrick M. 2012. Can reinforcement complete speciation. Evolution 66:229–39 [Google Scholar]
  9. Baugh AT, Akre KL, Ryan MJ. 2008. Categorical perception of a natural, multivariate signal: mating call recognition in túngara frogs. PNAS 105:268985–88 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bolnick DI. 2004. Waiting for sympatric speciation. Evolution 58:895–99 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bonduriansky R. 2011. Sexual selection and conflict as engines of diversification. Am. Nat. 178:729–45 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bonduriansky R, Rowe L. 2005. Sexual selection, genetic architecture, and the condition dependence of body shape in the sexually dimorphic fly Prochyliza xanthostoma (Piophilidae). Evolution 59:1138–51 [Google Scholar]
  13. Boughman JW. 2001. Divergent sexual selection enhances reproductive isolation in sticklebacks. Nature 411:6840944–48 [Google Scholar]
  14. Boughman JW. 2002. How sensory drive can promote speciation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17:12571–77 [Google Scholar]
  15. Boughman JW. 2006. Divergence and speciation in sticklebacks. The Biology of the Three-Spined Stickleback S Ostlund-Nilsson, I Mayer, FA Huntingford 83–126 Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press [Google Scholar]
  16. Boughman JW. 2007. Condition-dependent expression of red colour differs between stickleback species. J. Evol. Biol. 20:41577–90 [Google Scholar]
  17. Boughman JW, Rundle HD, Schluter D. 2005. Parallel evolution of sexual isolation in sticklebacks. Evolution 59:2361–73 [Google Scholar]
  18. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL. 1998. Principles of Animal Communication Sunderland, MA: Sinauer [Google Scholar]
  19. Brandt L, Ludwar BC, Greenfield MD. 2005. Co‐occurrence of preference functions and acceptance thresholds in female choice: mate discrimination in the lesser wax moth. Ethology 111:609–25 [Google Scholar]
  20. Brooks RC, Endler JA. 2001. Female guppies agree to differ: phenotypic and genetic variation in mate-choice behavior and the consequences for sexual selection. Evolution 55:81644–55 [Google Scholar]
  21. Bürger R, Schneider KA. 2006. Intraspecific competitive divergence and convergence under assortative mating. Am. Nat. 167:190–205 [Google Scholar]
  22. Bürger R, Schneider KA, Willendsdorfer M. 2006. The conditions for speciation through intraspecific competition. Evolution 60:2185–206 [Google Scholar]
  23. Burley NT, Foster VS. 2006. Variation in female choice of mates: condition influences selectivity. Anim. Behav. 72:3713–19 [Google Scholar]
  24. Cate TC, Vos DR. 1999. Sexual imprinting and evolutionary processes in birds: a reassessment. Adv. Study Behav. 28:1–31 [Google Scholar]
  25. Cornwallis CK, Uller T. 2010. Towards an evolutionary ecology of sexual traits. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25:3145–52 [Google Scholar]
  26. Cotto O, Servedio MR. 2017. The roles of sexual and viability selection in the evolution of incomplete reproductive isolation: from allopatry to sympatry. Am. Nat. In press [Google Scholar]
  27. Cummings ME. 2007. Sensory trade-offs predict signal divergence in surfperch. Evolution 61:3530–45 [Google Scholar]
  28. Cummings ME. 2015. The mate choice mind: studying mate preference, aversion and social cognition in the female poeciliid brain. Anim. Behav. 103:249–58 [Google Scholar]
  29. Dawkins MS, Guilford T. 1996. Sensory bias and the adaptiveness of female choice. Am. Nat. 148:937–42 [Google Scholar]
  30. Debelle A, Ritchie MG, Snook RR. 2014. Evolution of divergent female mating preference in response to experimental sexual selection. Evolution 68:92524–33 [Google Scholar]
  31. de Cara MAR, Barton NH, Kirkpatrick M. 2008. A model for the evolution of assortative mating. Am. Nat. 171:580–96 [Google Scholar]
  32. Dieckmann U, Doebeli M. 1999. On the origin of species by sympatric speciation. Nature 400:6742354–57 [Google Scholar]
  33. Dijkstra PD, Seehausen O, Pierotti MER, Groothuis TGG. 2007. Male-male competition and speciation: aggression bias towards differently coloured rivals varies between stages of speciation in a Lake Victoria cichlid species complex. J. Evol. Biol. 20:2496–502 [Google Scholar]
  34. Dobzhansky T. 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species New York: Columbia Univ. Press. , 1st ed.. [Google Scholar]
  35. Dobzhansky T. 1951. Genetics and the Origin of Species New York: Columbia Univ. Press. , 3rd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  36. Doebeli M. 2005. Adaptive speciation when assortative mating is based on female preference for male marker traits. J. Evol. Biol. 18:1587–600 [Google Scholar]
  37. Doherty PF, Sorci G, Royle JA, Hines JE, Nichols JD, Boulinier T. 2003. Sexual selection affects local extinction and turnover in bird communities. PNAS 100:105858–62 [Google Scholar]
  38. Dopman EB, Robbins PS, Seaman A. 2010. Components of reproductive isolation between North American pheromone strains of the European corn borer. Evolution 64:881–902 [Google Scholar]
  39. Edelaar P, Siepielski AM, Clobert J. 2008. Matching habitat choice causes directed gene flow: a neglected dimension in evolution and ecology. Evolution 62:102462–72 [Google Scholar]
  40. Emlen DJ. 2008. The evolution of animal weapons. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 39:387–413 [Google Scholar]
  41. Endler J. 1992. Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution. Am. Nat. 139:S125–53 [Google Scholar]
  42. Felsenstein J. 1981. Skepticism towards Santa Rosalia, or why are there so few kinds of animals?. Evolution 35:124–38 [Google Scholar]
  43. Fricke C, Arnqvist G. 2007. Rapid adaptation to a novel host in a seed beetle (Callosobruchus maculatus): the role of sexual selection. Evolution 61:2440–54 [Google Scholar]
  44. Fuller RC, Houle D, Travis J. 2005. Sensory bias as an explanation for the evolution of mate preferences. Am. Nat. 166:4437–46 [Google Scholar]
  45. Giery ST, Layman CA. 2015. Interpopulation variation in a condition-dependent signal: predation regime affects signal intensity and reliability. Am. Nat. 186:2187–95 [Google Scholar]
  46. Gourbiere S. 2004. How do natural and sexual selection contribute to sympatric speciation. J. Evol. Biol. 17:1297–309 [Google Scholar]
  47. Grace JL, Shaw KL. 2011. Coevolution of male mating signal and female preference during early lineage divergence of the Hawaiian cricket, Laupala cerasina. Evolution 65:82184–96 [Google Scholar]
  48. Greig D. 2009. Reproductive isolation in Saccharomyces. Heredity 102:139–44 [Google Scholar]
  49. Grether GF, Losin N, Anderson CN, Okamoto K. 2009. The role of interspecific interference competition in character displacement and the evolution of competitor recognition. Biol. Rev. 84:4617–35 [Google Scholar]
  50. Head ML, Kozak GM, Boughman JW. 2013. Female mate preferences for male body size and shape promote sexual isolation in threespine sticklebacks. Ecol. Evol. 3:72183–96 [Google Scholar]
  51. Hebets EA, Maddison WP. 2005. Xenophilic mating preferences among populations of the jumping spider Habronattus pugillis Griswold. Behav. Ecol. 16:6981–88 [Google Scholar]
  52. Higashi M, Takimoto G, Yamamura N. 1999. Sympatric speciation by sexual selection. Nature 402:523–26 [Google Scholar]
  53. Hollis B, Fierst JL, Houle D. 2009. Sexual selection accelerates the elimination of a deleterious mutant in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 63:2324–33 [Google Scholar]
  54. Hollis B, Houle D. 2011. Populations with elevated mutation load do not benefit from the operation of sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 24:91918–26 [Google Scholar]
  55. Houle D, Kondrashov AS. 2002. Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proc. R. Soc. B 269:148697–104 [Google Scholar]
  56. Hunt J, Breuker CJ, Sadowski JA, Moore AJ. 2009. Male-male competition, female mate choice and their interaction: determining total sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 22:113–26 [Google Scholar]
  57. Jia F-Y, Greenfield MD. 1997. When are good genes good? Variable outcomes of female choice in wax moths. Proc. R. Soc. B 264:13841057–63 [Google Scholar]
  58. Kaneshiro KY. 1988. Speciation in the Hawaiian Drosophila. BioScience 38:258–63 [Google Scholar]
  59. Kawata M, Shoji A, Kawamura S, Seehausen O. 2007. A genetically explicit model of speciation by sensory drive within a continuous population in aquatic environments. BMC Evol. Biol. 7:99 [Google Scholar]
  60. Keagy J, Lettieri L, Boughman JW. 2016. Male competition fitness landscapes predict both forward and reverse speciation. Ecol. Lett. 19:171–80 [Google Scholar]
  61. Kirkpatrick M. 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36:1–12 [Google Scholar]
  62. Kirkpatrick M. 2000. Reinforcement and divergence under assortative mating. Proc. R. Soc. B 267:1649–55 [Google Scholar]
  63. Kirkpatrick M, Barton N. 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. PNAS 94:1282–86 [Google Scholar]
  64. Kirkpatrick M, Nuismer SL. 2004. Sexual selection can constrain sympatric speciation. Proc. R. Soc. B 271:687–93 [Google Scholar]
  65. Kirkpatrick M, Servedio MR. 1999. The reinforcement of mating preferences on an island. Genetics 151:865–84 [Google Scholar]
  66. Kokko H, Brooks RC. 2003. Sexy to die for? Sexual selection and the risk of extinction. Ann. Zool. Fennici 40:2207–19 [Google Scholar]
  67. Kopp M, Hermisson J. 2008. Competitive speciation and costs to choosiness. J. Evol. Biol. 21:1005–23 [Google Scholar]
  68. Kozak GM, Boughman JW. 2015. Predator experience overrides learned aversion to heterospecifics in stickleback species pairs. Proc. R. Soc. B 282:20143066 [Google Scholar]
  69. Kozak GM, Head ML, Boughman JW. 2011. Sexual imprinting on ecologically divergent traits leads to sexual isolation in sticklebacks. Proc. R. Soc. B 278:17182604–10 [Google Scholar]
  70. Kozak GM, Head ML, Lackey ACR, Boughman JW. 2013. Sequential mate choice and sexual isolation in threespine stickleback species. J. Evol. Biol. 26:1130–40 [Google Scholar]
  71. Kozak GM, Reisland M, Boughman JW. 2009. Sex differences in mate recognition and conspecific preference in species with mutual mate choice. Evolution 63:2353–65 [Google Scholar]
  72. Kraaijeveld K, Kraaijeveld-Smit FJL, Maan ME. 2011. Sexual selection and speciation: the comparative evidence revisited. Biol. Rev. 86:2367–77 [Google Scholar]
  73. Kronforst MR, Young LG, Kapan DD, McNeely C, O'Neill RJ, Gilbert LE. 2006. Linkage of butterfly mate preference and wing color preference cue at the genomic location of wingless. PNAS 103:176575–80 [Google Scholar]
  74. Lackey ACR, Boughman JW. 2013a. Divergent sexual selection via male competition: Ecology is key. J. Evol. Biol. 26:81611–24 [Google Scholar]
  75. Lackey ACR, Boughman JW. 2013b. Loss of sexual isolation in a hybridizing stickleback species pair. Curr. Zool. 59:5591–603 [Google Scholar]
  76. Lackey ACR, Boughman JW. 2017. Evolution of reproductive isolation in stickleback fish. Evolution 71:357–72 [Google Scholar]
  77. Lande R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. PNAS 78:3721–25 [Google Scholar]
  78. Lande R. 1982. Rapid origin of sexual isolation and character divergence in a cline. Evolution 36:213–23 [Google Scholar]
  79. Leal M, Fleishman LJ. 2004. Differences in visual signal design and detectability between allopatric populations of Anolis lizards. Am. Nat. 163:126–39 [Google Scholar]
  80. Lemmon EM, Lemmon AR. 2010. Reinforcement in chorus frogs: lifetime fitness estimates including intrinsic natural selection and sexual selection against hybrids. Evolution 64:61748–61 [Google Scholar]
  81. Leonard AS, Hedrick AV. 2009. Male and female crickets use different decision rules in response to mating signals. Behav. Ecol. 20:61175–84 [Google Scholar]
  82. Lorch PD, Proulx S, Rowe L, Day T. 2003. Condition-dependent sexual selection can accelerate adaptation. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5:867–81 [Google Scholar]
  83. Lumley AJ, Michalczyk Ł, Kitson JJN, Spurgin LG, Morrison CA. et al. 2015. Sexual selection protects against extinction. Nature 522:7557470–73 [Google Scholar]
  84. Maan ME, Seehausen O. 2011. Ecology, sexual selection and speciation. Ecol. Lett. 14:6591–602 [Google Scholar]
  85. Maan M, Seehausen O. 2012. Magic cues versus magic preferences in speciation. Evol. Ecol. Res. 14:779–85 [Google Scholar]
  86. Mani GS, Clarke BC. 1990. Mutational order: a major stochastic process in evolution. Proc. R. Soc. B 240:29–37 [Google Scholar]
  87. Marie Curie Speciat. Netw. 2011. What do we need to know about speciation?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27:127–39 [Google Scholar]
  88. Martín J, López P. 2008. Female sensory bias may allow honest chemical signaling by male Iberian rock lizards. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62:121927–34 [Google Scholar]
  89. Matessi C, Gimelfarb A, Gavrilets S. 2001. Long-term buildup of reproductive isolation promoted by disruptive selection: How far does it go?. Selection 2:41–64 [Google Scholar]
  90. Matsubayashi KW, Katakura H. 2009. Contribution of multiple isolating barriers to reproductive isolation between a pair of phytophagous ladybird beetles. Evolution 63:2563–80 [Google Scholar]
  91. Mayr E. 1942. Systematics and the Origin of Species New York: Columbia Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  92. McCullough EL, Tobalske BW, Emlen DJ. 2014. Structural adaptations to diverse fighting styles in sexually selected weapons. PNAS 111:4014484–88 [Google Scholar]
  93. McKinnon JS, Mori S, Blackman BK, David L, Kingsley DM. et al. 2004. Evidence for ecology's role in speciation. Nature 429:6989294–98 [Google Scholar]
  94. Mendelson TC. 2003. Sexual isolation evolves faster than hybrid inviability in a diverse and sexually dimorphic genus of fish (Percidae: Etheostoma). Evolution 57:317–27 [Google Scholar]
  95. Mendelson TC, Shaw KL. 2005. Rapid speciation in an arthropod. Nature 433:375–76 [Google Scholar]
  96. Mendelson TC, Shaw KL. 2012. The (mis)concept of species recognition. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27:8421–27 [Google Scholar]
  97. Mendelson TC, Martin MD, Flaxman SM. 2014. Mutation-order divergence by sexual selection: diversification of sexual signals in similar environments as a first step in speciation. Ecol. Lett. 17:1053–66 [Google Scholar]
  98. Merrill RM, Gompert Z, Dembeck LM, Kronforst MR, McMillan WO, Jiggins CD. 2011. Mate preference across the speciation continuum in a clade of mimetic butterflies. Evolution 65:1489–500 [Google Scholar]
  99. M'Gonigle LK, Mazzucco R, Otto SP, Dieckmann U. 2012. Sexual selection enables long-term coexistence despite ecological equivalence. Nature 484:506–9 [Google Scholar]
  100. Nelson DA, Marler P. 1989. Categorical perception of a natural stimulus continuum: birdsong. Science 244:4907976–78 [Google Scholar]
  101. Norvaišas P, Kisdi E. 2012. Revisiting Santa Rosalia to unfold a degeneracy of classic models of speciation. Am. Nat. 180:388–93 [Google Scholar]
  102. Nosil P, Harmon LJ, Seehausen O. 2009. Ecological explanations for (incomplete) speciation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24:3145–56 [Google Scholar]
  103. Oh KP, Fergus DJ, Grace JL, Shaw KL. 2012. Interspecific genetics of speciation phenotypes: song and preference coevolution in Hawaiian crickets. J. Evol. Biol. 25:81500–12 [Google Scholar]
  104. Oh KP, Shaw KL. 2013. Multivariate sexual selection in a rapidly evolving speciation phenotype. Proc. R. Soc. B 280:20130482 [Google Scholar]
  105. Otto SP, Servedio MR, Nuismer SL. 2008. Frequency-dependent selection and the evolution of assortative mating. Genetics 179:2091–112 [Google Scholar]
  106. Panhuis TM, Butlin RK, Zuk M, Tregenza T. 2001. Sexual selection and speciation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16:7364–71 [Google Scholar]
  107. Payne RJ, Krakauer DC. 1997. Sexual selection, space, and speciation. Evolution 51:1–9 [Google Scholar]
  108. Pennings PS, Kopp M, Meszena G, Dieckmann U, Hermisson J. 2008. An analytically tractable model for competitive speciation. Am. Nat. 17:E44–71 [Google Scholar]
  109. Plath M, Riesch R, Oranth A, Dzienko J, Karau N. et al. 2010. Complementary effect of natural and sexual selection against immigrants maintains differentiation between locally adapted fish. Naturwissenschaften 97:8769–74 [Google Scholar]
  110. Proulx SR. 1999. Matings systems and the evolution of niche breadth. Am. Nat. 154:89–98 [Google Scholar]
  111. Proulx SR. 2001. Female choice via indicator traits easily evolves in the face of recombination and migration. Evolution 55:2401–11 [Google Scholar]
  112. Proulx SR. 2002. Niche shifts and expansion due to sexual selection. Evol. Ecol. Res. 4:351–69 [Google Scholar]
  113. Proulx SR, Servedio MR. 2009. Dissecting selection on female mating preferences during secondary contact. Evolution 63:2031–46 [Google Scholar]
  114. Qvarnström A, Vallin N, Rudh A. 2012. The role of male contest competition over mates in speciation. Curr. Zool. 58:3493–509 [Google Scholar]
  115. Rafferty NE, Boughman JW. 2006. Olfactory mate recognition in a sympatric species pair of three-spined sticklebacks. Behav. Ecol. 17:6965–70 [Google Scholar]
  116. Ravigné V, Dieckmann U, Olivieri I. 2009. Live where you thrive: Joint evolution of habitat choice and local adaptation facilitates specialization and promotes diversity. Am. Nat. 174:4E141–69 [Google Scholar]
  117. Reding LP, Swaddle JP, Murphy HA. 2013. Sexual selection hinders adaptation in experimental populations of yeast. Biol. Lett. 9:320121202 [Google Scholar]
  118. Reinhold K. 2004. Modeling a version of the good-genes hypothesis: female choice of locally adapted males. Org. Divers. Evol. 4:157–63 [Google Scholar]
  119. Rettelbach A, Kopp M, Dieckmann U, Hermisson J. 2013. Three modes of adaptive speciation in spatially structured populations. Am. Nat. 182:E215–34 [Google Scholar]
  120. Ritchie MG. 1996. The shape of female mating preferences. PNAS 93:2514628–31 [Google Scholar]
  121. Ritchie MG. 2007. Sexual selection and speciation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 38:79–102 [Google Scholar]
  122. Robinson MR, van Doorn GS, Gustafsson L, Qvarnström A. 2012. Environment-dependent selection on mate choice in a natural population of birds. Ecol. Lett. 15:6611–18 [Google Scholar]
  123. Rodd FH, Hughes KA, Grether GF, Baril CT. 2002. A possible non-sexual origin of mate preference: Are male guppies mimicking fruit. Proc. R. Soc. B 269:1490475–81 [Google Scholar]
  124. Rodríguez RL, Boughman JW, Gray DA, Hebets EA, Höbel G, Symes LB. 2013. Diversification under sexual selection: the relative roles of mate preference strength and the degree of divergence in mate preferences. Ecol. Lett. 16:8964–74 [Google Scholar]
  125. Rodríguez RL, Ramaswamy K, Cocroft RB. 2006. Evidence that female preferences have shaped male signal evolution in a clade of specialized plant-feeding insects. Proc. R. Soc. B 273:16012585–93 [Google Scholar]
  126. Rodríguez RL, Sullivan LM, Snyder RL, Cocroft RB. 2008. Host shifts and the beginning of signal divergence. Evolution 62:112–20 [Google Scholar]
  127. Rolán-Alvarez E, Caballero A. 2000. Estimating sexual selection and sexual isolation effects from mating frequencies. Evolution 54:130–36 [Google Scholar]
  128. Rowe L, Houle D. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. B 263:1415–21 [Google Scholar]
  129. Rundle HD, Boughman JW. 2010. Behavioral ecology and speciation. Evolutionary Behavioral Ecology CW Fox 471–87 New York: Oxford Univ. Press. , 1st ed.. [Google Scholar]
  130. Rundle HD, Chenoweth SF, Blows MW. 2009. The diversification of mate preferences by natural and sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 22:81608–15 [Google Scholar]
  131. Rundle HD, Chenoweth SF, Doughty P, Blows MW. 2005. Divergent selection and the evolution of signal traits and mating preferences. PLOS Biol 3:11e368 [Google Scholar]
  132. Rundle HD, Nagel LM, Boughman JW, Schluter D. 2000. Natural selection and parallel speciation in sympatric sticklebacks. Science 287:5451306–8 [Google Scholar]
  133. Ryan MJ, Cummings ME. 2013. Perceptual biases and mate choice. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 44:437–59 [Google Scholar]
  134. Ryan MJ, Rand AS. 1993. Sexual selection and signal evolution: the ghost of biases past. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 340:187–95 [Google Scholar]
  135. Safran RJ, Scordato ESC, Symes LB, Rodríguez RL, Mendelson TC. 2013. Contributions of natural and sexual selection to the evolution of premating reproductive isolation: a research agenda. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28:11643–50 [Google Scholar]
  136. Schielzeth H, Bolund E, Forstmeier W. 2009. Heritability of and early environment effects on variation in mating preferences. Evolution 64:4998–1006 [Google Scholar]
  137. Schindler S, Breidbach O, Jost J. 2013. Preferring the fittest mates: an analytically tractable model. J. Theor. Biol. 317:30–38 [Google Scholar]
  138. Schluter D. 2000. The Ecology of Adaptive Radiation Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  139. Schluter D, Nagel LM. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. Am. Nat. 146:2292–301 [Google Scholar]
  140. Scordato ESC, Symes LB, Mendelson TC, Safran RJ. 2014. The role of ecology in speciation by sexual selection: a systematic empirical review. J. Hered. 105:S1782–94 [Google Scholar]
  141. Seehausen O, Schluter D. 2004. Male–male competition and nuptial-colour displacement as a diversifying force in Lake Victoria cichlid fishes. Proc. R. Soc. B 271:15461345–53 [Google Scholar]
  142. Seehausen O, Terai Y, Magalhaes IS, Carleton KL, Mrosso HDJ. et al. 2008. Speciation through sensory drive in cichlid fish. Nature 455:7213620–26 [Google Scholar]
  143. Servedio MR. 2001. Beyond reinforcement: the evolution of premating isolation by direct selection on preferences and postmating, prezygotic incompatibilities. Evolution 55:1909–20 [Google Scholar]
  144. Servedio MR. 2004. The evolution of premating isolation: local adaptation and natural and sexual selection against hybrids. Evolution 58:913–24 [Google Scholar]
  145. Servedio MR. 2011. Limits to the evolution of assortative mating by female choice under restricted gene flow. Proc. R. Soc. B 278:179–87 [Google Scholar]
  146. Servedio MR, Bürger R. 2014. The counterintuitive role of sexual selection in species maintenance and speciation. PNAS 111:8113–18 [Google Scholar]
  147. Servedio MR, Bürger R. 2015. The effects of sexual selection on trait divergence in a peripheral population with gene flow. Evolution 69:2648–61 [Google Scholar]
  148. Servedio MR, Kirkpatrick M. 1997. The effects of gene flow on reinforcement. Evolution 51:1764–72 [Google Scholar]
  149. Servedio MR, Van Doorn GS, Kopp M, Frame A, Nosil P. 2011. Magic traits: ‘magic’ but not rare. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26:389–97 [Google Scholar]
  150. Sherman P, Reeve H, Pfennig D. 1997. Recognition systems. Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach JR Krebs, NB Davies 69–96 Malden, MA: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  151. Siepielski AM, DiBattista JD, Carlson SM. 2009. It's about time: the temporal dynamics of phenotypic selection in the wild. Ecol. Lett. 12:111261–76 [Google Scholar]
  152. Siepielski AM, DiBattista JD, Evans JA, Carlson SM. 2011. Differences in the temporal dynamics of phenotypic selection among fitness components in the wild. Proc. R. Soc. B 278:17111572–80 [Google Scholar]
  153. Siller S. 2001. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex. Nature 411:689–92 [Google Scholar]
  154. Slagsvold T, Terning Hansen B, Johannessen LE, Kristiansen L. 2006. Sexual imprinting: enlightenment from interspecific cross-fostering in the wild. J. Ornithol. 147:5112 [Google Scholar]
  155. Soares D, Niemiller ML. 2013. Sensory adaptations of fishes to subterranean environments. BioScience 63:4274–83 [Google Scholar]
  156. Svedin N, Wiley C, Veen T, Gustafsson L, Qvarnström A. 2008. Natural and sexual selection against hybrid flycatchers. Proc. R. Soc. B 275:1635735–44 [Google Scholar]
  157. Takimoto G. 2002. Polygenic inheritance is not necessary for sympatric speciation by sexual selection. Popul. Ecol. 2:87–91 [Google Scholar]
  158. Takimoto G, Higashi M, Yamamura N. 2000. A deterministic genetic model for sympatric speciation by sexual selection. Evolution 54:1870–81 [Google Scholar]
  159. Tinghitella RM, Lehto WR, Minter R. 2015a. The evolutionary loss of a badge of status alters male competition in three-spine stickleback. Behav. Ecol. 26:2609–16 [Google Scholar]
  160. Tinghitella RM, Stehle C, Boughman JW. 2015b. Females sample more males at high nesting densities, but ultimately obtain less attractive mates. BMC Evol. Biol. 15:133 [Google Scholar]
  161. Turner GF, Burrows MT. 1995. A model of sympatric speciation by sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. B 260:287–92 [Google Scholar]
  162. Uy JAC, Patricelli GL, Borgia G. 2001. Complex mate searching in the satin bowerbird Ptilonorhynchus violaceus. Am. Nat. 158:530–42 [Google Scholar]
  163. Uyeda JC, Arnold SJ, Hohenlohe PA, Mead LS. 2009. Drift promotes speciation by sexual selection. Evolution 63:583–94 [Google Scholar]
  164. van Doorn GS, Dieckmann U, Weissing FJ. 2004. Sympatric speciation by sexual selection: a critical reevaluation. Am. Nat. 163:5709–25 [Google Scholar]
  165. van Doorn GS, Edelaar P, Weissing FJ. 2009. On the origin of species by natural and sexual selection. Science 326:1704–7 [Google Scholar]
  166. van Doorn GS, Luttikhuizen PC, Weissing FJ. 2001. Sexual selection at the protein level drives the extraordinary divergence of sex-related genes during sympatric speciation. Proc. R. Soc. B 268:2155–61 [Google Scholar]
  167. van Doorn GS, Weissing FJ. 2001. Ecological versus sexual selection models of sympatric speciation: a synthesis. Selection 2:17–40 [Google Scholar]
  168. Veen T, Otto SP. 2015. Liking the good guys: amplifying local adaptation via the evolution of condition-dependent mate choice. J. Evol. Biol. 28:1804–15 [Google Scholar]
  169. Vergara P, Mougeot F, Martínez-Padilla J, Leckie F, Redpath SM. 2012. The condition dependence of a secondary sexual trait is stronger under high parasite infection level. Behav. Ecol. 23:3502–11 [Google Scholar]
  170. Verzijden MN, Cate TC. 2007. Early learning influences species assortative mating preferences in Lake Victoria cichlid fish. Biol. Lett. 3:2134–36 [Google Scholar]
  171. Verzijden MN, Cate TC, Servedio MR, Kozak GM, Boughman JW, Svensson EI. 2012. The impact of learning on sexual selection and speciation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27:9511–19 [Google Scholar]
  172. Verzijden MN, Lachlan RF, Servedio MR. 2005. Female mate-choice behavior and sympatric speciation. Evolution 59:102097–108 [Google Scholar]
  173. Welch AM. 2003. Genetic benefits of a female mating preference in gray tree frogs are context-dependent. Evolution 57:4883–93 [Google Scholar]
  174. Weissing FJ, Edelaar P, van Doorn GS. 2011. Adaptive speciation theory: a conceptual review. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65:461–80 [Google Scholar]
  175. While GM, Michaelides S, Heathcote RJP, Macgregor HEA, Zajac N. et al. 2015. Sexual selection drives asymmetric introgression in wall lizards. Ecol. Lett. 18:121366–75 [Google Scholar]
  176. Whitlock MC. 2000. Fixation of new alleles and the extinction of small populations: drift load, beneficial alleles, and sexual selection. Evolution 54:61855–61 [Google Scholar]
  177. Whitlock MC, Agrawal AF. 2009. Purging the genome with sexual selection: reducing mutation load through selection on males. Evolution 63:3569–82 [Google Scholar]
  178. Wikelski M. 2005. Evolution of body size in Galapagos marine iguanas. Proc. R. Soc. B 272:15761985–93 [Google Scholar]
  179. Wilczynski W, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2001. Evolution of calls and auditory tuning in the Physalaemus pustulosus species group. Brain Behav. Evol. 58:3137–51 [Google Scholar]
  180. Wiley C, Ellison CK, Shaw KL. 2012. Widespread genetic linkage of mating signals and preferences in the Hawaiian cricket Laupala. Proc. R. Soc. B 279:17311203–9 [Google Scholar]
  181. Wood TK, Keese MC. 1990. Host-plant-induced assortative mating in Enchenopa treehoppers. Evolution 44:619–28 [Google Scholar]
  182. Yeh DJ, Servedio MR. 2015. Reproductive isolation with a learned trait in a structured population. Evolution 69:1938–47 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022905
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022905
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error